What Bush Did Right

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Not to hijack Radiers threat, but I have to respond to this.

Conservatives do not use fear as a political tool. That is the common weapon of the Leftist/Liberals.

I.E.

Republicans will:

Take away your Social Security.
Burn Black Churches.
Reinstitute segragation.
Invade your bedroom.
Take away your civil rights.

That's a short example, I really don't have time to list more but I could if I wanted to.

We won't even talk about how the Left has taken character assasination to an art form.

And the ironic post of the day winner is............

[Krusher]

Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
Translation... His buddies gat caught with their hand in the cookie jar. So he decided to get behind buying a lid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could have sworn there was a different president around for 8 years prior to the fall.  If your going to give him credit for the 90's boom give him credit for the 90's crooks too , Deal?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
Thus providing even more windfall profits to the richest Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do You keep your money in a cookie jar? A ton of people invest now days and the majority of them are not rich.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Something else that kills me too.  And the people here are as bad as anywhere else.  Our symbol as a country is the Eagle.  And a beautiful bird it is.  You use "Left wing" and "Right wing" to describe people at opposite ends of the political spectrum.  Guess what?  Our Eagle doesnt fly  unless it has TWO wings.  This country has ALWAYS, from the moment of its conception during the turbulent 1700s, been a balance of liberal idealism mixed with conservative planning.  Thats what brought us into being, thats what has kept us alive for over 200 years.  Thats what is going to KEEP us going, is our ability to adapt to an everchanging world while retaining the basic core of our identity.  And that identity will ALWAYS be a compromise between the two "wings".  

Get over yourselves already.  

Rant mode off.

[midnight Target]

If we were all in the center there'd be no wings at all...wouldn't the Eagle plummet to Earth and make a big splat?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

It'd be a non-flying bird then, and not have its head high in the sky.
-SW

[StarOfAfrica2]

 Tear the analogy apart all you want.  I've never seen one yet that was perfect.

[AWkrull]

Originally posted by midnight Target
You make this too easy, but I gotta...  In order to lose the "family farm" to taxes you gotta be really stupid. In fact NO ONE has ever lost a family farm to the estate tax. From the web site that YOU provided.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With hand in the air.... um ... My wife's grandfather died this last year. In doing so the "Death Tax" insured that my wife's mother had to sell two, thats count 'em 2, ranches. All this after my grandfather-in-law's grandfather sold a large portion of HIS land to the glorious state of California to create a small town of 2500 called Wofford Heights of which the town is named after him. The tax called for over $3 million. His ranch never made that much in all the time that my wife's family owned it. It was a large ranch but it was stilled considered a "small business" while he was alive. In the last ten years of his life the ranch barely broke even each year.
Needless to say the ranch had to be sold to pay the "death tax". Costing my Mother-in-law her 127 year old "family farm" and her inheritence that she had been counting on to take care of her as she ages (now 67). So kudos to Mr. President kill that sucker before anyone else gets screwed over by this Liberal Tax law created to get every last penny from the dead. One more for the road, eh?
Please don't say "no one has ever lost a family farm" because I am sure my mother-in-law isn't alone!:(

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Raider179
So you are gonna tell me that you not only understand each and everyone of those issues but agree with all of them?

Some of these I even posted about over the last 4 years on this BBS. I listed only the ones I agreed with.


Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.

What incentives did he give them?

Here are the incentives:
http://www.gazette.net/business/practical/

Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.

Plz explain I have no idea what this is...Home businesses seemed fine to me while Clinton was in office.

In Clintons last days in office, he signed a bill that allowed OSHA to issued a Final Rule that implemented a program called Final Ergonomics Program Standard. With this new standard, employers were required to educate employees about common musculoskeletal disorders. If the MSDs were determined to have occurred in the workplace, employers were required to implement a comprehensive ergonomics program. The new rules were extensive and detailed, including nearly 700 pages of ergonomics standards. The projected cost of compliance for businesses was projected to be between $4.5 billion and$125.6 billion annually! These regulations  have been part of a decades long battle in the political arena, although Clinton did a drive-by his last 4 days in office and forced it through. It was pure unadulterated repayment to the labor unions for their support by the Clinton administration rather than a thoughtful response to repetitive-stress injuries. These new rules most likely would have pushed yet MORE manufacturing jobs offshore because of the expense associated with the new compliance. the new rules would have paid an employee 90% of their lost pay instead of the two-thirds pay that currently is on the books.  I agree with this. If you don't, fine.  Keep voting.

Here is one that is just not true.

Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to to become teachers.

