Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TankHunter
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.
03-20-06, 02:14 PM
Threaded Mode