Question for Bush supporters

[clk]

The government does not give money to the rich with the tax breaks.

Well, the point is, the government loses revenue by giving tax breaks to the rich.

And who exactly do you want to pay for that?

Instead of giving tax breaks to the rich, he could have implemented one of the plans I had outlined. It may have increased the deficit, but we would have gotten much more out of it, atleast.

Maybe, or it could have unintended consequences such as drastic increases in wage costs for businesses which result in rising unemployment and drastic inflationary pressures on American made consumer goods. This in turn, could cause increased demand for foreign made goods, widening of the trade deficit, and causing even more unemployment in American manufacturing industry.

There very well may be bad consequences to repealing tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. But I think it would be a proper stance...why should public money go to companies that do not create jobs in the US? Another alternative would be to give tax breaks to countries that do create jobs in the US instead of going abroad. Again, I think this would be more effective than what Bush did.

Lots of differing opinions on this one, but my own opinion is that deficits should be eliminated by spending cuts, not increasing the cut the government takes out of the money I make.

You would have to get rid of ALOT of programs to cover the deficit. A more practical idea would be to both repeal the tax cuts and make some spending cuts at the same time, IMO. A large part of the deficit come from the war in Iraq. I agree with John McCain when he said that ordinary citizens are not making sacrifices, only the soldiers are. This war has a huge pricetag...the American people largely supported it, now it's time for us to foot the bill.

Wow. Did it all by himself, did he? No help from the news media who hated the very thought of a Republican president, the Democrats who hated the fact that they had lost enormous power in both the executive and legislative branches of government?

I strongly disagree that the media hates Bush. The Republicans have Fox News, which is pro-Bush, and they are the #1 rated news channel. The Republicans also have talk radio. Regardless, I think Bush is responsible for the division, I do not understand why you blame the media and Democrats. Remember, everybody in America was united after 9/11. There were no Democrats taking shots at Bush on 9/12. I don't remember Dan Rather attacking Bush on 9/12. This division occurred because of Bush's rush to war. Remember, it's not only the US that is divided, it's the entire world. We have isolated ourselves from even our allies. You cannot blame the Democrats or the media for that.

Now on foreign policy, I agree with your threat assessment list. Unfortunately, the invasion of Iraq turned out to be unnecessary for the safety of Americans, but I believe that is 20/20 hindsight. I blame the CIA and Washington policy wonks more for that mistake.

I dunno...it now appears like Bush may have exaggerated the threat that Iraq posed. Although the CIA may share some of the blame, it lies mostly on Bush. Bush had a chance to turn back from the war in late February:

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

# Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

# Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

# Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

So Bush knew in February that much of the intelligence was wrong, and there was a good chance that Saddam may not have WMD. Did he ask any questions to George Tenet? Did he reconsider the case to go to war? No, he ignored the inspectors and rushed to war. That is why he is ultimately to blame. However, I agree with you that since we are now there, we have to finish the job. We cannot cut and run.

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: What

That's a two part question, the answers to which are better reserved for another thread...so I'll be brief: 1) he took an oath (to his current wife) not to do things like that and 2) very much so, IMO, once you listen to her speak.

I have listened her speak - it didn't do it for me. What do his marriage vows have to do with his Presidency?