login
George W. Bush: The Good Things (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2006-01-28 8:31 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Extreme Veteran  563   Allen, TX |  Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Thingsjust chiming in on this thread, only read about the first 6 posts: i'm not a single-issue voter, but i do believe bush has done an acceptable job of backing israel from the palestinians, which is a huge concern of mine. of course if you have no religious care for that situation then that could be viewed as an evil committed by bush. other than that i believe that while we all may certainly critique bush's current decisions (some i disagree with, some that i like), i do believe that it is a bit too early to compare him to other presidents. i'm not saying that you SHOULDN'T, but that 20 years from now you will probably not make the same president-to-president comparisons that you might now, though your overall opinion may be unchanged. |
| 2006-01-28 11:01 PM in reply to: #334012 |
Master 1867  The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things RGRBILL - 2006-01-28 7:31 PM With all due respect Tim, you're just wrong.  Servicemembers engaged in warfare (or contractors in a warzone for profit for that matter) are by virtue of their job are fair targets. Terrorist attacks are intended to have an effect on the masses (to TERRORIZE them) by killing a relative innocent few. They kill a few because they know that: A) They can and B) It will have an effect on our population as a whole. War is a completely different animal and it has been as long as there have been people and sticks & stones. So has terrorism. But the fact that they co-exist doesn't make them the same thing. Sorry, but to say that their killing of our soldiers is terrorism is tantamount to calling our soliders terrorists as well. Some of my very good friends have given their lives in Iraq and Afganistan. Do I think it was worth it? Of course not. Would they who are dead, knowing that they would die there go anyway? Yeah they would. To say anyone knows why there haven't been more terrorist attacks is very presumptious. No one can know why. What matters though? No attacks. That's what matters. If there is another attack, does that mean all of this effort was for nothing? No. It means the fight isn't over. People don't understand that because they don't understand warfare. I promise you, if our country were invaded....we have terrorist sleeper cells from West Virginia to West Covina. It's the nature of war and terrorism to go together. It's a matter of who has the upper hand when you talk about who is a soldier and who is a terrorist.RGRBILL you are so right! i know guys that have given the sacrafice of their lives too. when i was in the army at 3 main times, i REALLY thoguht we were going to war. and i will tell everyone that every soldier i knew understood what their job was, and asked to do their job they will, with the risk. the one movie that shook me to the core when i was a soldier was "saving private ryan." the part when he is old and walking on the beaches at the graves (i went as a kid and had no appriciation) i realized that every cross is a person like me (and i could have been one) unique stories, HS Gf, prom. ive said it before but soldiers have a special place in my heart BC they do what they know can be their end, BC they are asked to. soldiers are so selfless. I see a better comparison to our soldiers to veitnam (which with the buildup to the war in IRAQ i had a teacher who was talking about it every class time, he was a hippy, and i remember keeping him in check with "LOVE OUR TROOPS" and he said that in vietnam the hippies didnt know who to hate, so they hated the soldiers. now we underst5and who to be mad at), not the USS cole. I love our soldiers,. RGRBILL i hope i didnt get to off point or mare your thead (i tend to wonder). RGRBILL what banch were u in? |
| 2006-01-29 9:21 AM in reply to: #333173 |
Elite 2796 Texas | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Army. 75th Ranger Regiment. I think I hijacked the Bush thread too, but it's sort of all tied together. |
| 2006-01-29 9:10 PM in reply to: #333244 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Being a Bush fan, I have to say the bankruptcy bill is a load of crap. It is to help the credit card companies #1. I agree with some parts (like child support), but for the most part it hurts people who are in trouble and helps the scum bags (credit card companies) get richer. Credit card companies prey on people and offer CCs at huge interest rates and to people who they know in the first place can't afford it. Thats why I don't use CCs period, bunch of scum. As for Bush, I think he's doing a decent job. What makes me laugh is how people talk about us going to Iraq on a lie. If I remember correctly, Dems and Repubs were for going. And BOTH sides thought WMDs were in Iraq even before the 'faulty' 'dishonest' reports were given from Bush. I'm just glad Al Gore wasn't in power when 9/11 hit. We probably would be in the middle of a war in the US instead. |
