Is Mr. Bush right? Can we spend to defeat terrah, spend up national defence, spend up internal security, cut taxes AND have a car in every garrage?
Are we going to attack the "Axis of Evil" any time soon?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, we HAVE to spend on defense. That's one of the few legitimate jobs of any government. Cutting taxes has been known to lead in increased tax revenues during hard economic times, so no problem there, necessarily. But cutting pork spending would definitely help, too.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, I think government has several more legitimate jobs than just military spending.
Lopsided as Mr. Bush's tax gift to the certain segments of the population was, I have my doubts about the veracity of your supply side non-arguement.
[ January 29, 2002, 21:32: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, and quite a few illegitimate jobs, all of which have a certain amount of government allocated plausible deniability attached.
But in anycase, it wasn't the speech made my Lil' Bush that impressed me, it was the speech made afterward by the House of Congress minority leader (and damn me for forgetting his name at the moment) who spoke of congress attempting to solve the campaign-funding issue of big corporations that influence elected administrations with the corporation's interests in mind.
How, if at all can this be accomplished? This problem alone has sort of upset democracy by turning it into a carefully orchestrated puppet show, controlled by whomever has the most money to throw around. This includes foreign backers, and with enough money, foreign countries could (and probably already have) altered governmental policy in favor of themselves.
This thought alone actually frightens me, to think that decisions such as who will be the next president (ultimately decided by the electoral college) can be changed by House members under the payroll of some fake business that we've barely heard of that's actually a front for another country.
Call me paranoid...
-------------------- Move .sig!!
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe Dick Gephardt, the House Minority leader gave the rebuttal.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
congress attempting to solve the campaign-funding issue of big corporations that influence elected administrations with the corporation's interests in mind.
No solution necessary. Just elect an administration that has some character. Based on the fact that Bush refused to help Enron, even though it may have been his friends that were in trouble, I'd say we have one.
You can't legislate morality. But you can elect it.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I remember Gephart used a line from President Bartlett's State of the Union on The West Wing. Talking about terrorism, he started the sentance with, "We say with one voice..." That's what Bartlett said in an ep a couple weeks ago when talking about terrorism.
Ok...so it's not like he copied a paragraph or anything...I just thought it was humorous. At least as humorous as the fact that I remember what Bartlett said in his fictional State of the Union address...
posted
Given Aaron Sorkin's tendency to draw inspiration for Bartlett from other American Presidents, I wouldn't bet so much that Gephardt is 'borrowing' from The West Wing as he is from Bush, or Reagan, or, actually, that sounds sort of Kennedyish.
quote:Originally posted by Omega: No solution necessary. Just elect an administration that has some character. Based on the fact that Bush refused to help Enron, even though it may have been his friends that were in trouble, I'd say we have one.
You can't legislate morality. But you can elect it.
This is true, but how can we be sure completely that President Dubya Bush didn't count on the collapse of Enron, and that his administration isn't acting out of morality but rather a sense of self-preservation?
While I agree that you cannot legislate morality, you can help to legislate against immorality.
-------------------- Move .sig!!
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
No Antagonist, Mr. Bush has character because he and his cohorts helped deregulate the industry for Enron so that Mr. Bush's friends at Enron could defraud it's workers and investors.
That takes real character.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Character? Or interest? How can we say for certain? I am not arguing the point necessarily because of belief in my point, I just want to bring to light an alternative.
Getting back to the original topic, however... I found his speech rather dull. It had alot of good issues but I think that the President's speechwriter needs to be kicked and told to use inspiring words sparringly and critical moments. Its like pepper on your eggs. If you use it all the time it gets boring. If you use it now and then its perfection at the right moments.
-------------------- Move .sig!!
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I caught bits and pieces on the radio the next am.... along with the commentary by 'experts'. It seemed dull, so I was better off working....
Didn't the Pres in "Independance Day" us those words also???? Just before they took off??
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
