A. I somehow suspect that those are working vacations. I.E. if the center of government was in a ranch outside of a small town, he would likely be quite content there.
B. Well, if it wasn’t for said tax cuts, the recession that the US was in, would have been a lot worse. But I do agree, he is a big spender, but we are at war, so what can one expect?
C. I would rather have a guy in office who is aggressive and pigheaded, than someone who is overly cautious. It is best to error on the side of aggression, instead of doing so on the side of caution when in a time of war. Anyway it is a war, mistakes happen. It is best to learn from them and move on.

A. Interesting point, I wonder why no country has ever located the seat of its government in a ranch outside of a small town. But its certainly preferable to suspect he spends 1/3rd of his presidency on working vacations rather than actually at work, working. Isn't working vacation" a bit of an oxymoron?

But hey, being President is hard work. And the guy's only paid a salary of $400,000 a year, so if he needs to earn it by spending 4 months of the year "working" at his ranch (clearing brush and stuff, falling off mountain bikes, or whatever else he does there), Camp David, or another retreat while the rest of the country makes do with the occassional long weekend (and a couple weeks a year vacation, if they're lucky) then who can complain? Its not like his position's so important it demands at least as much time on the job as that of the poor guy who has to punch his 40 hour week, every week, serving hamburgers and fries or mopping floors for minimum wage.

B. Ah good old fashioned, and discredited, Reaganomics and the trickle down theory (quick what's that tinklink sound? why its the sound of the rich taking a whizz on your face). Having taken a couple economics courses I rather believe the fact that the recession isn't any more severe is in spite of the tax cuts, and not because of them.

The problem with giving tax cuts to the rich is that it doesn't affect their spending one bit. When times are lean they don't have to postpone that vacation to disneyland, cutback on meals out or hold off on upgrading their PC or replacing their 5 year old car. Its the working people that have to do those things, and its the resultant loss of spending (the fuel of the economy) that leads to, and worsens, recessions. You give a taxcut to the rich and the only thing you affect is the money they invest, and investments aren't what drives the economy. All this does is create deficits (less revenue for the government, thanks to the taxcuts, and a smaller taxable base to regain it from later since the taxcuts aren't growing the economy). And if there's one thing Bush has excelled at, its creating deficits and increasing the size of the foreign held mortgage on the good 'ole USA.

C. Apparently you're not the only one. While many polls, on the one hand, rake Bush over the coals on any one of a number of issues, the same polls also show strong percentages of people citing Bush's insistence on remaining steadfast 'no matter what' as his best leadership quality. I find this behaviour really puzzling, but probably because I much prefer a leader who is willing to realize his mistakes, analyze them to see where he went wrong, accept the input from others who disagree with him and factor it into his thinking, and then have the courage to announce he was wrong and what his plans are to make things right.

Others seem to see it as more courageous and honourable to fire anyone who publicly disagrees with you, dismiss the opinions of the people you govern, and cling to the same course of action without reflection and no matter the consequences. Its a good thing he's not in charge of anything really important, like the federal government or the military... oh wait.

Thank goodness it's George Bushs last "kick at the cat" term, seeing that his popularity is falling...........but how much damage did he do to the american economy and national debt???????

With Georges popularity this low and falling, I doubt they'll be going to invade Iran........likely the Iranians are smart enough to figure that one out.

INVADE...??? :huh:

Even me never thought George could be so braindead that he would want to invade Iran.

Yes he has done his bit time to hand over to who ever.

There was a lot of speculation back in the run up to the Iraq war, and the immediate aftermath following the fall of Baghdad, that Bush wouldn't be content with one "domino" down but would simply use it as a spring board to attack other countries he listed in his famous "Axis of Evil" speech.

If I recall correctly only Iraq, North Korea and Iran were named in it but NK presented a problem: unlike the other "Axis" members (which interestingly had no formal relations and in the case of Iraq/Iran were bitter enemies from long ago), NK actually had nuclear weapons and it was, and still is, thought probable that if invaded they would use them (after all what good is such a deterrent if you have no intention of using it?).

Thus it evolved that Syria was substituted for NK by virtue of its proxy to Iraq, and small size and military. So, many thought that having "successfully" toppled Baghdad so quickly that it would only be a matter of time before Bush used it as a springboard to move first against Syria, and once the two were pacified and consolidated with puppet governments and sufficient military bases, Iran.