| 2006-01-30 8:26 AM in reply to: #334463 |
Veteran 282 Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things bradword - 2006-01-29 8:10 PM Being a Bush fan, I have to say the bankruptcy bill is a load of crap. It is to help the credit card companies #1. I agree with some parts (like child support), but for the most part it hurts people who are in trouble and helps the scum bags (credit card companies) get richer. Credit card companies prey on people and offer CCs at huge interest rates and to people who they know in the first place can't afford it. In my opinion, the scum bags are those who run up huge amounts of debt only to run and file bankruptcy when it is time to pay up. Why should people be allowed to BARROW large sums of money from credit card companies and not have to pay it back? |
| 2006-01-30 10:33 AM in reply to: #334604 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things ghart2 - 2006-01-30 6:26 AM bradword - 2006-01-29 8:10 PM Being a Bush fan, I have to say the bankruptcy bill is a load of crap. It is to help the credit card companies #1. I agree with some parts (like child support), but for the most part it hurts people who are in trouble and helps the scum bags (credit card companies) get richer. Credit card companies prey on people and offer CCs at huge interest rates and to people who they know in the first place can't afford it. In my opinion, the scum bags are those who run up huge amounts of debt only to run and file bankruptcy when it is time to pay up. Why should people be allowed to BARROW large sums of money from credit card companies and not have to pay it back? Actually this is only a very small % of people who file for bankruptcy. Most are people who are doing ok, but just barely getting by and then have something push them over the edge - usually a medical problem or loss of a job and then just can't recover. As for Bush's tax cuts, I think at the time some form of tax cuts was probably a good idea to stimulate the economy, although most economists believe they were much too large, and to try to make them permanent now is just irresponsible due to the enormous deficit. As far as trickle-down economics, if you really believe that works, great for you, but most studies have shown that a rich person is not going to spend more just because they have more money. Pretty much anything they want they already have and anything that "trickles-down" is just a drip by the time it gets to you and me. Seems to me the money would be better spent on people who are not already rich. |
| 2006-01-30 11:18 AM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Yes, people who abuse the system is far lower than the number of people actually in trouble. The new law for bankruptcy was pushed by the credit card lobbyists (I can't spell) and both sides said ok because guess who pays a large sum to the partys for re-election. Also, tax cuts usually up revenues in taxes as more people file since they think they are getting screwed as bad. Weird how that works that way. |
| 2006-01-30 11:54 AM in reply to: #334718 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things [
Why? Why is ok for the government to take 30% of my wages just because I happened educate myself and get a good job? Why is it ok for someone else to get my money every month in the form of "government assitance" because they are to lazy to work? Why do we penalize people in this country who are financially successful by taking more of their money?
Edited by Rocket Man 2006-01-30 11:55 AM |
| 2006-01-30 12:38 PM in reply to: #334813 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Rocket Man - 2006-01-30 9:54 AM Actually this is only a very small % of people who file for bankruptcy. Most are people who are doing ok, but just barely getting by and then have something push them over the edge - usually a medical problem or loss of a job and then just can't recover. As for Bush's tax cuts, I think at the time some form of tax cuts was probably a good idea to stimulate the economy, although most economists believe they were much too large, and to try to make them permanent now is just irresponsible due to the enormous deficit. As far as trickle-down economics, if you really believe that works, great for you, but most studies have shown that a rich person is not going to spend more just because they have more money. Pretty much anything they want they already have and anything that "trickles-down" is just a drip by the time it gets to you and me. Seems to me the money would be better spent on people who are not already rich. [
Why? Why is ok for the government to take 30% of my wages just because I happened educate myself and get a good job? Why is it ok for someone else to get my money every month in the form of "government assitance" because they are to lazy to work? Why do we penalize people in this country who are financially successful by taking more of their money?
