Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
his tax refund certainly did not hurt the economy, that is a fact. if i recall at the time people were predicting the imminent demise of the economy, so bush proposed the tax stimulus plan that later became our tax refund and as we now know, the economy did not collapse as predicted in 2001.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-01-18-stimulus-impact_N.htm
interestingly, many dems this time believe the tax refunds WILL help and some dems called for even more money in the stimulus package. the fed chair also supports Bush's tax refund.
regardless of the politics of the african aid money, the fact remains that the aid has helped. just because people bicker of the politics of the package here, does not lessen the positive impact bush's aid package had in africa. i think i even heard air america admit that the african aid package was the only good thing bush has ever done....
Not hurting the economy wasn't the point. You claim it helped the economy. Care poked a big hole in that theory in another thread.
The AIDS thing, so far, is all you've got. And even that is questionable.
IMO, you're striking out.
No, I did not. How fucking stupid are you? I'm serious. Did someone drop you on your head?
I said the party would be less damaged, to wit: "they would have followed [Hegel or Luger] off a different, less destructive cliff. A kinder, gentler plunge into the abyss, if you will."
Having "enough credibility to lie its way through the next election" is not okay (except perhaps in the warped mind of the conservative). It's just getting by. It's exhalting their corrupt pursuit of power over national need and interest.
I'm done with you. I have no use for people who can't comprehend, so they distort and mischaracterize my arguments into pointless straw man arguments that do not reflect what I said.
Without Bush, the party still has enough credibility to lie its way through the next election.
did you read the link i gave that showed it did help the economy, you only read part of my post. fact remains, the economy did not enter into the major recession that was predicted. kindly re-read my entire post and then give me your opinion. also, don't you find it interesting that if bush's first tax rebate was a failure, then why are so many dems behind an even bigger stimulus package this time?
edit: at least you admit, even grudgingly, that the africa aids funding was a good thing. if it is questionable, are the only questions about the politics you mentioned, or do you have some proof that giving that money to africa was not an accomplishment and did not help africa?
I did read it. USA Today said a survey said it worked. Sorry, that isn't proof. There is really no way to know if it worked or not simply because we don't know what spending would have done without it. Here is an interesting discussion of this that makes it pretty clear: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22891.html
Why are Dems behind it? Same reason Republicans are. It's an election year and people are silly enough to think that getting an advance on the following year's income tax return is free money.
The think I didn't like about the AIDS relief is that it was predicated on the abstinence only policy that has been pretty much shown to be a flop. Giving aid to other countries is sometimes a good thing. I'm undecided on this issue.
just dropping in
but is this the 'aids thing' where the morons won't include condoms?
just dropping in
but is this the 'aids thing' where the morons won't include condoms?
whats wrong with giving money and no condemns? is there something wrong with abstinence?
Yeah, it doesn't work.
so without condemns, the money is worthless? then maybe you support shipping only condemns instead of money...
whats wrong with giving money and no condemns? is there something wrong with abstinence?
so without condemns, the money is worthless? then maybe you support shipping only condemns instead of money...
ER... yeah, it doesn't work. And people die of AIDS... so yes, the money becomes a pointless effort becasue the religious loonies think people abstain from sex if you scare them enough.
And yes... they need CONDOMS... .because safe sex prevents the spread of disease.
Condemns - expresses strong disapproval of
Condoms - contraceptive devices
Freudian slip - using the word for "disapproval" when you meant "contraception"
Illiterate - less benign explanation for using the wrong word
Condemns - expresses strong disapproval of
Condoms - contraceptive devices
Freudian slip - using the word for "disapproval" when you meant "contraception"
Illiterate - less benign explanation for using the wrong word
So exactly who appointed YOU english teacher and the board English enforcer?
There is a few other words you may want to look up.
so abstinence does not work? at all...
we are talking about africa, not the US.... so, if one practices abstinence, does it work? yes or no, simple, just a yes or a no.
That's reminiscent of the Bush quote, "Is our children learning?" And "English" is always capitalized.
There's no need to look up those other words; I already know the meaning.
As the self-appointed English teacher and the board English critic (but not enforcer), I'll ask you to look up the word "irony".