Troops to teachers budget

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/06action.pdf

2004 - $14,912  2005- $14,793  2006 Presidential Request - $14,793

Ahhh, that MILLION, not THOUSAND sir. Do you realize that this was only $3,000,000 a year when Bush took office?  We went from from $3 million to $30 million !! Do your research.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by AWkrull
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With hand in the air.... um ... My wife's grandfather died this last year. In doing so the "Death Tax" insured that my wife's mother had to sell two, thats count 'em 2, ranches. All this after my grandfather-in-law's grandfather sold a large portion of HIS land to the glorious state of California to create a small town of 2500 called Wofford Heights of which the town is named after him. The tax called for over $3 million. His ranch never made that much in all the time that my wife's family owned it. It was a large ranch but it was stilled considered a "small business" while he was alive. In the last ten years of his life the ranch barely broke even each year.
Needless to say the ranch had to be sold to pay the "death tax". Costing my Mother-in-law her 127 year old "family farm" and her inheritence that she had been counting on to take care of her as she ages (now 67). So kudos to Mr. President kill that sucker before anyone else gets screwed over by this Liberal Tax law created to get every last penny from the dead. One more for the road, eh?
Please don't say "no one has ever lost a family farm" because I am sure my mother-in-law isn't alone!:(

OK, one!

[lazs2]

So MT.... why should the government get any of the money that was earned by the deceased and allready had taxes paid on?

Maybe we should tax personal inury money too?  How bout air? (we allready tax food and water).

I guess it doesn't matter tho.... so long as you get those mean old rich guys huh?

lazs

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Raider179
Since I have posted a lot of Anti-bush threads, here is my pro-bush thread.

1)Economy is doing better.

2)No further terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Feel free to add to this, but lets keep the negative stuff in another thread. Just want to see what the positives are.

One more question for our dear Raider. You asked us to add to this thread, yet you said to keep the negative stuff in another thread. Yet, you can't even abide by your own rules.  Isn't that just like the democratic party? "I can do what I want, but you have to do what I say!"

[Seagoon]

Hi Hawklore,

Originally posted by Hawklore
Marriage is love between two human beings who wish to be acknowledged by the state/law that they are one with eachother and care and work for eachothers safety and life...

I hope you'll pardon me for asking but according to who?

Not to rain on the language parade, but assuming that this was posted in response to the DOMA related material above, homosexual relationships tend to be non-monogamous and last less than three years, so the "one with each other" recognition needs to be essentially redefined as "wish to have a special non-monogamous relationship of indefinite duration accorded the same legal status as 'marriage' " Also, since when does love legally enter into the definition of marriage? A man man love a woman other than his wife, but that does not legally affect his relationship with the now unloved woman. Also, what kind of "love test" is to be administered before we grant the marriage certificate?

Once we've essentially made every possible human relationship into "marriage" what's the point of continuing it? The relationship will have legally slipped into the waters of absurdity. ("Hello, this is my sheep Dolly, and my friend Bert. As you know, we love one and another and were married last week")

- SEAGOON

[parker00]

homosexual relationships tend to be non-monogamous and last less than three years

Hate to rain on your parade but so do heterosexual relationships. I know many more people who end up cheating on their spouse then don't anymore.

[midnight Target]

OK, here is the best thing Bush did IMHO...

He was great, and I mean that, after the 9-11 attacks. His manner and presence went a long way towards setting a tone of courage and healing for the country.

[Seagoon]

Hi Parker,

Originally posted by parker00
Hate to rain on your parade but so do heterosexual relationships. I know many more people who end up cheating on their spouse then don't anymore.

We could go back and forth on anecdotal evidence based on the people we associate with or our own lives all day. (For instance, most of the married couples I know have monogamous relationships, have been or will end up being married for more than a decade and have not physically cheated on their spouse. I myself have been married for 11 years and fall into that category.) But we don't need to do that, there are actually people who make a living compiling statistics about this stuff.

So for instance, a 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer and this data was confirmed by a 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study which reported similar results, with 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.

Additionally while the stats across the board are trending downward as marriage and societal constraints continue to unravel, the level of monogamy in heterosexual marriage is still around 85% for women and 75% for men. This is contrasted with around 4.5 % for homosexual males (Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop) and that data is supported by Homosexual publications and organizations which feel that "monogamy" is an alien and unwelcome concept in the homosexual lifestyle. Put simply, monogamy is something straights are concerned about not gays, therefore it should not be forced to be part of a gay definition of marriage anymore than one man and one woman should be.

Anywho, all of this is piling up so much sand against the tide coming in, eventually we will see homosexual marriage in the USA, probably by means of court dictat, and all the stats or treatises or ethical arguments or popular votes in the world aren't going to stop the Western intelligentsia from making their desires the law of the land. So Parker, regardless of the validity of your arguments, it doesn't take a prophet to forsee that you and Hawk will eventually get what you want.

- SEAGOON