Ok, well I don't want to get into a whole thing about welfare because I think you and I are probably closer to the same view than you might think (basically that if you need help that the governemtn should help you, but if you don't, it shouldn't). As far as progressive taxes... Yes, I guess it is a bit unfair toward rich people, but guess what, the world is an unfair place. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against rich people. I think we should all be rich, but if Jerry Jones has to pass on getting that ivory backscratcher so that Joe Lunchpail gets an extra $30 in his paycheck I'm ok with that unfairness. If we lived in a system where we all started with a level playing field (everyone got a good education, had parents who looked after them, etc.) then I would ok with a flat tax for everyone, but until then I'm ok with taking a little more from the very rich to help out those who are not there yet. |
| 2006-01-30 12:42 PM in reply to: #334813 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Rocket Man - 2006-01-30 8:54 AM Why?Why is ok for the government to take 30% of my wages just because I happened educate myself and get a good job? Why is it ok for someone else to get my money every month in the form of "government assitance" because they are to lazy to work? Why do we penalize people in this country who are financially successful by taking more of their money? Because there are more people in this country that have their hands out than there are people that actually act with integrity. Who do you think it is easier to appeal to? |
| 2006-01-30 12:48 PM in reply to: #333173 |
molto veloce mama 9311 | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things hmmm. i have to think of something. okay, he's made dan 'potatoe' quayle look intelligent. wow, i actually thought of something! |
| 2006-01-30 1:05 PM in reply to: #334847 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things drewb8 - 2006-01-30 1:38 PM Rocket Man - 2006-01-30 9:54 AM Actually this is only a very small % of people who file for bankruptcy. Most are people who are doing ok, but just barely getting by and then have something push them over the edge - usually a medical problem or loss of a job and then just can't recover. As for Bush's tax cuts, I think at the time some form of tax cuts was probably a good idea to stimulate the economy, although most economists believe they were much too large, and to try to make them permanent now is just irresponsible due to the enormous deficit. As far as trickle-down economics, if you really believe that works, great for you, but most studies have shown that a rich person is not going to spend more just because they have more money. Pretty much anything they want they already have and anything that "trickles-down" is just a drip by the time it gets to you and me. Seems to me the money would be better spent on people who are not already rich. [
Why? Why is ok for the government to take 30% of my wages just because I happened educate myself and get a good job? Why is it ok for someone else to get my money every month in the form of "government assitance" because they are to lazy to work? Why do we penalize people in this country who are financially successful by taking more of their money?
Ok this is crap......I came from a home where my parents were divorced when I was 6, we were dirt poor, and I went to public school, so don't give me the "level playing field" argument. That is the beauty of this country, if YOU work hard, if YOU take initiative, and if YOU want to acheive something, then you can. I went to school and learned, I didn't mouth off to my teachers or do drugs, or join a gang, I LEARNED. I then through a combination of grants, student loans, and working full time, earned a B.S. in Aerospace. After which I joined the military and served my country (gee serving not demanding what I was "entitled too" , what a novel idea) for 5 years and got even more practical job training. Now I have a great job as a result of HARD WORK.....trust me if I can do it coming from my background then anyone can, so your argument doesn't hold water. |
| 2006-01-30 1:13 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Oh come on..don't you think we all deserve money because we breath? ;-) Almost 90% of the millionaires today in America are first generation millionaires. Not trustfunders. So they are smarter, work harder = gets punished. That sounds logical. I think we should all pay flat tax. Just my very humble opinion. |
| 2006-01-30 1:46 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Brett- Your background is amazing and its very inspirational. Obviously you've worked very hard for everything you've gained and deserve everything you've earned. I'm not saying rich people don't deserve what they have, and I'm not saying that we should just take their money and hand it over to poor people. I'm not trying to penalize rich people or turn them in to poor people. I'm just saying that if we take someone who's making $500,000 a year and tax them a little bit more so that people who came from a background like yours can start out at a rung or two higher on the ladder I thikn thats ok. Like you, I also believe that if you work hard and take the initiative you should be able to get ahead, and if you don't, well then, good luck with that, but I also think that if you are willing to work hard you shouldn't be penalized because of your circumstances. |
| 2006-01-30 1:52 PM in reply to: #334918 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things drewb8 - 2006-01-30 10:46 AM Brett- Your background is amazing and its very inspirational. Obviously you've worked very hard for everything you've gained and deserve everything you've earned. I'm not saying rich people don't deserve what they have, and I'm not saying that we should just take their money and hand it over to poor people. I'm not trying to penalize rich people or turn them in to poor people. I'm just saying that if we take someone who's making $500,000 a year and tax them a little bit more so that people who came from a background like yours can start out at a rung or two higher on the ladder I thikn thats ok. Like you, I also believe that if you work hard and take the initiative you should be able to get ahead, and if you don't, well then, good luck with that, but I also think that if you are willing to work hard you shouldn't be penalized because of your circumstances. I'm guessing you're not making 500k a year. It's wrong to point to another guy and say "take his stuff" and then point to another guy and say "give it to him". Last I checked that was stealing. |
| 2006-01-30 1:55 PM in reply to: #334918 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things drewb8 - 2006-01-30 12:46 PM I'm not saying rich people don't deserve what they have, and I'm not saying that we should just take their money and hand it over to poor people. I'm not trying to penalize rich people or turn them in to poor people. The funny thing is, thats EXACTLY what you just said??? I'm just saying that if we take someone who's making $500,000 a year and tax them a little bit more so that people who came from a background like yours can start out at a rung or two higher on the ladder I thikn thats ok. |
| 2006-01-30 2:00 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Drew, Why should people who make alot be taxed more? That is the question that I am asking and I still haven't gotten a straight answer. How would taxing wealthy people at a higher rate help poor people start out better? We have already seen that handouts don't inspire people to achieve, it just fosters a sense of entitlement without work. Read John Linder and Neal Boortz's book about the Fair Tax, that is the only truely fair way to tax everyone evenly. I live in an area where we have a high concentration of illegal aliens. These people use our services and pay NO TAXES. This is not right. My whole point is when you start using "Robin Hood" economics (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) then you get dangerously close to socialism/communism and we all know how that grand experiment turned out. Don't get me wrong I am a compassionate individual and I believe in helping those less fortunate to get by, but I am strongly opposed to supporting TWO families on my salary which is what welfare and other "government assitance" turns into.
