BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility

Subject: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 02:20 PM

Bush criticized plans now in Congress to add 22 bln usd to spending on child health care and pay for it with higher taxes, principally on tobacco.

When working people are struggling to pay their mortgages and meet other bills, 'now is not the time to be taking money out of their pocket,' he said.

Balancing the needs of cigarette smokers and sick children, it's plain where his priorities are.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Peace
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 02:22 PM

So, not a single mention of the expenses incurred in the Iraq War? He's a StRaNgE man.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 03:17 PM

The understatement of the century, Peace!!

HE's a complete weirdo.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 03:20 PM

No no...you don't understand. Taxes are BAD, massive debt is fine. That's the American way.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:27 PM

He learned well at the feet of the master. Reagan continually talked about how well the US economy was doing - but ran us into heavy debt. (I never understood that - when times are good, isn't that a good time to pay debts?)

Most families would do quite, quite well if they didn't have to pay their bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:30 PM

Well, this is the perfect storm... The Congeress over-rides Bush's veto and funds the program and then years from now he can blame this one act for the deficits under his watch...

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Peace
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:51 PM

When is the last time there was an American President who did not come from a fairly wealthy background?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:02 PM

As I recall, it was Bill Clinton. And was Carter from a wealthy background? I don't recall. I do know that he also called it nu-kew-lar (even though he had nuclear engineering training), and raised peanuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Peace
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:10 PM

Thanks, Dick.

BTW, it was a pleasure to meet you. Very much so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:09 PM

Nixon, Eisenhower, Carter, and, yes, even Reagan did not come from wealthy families. On the other hand, Kennedy, both Roosevelts and both Bushes did.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Peace
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:10 PM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:00 PM

Nor did Truman. I should take a look at the biographies of our presidents again- my guess is that most of our presidents came from "humble" roots. That's where our phrase "Anyone can grow up to become president" came from. Nowadays we use it to warn people. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:46 PM

You can't hear me. I am screaming with laughter!

Now Jimmy... If you don't eat the rest of your peas and go finish your homework, you'll never get that Burger King franchise you've been dreaming about... and you'll probably end up as some ol' President of the United States, or something...

;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Janie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 12:29 AM

Nor did Bill Clinton or Lyndon Johnson.

But Truman was probably the last President who did not come to eventually identify with power as entitlement. Carter's origins, while not wealthy, were routed in the southern 'gentry'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 02:10 AM

Lincoln did not. He was born in a log cabin he built with his own hands.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 02:20 AM

hahahha

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 09:29 AM

So was I. In fact, my entire family was born in log cabins we built with our own hands. GW Bush didn't do this; he had someone build it for him and then he took the credit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 04:49 PM

Rap, I do hope your family is a small one - or your footprint would be entirely too large.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 06:37 PM

Well, we only did this since the ancestors emigrated here from Germany back about 1820. Before that we lived in some castles built by the hands of the peasantry. And oh, how we miss the old days! Riding through the fields knouting idle serfs, lounging around with the Kaiser, fighting in mensur...the usual sort of stuff, you know. Why, the first time great-great-great grandpa swung a knout at someone he was danged lucky not to be strung up from the highest tree. And something like a simple beheading caused all sorts of troubles....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 06:54 PM

Isn't 'knouting' a great word! Not so pleasant to experience it but a great word nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:33 PM

How can you possibly justify putting these two in the same sentence.

Bush and Fiscal responsibility don't even belong on the same planet.


"I do know that he also called it nu-kew-lar (even though he had nuclear engineering training), and raised peanuts."

True, but Bush had a slightly different education, achieving, as he did, a degree in UNCLEAR PHYSICS, the major cause of his inability to recognise Weapons of mass Distraction (Unclear Weapons).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Fiscal Responsibility
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:58 PM

Naomi Klein's recent book is called the Shock Doctrine and the rise of Disaster capitalism. www.naomiklein.org

I just heard an interview with her the other day, and the gist of it is
that its perfectly ok in fact intentional to create or take advantage of a state of affairs - such as 9/11 , Katrina or a large debt to force -
economic shock therapy on citizens that would otherwise be difficult to do in a healthy economy.

(Its not necessarily the US and right wing capitalism that has taken advantage of it, it could be any ideology, but the last 35 years or so it has been market capitalism - and the intention is to chip away at established policy such as social security, medicare etc..)

this 'shock therapy' has been used in Pinochets Chile, Argentina, Yeltsins Russia, and especially in US occupied Iraq they brought in Yegor Gaidar the Russian who was most responsible for implementing it in Yeltsins Russia where state industry was quickly sold off, any food and gas subsidies were discontinued. Gaidars view was that in Iraq, it should be done as quickly as possible even faster than in Russia to take advantage of a disoriented population.

usually the powers that be try to rewrite history and say something like - this is a new world (post 911) everything you believed about the world has changed etc.. etc.

so in the US a large debt, gives the conservatives the power to break the old keynesian system (and ultimately creates permanent underclass)