However things didn't quite work out that way with the uprising in Iraq and the result that that the US military has been bogged down by that insurgency ever since. Now, in hindsight, having seen how difficult it can be to pacify even a small, starved country, but one that's determined to resist foreign occupation, notions of further foreign adventures in even bigger countries (Iran) do seem rather laughable. But had things gone smoother in Iraq, who knows? There has, ever since the routing of the Taliban from Afghanistan, certainly been much of the same kind of swagger and accusations leveled toward both Syria and Iran that were pointed at Iraq during the runup to the invasion.

In any case, if this president's personal documents are ever unsealed and as currently classified info becomes declassified, historians will learn exactly what his intentions toward Iran and Syria were. All we can do 'til then is speculate. Personally I think if Iraq had gone as smoothly as Afghanistan, Syria would already be an occupied state as well and the US would already be fighting in Iran.

But not the way things turned out now. Iraq is a disaster and Bush is a lame duck while the country seems to have lost its appetite for war.

Trust me. No part of the american military seriously prepares for a ground invasion of Iran. Air strikes yes, special commands for recce and targetting: yes, invasion like Iraq: no. The terrain is not for that, the country's size is not for that, the population's attitude is not for that. Even Bush knows that. They will attacl Iran sooner or later, but not by means of an invasion.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...650&highlight=

The US Marines ("Teufelshunds" to you Germans) might, they probably train to invade Hell its self! Semper Fi, Marine Corps way is do or die! :rock:

The Marines train to invade hell, whilst the SAS train to infiltrate Hell and assassinate Satan.

Looks like an interesting thread (just skimmed the first part of it so far) but I agree with what you're saying here. But at the time I thought Bush at least a little crazy to follow up on Afghanistan so quickly (and with Bin Laden still on the run) with an invasion of Iraq.

I didn't forsee it putting up the resistance it since has, but I didn't believe any of the pretexts offered for the invasion, nor did I see the point of committing so many troops and treasure to toppling a contained, pacified regime. And having embarked on his little Iraqi adventure I, at the time, didn't really think there was much he was incapable of, no matter how stupid or irrational, being that he is something of a feeble minded dolt surrounded by ditto heads (he is, in my mind, the worst American president ever).

A. My point was this. I some how suspect that he is engaging in affairs of state while he is on the ranch.
B. So taxing people to death helps the economy? Reducing the amount of money available helps the economy? Putting people into debt helps the economy? If you reduce taxes people will spend more. If the rich gets more money they spend it on investments. If small businessmen get more money they expand their establishments. Am I off on this statement? Also this tax cut for the rich is inaccurate, it was an across the board tax cut, correct? Thus how is it a tax cut for the rich, or shall the rich be punished for being rich? With the investments, how do companies expand, and engage in R&D? I would assume that investments help in this greatly.
C. You know, the constitution was designed to keep a popular mob from running the show. So I see no problem with Bush not paying attention to polls. But he should not stand there as a target. He should put forth his arguments constantly.

So I guess the Marines would take him alive? ;)

We wont invade Iran because we would not have the will for it. Iraq destroyed all will that we had. We would engage in air strikes, but not an invasion. The next time the US engages in an invasion willingly, would be in a generation or more.

Touche :up:

No problem. I think I understand what you mean We had some very hot-tempered discussion back then in 2003. If some people back then would have had their will according to what they said, American troops would have entered Syria in 2004, Iran in 2005, and the Middle East would have been completely pacified at the time you and me are talking now. :lol: Haven't heared much of them since then. I wonder why :lol:

A. Okay. Though to be honest, outside of clearing brush we can only hope he's spending that third of his time in affairs of state. Though to many that's probably good enough since its not affairs with an Intern in the Oval Office.

B. I think you misinterpreted what I wrote rather completely. Basically it boils down to this: the bulk of the taxcut (I don't have exact figures at hand but it was something like 80%+) went to the top income brackets. People at those income levels tend to invest extra monies rather than spend them, while for people at lower income levels the tendency (more and more the lower you go) is to spend it rather than invest it. Its this spending that fuels the economy and provides the tax base for governments at all levels to gain revenue.

For a taxcut to be effective, that is if its intended to fight a recession, it needs to result in an increase in spending. You get the biggest increase in spending at the lowest to median income levels so it follows that a taxcut that isn't aimed at those income levels is not going to be effective . What Bush did was even worse because it combined an ineffective taxcut (draining the federal coffers of funds that are put into the wrong hands) with greatly increased federal spending (which with a smaller taxbase and increased spending means deficit spending and inflationary pressure).

Inflation is the killer because it robs the working classes of their buying power and further decreases real spending which increases the trend toward further recession and on it goes. I think it was only the wizardry of Allan Greenspan that kept things together, and he was one of the opponents of further tax cuts.

Nowhere did I say you had to tax people to death. In fact up until recently its even been accepted policy (as elaborated by the economist Keynes) to rack up whatever deficits were necessary as long as it puts money into the economy. The OPEC crisis of the '70s and spiraling deficits, recession, and inflation led to some rethinking of these old ideas though and today its inflation (and deficits) which are regarded as the real threat to economic stability and that a certain amount of unemployment is natural and not to tinkered with.

BTW, what I keep calling "spending" in economic terms is really referred to as "consumption"... that's the holy triad of macroeconomics: income, consumption (public spending), and spending (government spending) with the various tools the government has at its disposal to manipulate the three variables for an optimal economy (which will naturally ebb and flow... its the booms and busts that are undesirable).

C. If he spent more time on the job and less in seclusion at the ranch he'd probably be in a better position to convince people he was 'hard at work' (at something other than clearing Brush) ;)

These polls are responded to by people who:
-have the attention span of a bug
-whose lives are absorbed by reality shows such as American Idol and Survivor
-whose only knowledge of what is going on in Iraq come from the liberal media that want Bush to fail at any cost

Given the people I deal with on a daily basis, I'd rather have Bush running the country than the people taking these polls.

You seem to think the President punches out on a time clock when he leaves the Oval office like some blue collar schmoe leaves the factory to kick back with some beers at the bar on his way home to the wife.

Apparently you don't seem to have a very clear picture of what the job of POTUS entails. Regardless of his location he is on the job 24/7/365. There is nothing he can do in the White House that he can't, and doesn't, do at whether he's at Camp David, flying in Airforce One or at his ranch, and he has the staff and cabinet to ensure it, using the most sophisticated communications network in the world.

Wherever he is he still gets a full round of daily briefings in addition to the regular schedule of meetings and appointments.

And i might add, since nobody has replied yet, that this goes for whoever is POTUS whether he's a Republican, Democrat or Independant (hey, it could happen!). :yep:

The topic isn't about the inner workings of the position of POTUS, which I'd venture I have at least as clear an idea as anyone else who regularly reads newspapers and watches the news , but about polls and perceptions which that point of mine went to the heart of. Its been the topic of at least two major newspaper articles (that I've read), and I'll post some relevant excerpts from the one I'd enccountered fairly recently (from the Washington Post, Aug 3/05):

"Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record

WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

[snip]

Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's periodic two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs. [also he was either on, or just returning from vacation during the critical first days of Katrina]

[snip]

Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan, who loved spending time at his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term."

more and full article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080201703.html


Another, this time from USA Today and going all the way back to August 3/01:

"White House to move to Texas for a while

WASHINGTON — Six months after taking office, President Bush will begin a month-long vacation Saturday that is significantly longer than the average American's annual getaway. If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie the modern record for presidential absence from the White House, held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.

[snip]

But some Republican loyalists worry about critics who say Bush lets Vice President Cheney and other top officials do most of the work. They're also concerned about the reaction of the average American, who gets 13 vacation days each year.

"It can foster other images," says William Benoit, a professor of political communication at the University of Missouri-Columbia. "Maybe he's lazy, maybe he's not determined. It feeds into the impression that he's not in charge.""

more and full article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...h-vacation.htm

Those are the kinds of articles I based that point on. As I said in my first post, its one of the many things that may contribute to his low poll numbers. I gave other examples as well. Maybe they have no influence on public opinion, or maybe they are the kind of things that become nestled, insidiously, within the public concious. In any case, that particular point was the focus of articles in major publications (Washington Post, USA Today) with massive distribution so its a fair point regardless of how you personally interpret his time away from the Whitehouse.