|
| 2006-01-30 2:03 PM in reply to: #334932 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things bradword - 2006-01-30 11:55 AM drewb8 - 2006-01-30 12:46 PM I'm not saying rich people don't deserve what they have, and I'm not saying that we should just take their money and hand it over to poor people. I'm not trying to penalize rich people or turn them in to poor people. The funny thing is, thats EXACTLY what you just said??? I'm just saying that if we take someone who's making $500,000 a year and tax them a little bit more so that people who came from a background like yours can start out at a rung or two higher on the ladder I thikn thats ok. Umm.... Err... Oh. Ok, I guess you have a point. I just didn't mean it to be taken that I'm advocating just having the rich write a check to poor people. I guess what I'm advocating IS taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but in the form of a better education, more opportunities, etc. Its not meant as a penalty for being rich, but as a kick start to having everyone become rich and to give better odds to those who are willing to work hard. |
| 2006-01-30 2:05 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things |
| 2006-01-30 2:05 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things If people are willing to work hard they don't need nor would most of them accept a handout. This is a crutch for those who don't want to work and it IS a penalty for being financially successful. |
| 2006-01-30 2:05 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things |
| 2006-01-30 2:07 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Without getting into a debate about the efficacy of each of these items here is a partial list: > invasion of Afganistan and destruction of the Taliban > $30 million in newly appointed grants to universities and research centers for the development of non-petroleum based/renewable resource industrial items > signing of nuclear treaty with Pres. Putin of Russia calling for the reduction of nuclear stockpiles by 2/3 within 10 years > spearheaded along with U.S. allies a committement from Libya to cease development of nuclear and chemical weapons > Sending U.S. troops to Liberia to help avert further blood shed and help the smooth transition of power in that country > committing $15 billion, including $10 billion in new aid packages over the next 5 years to combat AIDS in Africa, Asia and the Carribean > The creation of the Millenium Challenge Account, the largest increase in U.S. foreign development accounts since the Marshall Plan > $1 billion to develop clean drinking water in Afrcia >$295 million in support to world agencies fighting human trafficking > creation of the Corporate Fraud Tasc Force to investigate and fight corporate fraud > The filing of over 400 corporate fraud cases, charging over 900 defendants including 60 CEO's with corporate fraud >signing of the Identity Theft Enhancement Act >signing of the PROTECT Act, a tool that allows greater tools for the investigation, charging and punishment for violent crimes against children This is just a small list. As with any president you can debate the fficacy of their policies. However, the question was asked in this post What good things has the current President done. |
| 2006-01-30 2:09 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things The problem with the welfare system is that is exactly that, a hand out. It is not a hand up. Welfare is something that is needed, but the system in place is just pitiful. |
| 2006-01-30 2:21 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things I agree about handouts in general. I'm not trying to say we should just cut a check to poorer people and hope they use it wisely and I think that the workst thing governemtn can do is to get people to be dependent on it. Would you object to a system where we we took say, the top %2 of incomes and taxed them more, and then took that money and said "ok, for every kid that wants to go to college, here is $5000 towards tuition". I guess you could look at it as a handout, but its not something you can become dependent on. I know its not all that realistic to implement, but this is the kind of thing I am ok with taxing people differently for, not where you just tax them more and it goes into the governments pocket where you it is used it in a good way. |
| 2006-01-30 2:44 PM in reply to: #333173 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: George W. Bush: The Good Things Yes I disagree with that. Why should the top income earners be punished. I think if there was a good system in place, people would be willing to help. If you want to look at an amazing welfare system, check out the Church of Ladder Day Saints (Mormons) welfare system. It's an amazingly smart thing. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK