CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 30, 2009 08:53 PM UTC

George W. Bush was an Idiot ??

  • 36 Comments
  • by: NEWSMAN

* If George W.  Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be  able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said  this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really  controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?  

If  George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have  approved?  

   If  George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by  90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have  approved?  

 If  George W.  Bush had made a joke at the expense of the  Special Olympics, would you have  approved?

 If  George W. Bush had given Gordon  Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when  Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and  historically significant gift, would you  have approved?

 If  George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of  his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and  tacky?

   If  George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you  have approved?

   If  George W. Bush had visited Austria  and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you  have brushed it off as a minor  slip?

   If  George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers  with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes,  would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as  to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it  was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he  tried again, would you have winced in  embarrassment?

  If George W.  Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have  hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and  potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

  If George W.  Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

  If George W.  Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of  people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread  panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened  on 9-11?

  If George W.  Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout  the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans ,  would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of  racism and incompetence?

 If  George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a  major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to  do so, would you have  approved?

  If  George W. Bush  had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than  two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you  have approved?

   If  George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within  10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell  me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and  impressive?

Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all  this in 5 months — so you’ll have three years and seven months  to come up with an answer.  

* Just want to keep my friends at POLS up to date on the latest grass roots e-mail. Love- NEWSMAN.

Tweet
Share

Comments

36 thoughts on “George W. Bush was an Idiot ??”

    1. so I get it a month later.

      I see you guys are still making the world safe for “Democrat-icy”.

      Greetings to all.  

      Haners and I may have hung up our keyboards, but we check back on you guys once in a blue moon to see if QD has gone straight, or if Libertad has come out of the closet.

      Best Wishes from CD-5, the island of sanity in the sea of blue.

      NEWSMAN

    2. ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION

          From a teacher in the Nashville area

         “We are worried about “the cow” when it is all about the “Ice Cream”

             The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.

         The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.

         I decided we would have an election for a class president.

             We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

             To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.

          We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

         We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

             The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.

         I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.

         I had never seen Olivia’s mother.

             The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.  

         Jamie went first.

          He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better     Place. He ended by promising to do his very best.

         Everyone applauded and he sat down.

              Now is was Olivia’s turn to speak.

             Her speech was concise.

          She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.”

          She sat down.

         The class went wild. “Yes! Yes!  

         We want ice cream.”

              She surely would say more. She did not have to.

           A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream?

          She wasn’t sure.  

         Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it.

         She didn’t know.

         The class really didn’t care.

          All they were thinking about was ice cream.

      Someone said you can’t have ice cream unless someone pays fot it.  

      The class responded, Yes we can.  Yes we can.

             Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

             Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and  52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds..

         They want ice cream.

              The other 48 percent know

         They’re going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.”

         Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone —

         That they have not first taken away from someone else.

      1. Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone —

          That they have not first taken away from someone else.

        Lets say the government takes away your beer money, and gives it to a poor student for a scholarship. And that student then invents a cheaper way to make beer.

        You can then buy more beer with your remaining money than if you had never paid that tax.

        That’s what those of us that understand economics call an investment 🙂

        1. You’ve outlined the root of the problem.

          This:

          Lets say the government takes away your beer money, and gives it to a poor student for a scholarship.

          is not government’s right.  What if he worked hard for that beer money?

          And this:

          And that student then invents a cheaper way to make beer.

          is the fairy tale liberals use to try to justify and sell income redistribution.

          Some people are going to be more productive than others.  It’s a law of nature.

          Equalization of opportunity, not outcome.

            1. We need courts, cops, firemen, the military, and someone to supervise building roads and schools.

              It’s the income redistribution where the government shifts from being in its proper role, to trying to equalize a world that is not and never can be “equal”.

              It is not Government’s role.  

              It is NOT the Governments money.

              As far as “Free” education from pre K to PHD. (See above.)

              There is no such thing as FREE education.  We pay if we provide too little, just as well as we pay if we try to provide too much.  

              Those who are eligible to receive the education are not equal, because human nature does not make us equal.  

              Some can be doctors, and some are never going to get into medical school no matter what laws you pass, unless you suspend the laws of competition and pay the consequences.

              I don’t want my doctor to be a C or D student, do you?

              1. If so, then you didn’t “pay for [yours].”

                If you went to a public university more than half of the cost of paying for your education was paid for by others.  

                1. I did go to a public state owned college, and yes I know it was subsidized.

                  The portion I did pay made me work harder to make that Dean’s list.

                  I don’t advocate eliminating state funding for higher education, just as I don’t advocate for increasing state funding, especially never would I advocate making it FREE to all.  Nothing with the cost in buildings and personnel that generates the overhead that education does should ever be called FREE.  Someone is laboring to support it. Either it is the parents, students, or the taxpayers, or currently, a combination of all 3.

                    1. My answer would be that generally speaking, publicly financed education is for the children of our state.

                      Again generally speaking, you turn 18 in 12th grade, and are then an adult, eligible to work without the restrictions of a minor, eligible for military service, and are responsible for yourself.

                    2. In the middle ages you were having kids at 14.

                      I think what has historically occured is education was free up to the age required for blue collar workers to get skilled jobs. In other words, it was a training program for businesses.

                      It started off being elementary school, then up to 8th grade, then high school. That is why we have elementary, middle, & high schools.

                      I think the time has come to add 4 more years.

                  2. But it’s interesting that your paying a small proportion for something motivates you.

                    In contrast, the fact that others were helping me was a motivation for me.

        2. is 4 generations of people dependent upon the government, because taxpayers were forced to give up some of the money they earned to allow the government to give single mothers money for each child they had, so long as there was not a man in the home.

          Democrat policies resulted in speeding the destruction of much of the Black family in our inner cities, and creating generational poverty and dependence on government.  

          But, it was an investment in political power, as those dependent now need the party and its candidates to sustain the political machine that supports the government policies that take more from those according to their abilities (earnings), and give it to those according to their needs.

          Sound familiar.

          1. But the fact remains that the richest countries on the planet are all ones with substantial tax burdens.

            And the ones with little to no taxes are hellholes like Somalia & Chad.

            Taxes are not used perfectly. But in a democracy they tend to be used well and provide a substantial return on investment.

  3. * If George W.  Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be  able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said  this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really  controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

    And yes, if George W. Bush had done all those things or any of those things, I would have called him an idiot. Because regardless of whether he did those things or not, his actions and decisions and policies demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of any major issue. It wasn’t a game, and it wasn’t based on his malapropisms. It was because he truly was clueless about everything.

    Except overgrowth. He understood the crap out of clearing brush.

    1. You think the most popular, revered President of the latter 20th century is an idiot, because you think his policies were wrong.  

      Let me introduce you to facts.  These may not be familiar to you because you hang out here in the echo chamber, and actually believe in Government as a benevolent solution to America’s problems.

      FACT: When RR took office, after 4 years of Jimmy Carter, unemployment was at the highest level of the last 70 years.  (Higher than on Obama’s watch so far.) The Soviet Union was a major superpower that threatened the peace and stability of the world.  They had nuclear weapons targeted on my city, where my children live. Inflation was high, and the prime lending rate was well over 10% apr. The top income tax rate was over 70%.(I could go on.)

      FACT: Ronald Reagan left office in Jan of 1989.  The top tax rate was 28%.  Inflation was under control. (I got a 30 year mortgage for under 6.5%.)

      And within 24 months, the Berlin wall fell, then the evil empire fell, and when my children went to sleep at night, for the first time in my or their lifetimes, there were no nuclear weapons targeted at my city.

      The Reagan Revolution, was followed by the post Reagan Prosperity that lasted for over 10 years after he left office propelled by Republican majorities in congress.

      So I say, please for goodness sake, give me, give us, give America another man like Ronald Wilson Reagan.

      1. Hahahahahahah

        wait excuse me

        hahahahaha

        no for real this time

        hahahahahahahaha

        Reagan’s policies (and the “Reagan revolution” which put Republicans in charge of the Senate) led to a recession in 1982 and 1983.

        Then there was another recession in 1992.

        Then a Democratic President was elected, and we didn’t have a recession until another Republican was elected President.

        Immediately there was a recession.

        Sorry, where was I?

        hahahahahahaha

        1. “A nation that ignores its past is doomed to repeat it.”

          The policies that sustained the country in the 1990’s were passed by a congress controlled by Republicans.  

            1. A Recession to Remember

              Business-investment hemorrhaged in 2000-01 – don’t forget it.

              It was Santayana who said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s hope Alan Greenspan is in a remembering frame of mind.

              The Commerce Department has revised data for gross domestic product, sparking a minor debate as to whether a recession actually occurred in 2001. Either way, some now argue, if there was a recession, it was one of the mildest on record.

              That’s not only utter nonsense, it shows a sad lack of short-term memory.

              There was a recession in 2000-01 and it was deep. But you have to look behind the headline real GDP numbers to understand it. When you do that, you find that a very unusual set of events were at work four years ago. Events worth remembering today.

              Consumer spending never once declined in the recession of 2000-01. This is because middle-class income actually increased by nearly 5 percent between 2000 and 2002, according to the latest IRS statistics. This fact runs completely counter to the Kerry-Edwards argument about a “middle-class squeeze.”

              Still, overall individual income declined 5 percent during this period. Why? Upper-end income suffered mightily. The top tax brackets lost about 28 percent of their income, on average, largely from the stock market crash and the fall in high-paying jobs. Twelve percent of the folks who fought their way above $200,000 a year slipped below that level in 2002.

              At the rarified income level of $10 million or more, those with the highest propensity to save and invest lost a stunning 63 percent of their income during 2000-02. Total capital-gains income fell by 29 percent, and dividend income dropped 17 percent. When Bill Clinton recently told the Democrats in Boston that top tax-rate payers don’t need the extra money, he was sorely uninformed.

              It was the investment-side of the economy that collapsed in 2000-02. But without investment funding, economic growth was null and void. For example, capital-goods investment (equipment and software) fell in eight of ten quarters between mid-2000 and the end of 2002, with six of those declines coming consecutively. Industrial production declined for six straight quarters. When measured against year-ago levels, after-tax corporate profits declined in seven straight quarters.

              Surely, a 78 percent drop in the Nasdaq and a near 40 percent fall in the broader stock indexes deserve the lion’s share of blame for this business-investment recession. In the new economy, the stock market is essential to the investment-funding of business and the income- and wealth-creating activities of the 50 percent of the adult population called the investor class. When the market cost of capital rises sharply, as it did in 2000-02, investment activity hemorrhages.

              This is why President Bush’s 2003 across-the-board tax plan – aimed especially at risk-taking investors (capital gains and dividends) – was brilliantly crafted. Since its passage, the stock market and the economy have emerged from a long slumber. Should the Kerry Democrats succeed in repealing Bush’s investment tax incentives, the economy will rapidly retreat.

              Of course, the other major cause of the investment recession was unbelievably bad policy from the Federal Reserve. Key sensitive market price indicators, ignored by the central bank during 2000, warned of a world-class liquidity deflation. In particular, the normal difference between long- and short-term interest rates was turned upside down as Treasury bills yielded more than bonds. This inverted yield curve was a classic recessionary sign.

              As the Fed stupidly kept taking money out of the economy, gold and commodity prices crashed by about 20 percent. The ensuing dollar scarcity caused the greenback to soar on foreign exchange markets.

              Why did the Fed wreak this havoc? It was worried about fictitious inflation that never developed. Prices, profits, equity values, and production collapsed in the wake of the Fed’s unrelenting monetary deflation. It was one of the greatest Fed blunders of all time.

              Today, the central bank is again worried about inflation, even though deflationary pressures only seemed to end about a year ago. Even now, manufacturing hard-good prices are still falling slightly after dropping steadily by 2 percent to 3 percent during the prior three years.

              Since the Fed’s rate hike on June 30, its first in four years, growth-sensitive Nasdaq stocks have dropped nearly 10 percent. Dollar value in terms of gold, commodities (excluding energy), and foreign currencies has strengthened since early this year as a tax-cut-led business-investment recovery is gradually absorbing the excess money created by the Fed in 2003. Core inflation rates are already slipping lower after a temporary bulge this past winter.

              Which brings us to the nagging question: Does the Fed really have to embark on a prolonged series of rate-hiking moves? History can be instructive. There’s no need for Greenspan to prove Santayana right yet one more time.

              Larry Kudlow

              http://www.nationalreview.com/…

          2. your “Reagan prosperity” by moving across country for a crappy job. When Reagan was elected, there were over 140 union carpenters working (mostly in Vail) out of the Leadville union hall. 8 months later, there were 17 supervisors and foremen left, working with their tools trying to hang on to a job.

            You can spout all the revisionist history garbage you like and spout statistics that don’t mean a damned thing to all the guys who got laid off when Reagan started union busting. I was living in Summit county, making a good living as a carpenter until “Ronnie Raygun” was elected. The next three years were a struggle just to get back to where we were before Ronnies’ Republicans free-marketed us into the unemployment lines. I was there. I remember.

  4. unemployment was at the highest level of the last 70 years.  

    If i remember correctly, it actually got worse before congress passed the Reagan Tax cuts.

  5.      

    During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall.

         The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by “the rich,” also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

         Given the current interest in tax reform and tax relief, a review of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on taxpayer behavior and tax burden provides useful information. During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25 percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again.

    Tax Rates and Tax Revenues

         High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth.” Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.

         Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.

    Click here to see Figure 1.

         The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

         A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

         Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

         The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

         Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

    Conclusion

         The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di      sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.

    http://www.house.gov/jec/fisca…

  6. … remind me again, what is it about Newsie that you respect? This diary is an excellent example of why I don’t feel that way (substance-free diary, Reagan worship, citation of sources so biased that they have no credibility outside hard right circles).

      1. No he doesn’t. He doesn’t do ANY of those things. He doesn’t discuss issues, or concede on clear facts, or base his views on anything other than blind faith. You’re thinking of someone else.

        1. because here, on this very thread, I see him actually discussing the issue of higher education with David. There may well be other examples of newsie doing that elsewhere.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

197 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!