Bush accused of breaking the law by his own party.Will they have the guts to impeach? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 04:49 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
So, it's just a coincidence that the Clinton administration was fiscally responsible, and the Bush administration is sending us to the brink of bankruptcy. Controls the reins? No. The single most important player -- absolutely.
That may be the view when passing by the issue at the speed of light, but it's certainly doesn't stand any form of scrutiny.
Qubes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 04:50 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I could be mistaken, but unless you're very young, there hasn't been a Democratically controlled congress in quite some time. Surely you're not implying that Clinton was a conservative and that Bush is a liberal......or that either controls the fiscal reins of the country on their own....again, a refresher course in how the federal government works seems in order.
What I'm saying is that the net effect of each administration is exactly that -- the precise mechanism is of secondary importance. AFAIK, there's only one guy in the country with the power to veto...

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #23 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 04:51 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Oh, and Reagan had nothing to do with deficits and defense spending, right? He was just an impotent bystander...

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #24 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 04:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I respect you, really, but you honestly must get a refresher course in civics under your belt. You can't possibly credit a budget surplus or shortfall to the sitting President...that's not the way it works.
Gee, it's really simple. Same congress. Under Clinton, spending controlled. Under Bush, spending out of control. The only difference? The administration. One uses a veto to shut down the government if spending is not controlled, the other hasn't a clue how to veto, let alone know what to veto.

Careful, you really are showing your agenda.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #25 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 05:37 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by old300D
Gee, it's really simple. Same congress. Under Clinton, spending controlled. Under Bush, spending out of control. The only difference? The administration. One uses a veto to shut down the government if spending is not controlled, the other hasn't a clue how to veto, let alone know what to veto.

Careful, you really are showing your agenda.
I'll refrain from calling you an idiot, as you've done to others here, but certainly you're not so naive at your age to really believe that the only difference in the state of the union between the Clinton era and the Bush era is the individual occupying the oval office...I'd hope you're also not forgetful enough at your age to have expunged the history of the dot-com era (from rise to fall), or the savage attack of 9/11...perhaps you merely lack the ability to track our economy against a timeline that has those two phenomena as overlays & milestones.

Either way, it's a pretty shallow point of view.
Qubes is offline  
post #26 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 07:45 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I'll refrain from calling you an idiot, as you've done to others here, but certainly you're not so naive at your age to really believe that the only difference in the state of the union between the Clinton era and the Bush era is the individual occupying the oval office...I'd hope you're also not forgetful enough at your age to have expunged the history of the dot-com era (from rise to fall), or the savage attack of 9/11...perhaps you merely lack the ability to track our economy against a timeline that has those two phenomena as overlays & milestones.

Either way, it's a pretty shallow point of view.
Following your lead, I will refrain from calling you an obtuse fuck blinded by your political agenda, which seems remarkably akin to screwing the American public with double talk and rubber standards for ethics.

Now, precisely what you frame as a ludicrous proposition is the true situation. Just because you, an internet persona like the rest of us, suggest the conclusion that Bush, with the same Congress Clinton had, can't even come near balancing the budget - he is actually recording the largest deficits in our history as a nation - find that a black and white standard for conservatism that your boy doesn't measure up to is hard to overlook doesn't make it not so if you merely deny it.

Where is all that tax cutting coming back to the Government's coffers in added jobs? Surely the tax cuts have funded the creation of sufficient jobs to have more Americans employed than ever before, including Clinton's terms? Could it be that even the Republicans have not figured out how to tax those entering the new job market at the poverty level with a decade old minimum wage standard at a rate sufficient to pay back the money he gave them?

9-11, without Iraq, would not have generated anywhere near the budget strain it has had with Iraq. And Iraq is not universally conceded as a shining moment of leadership - and Iraq was all George Bush and his team of one ball jugglers with tunnel vision. But even 9-11 doesn't explain the problems with spending money.

The issue is pandering to rich, greedy Americans with the unwarranted, and obviously unsuccessful tax cuts for the rich. I live a good life, and know many very well off people. None of them can really afford to be Republican though. A number of them find it irresistable to be Republican - apparently they feel by association they are really more high and mighty than they would if they didn't join the rich man's party.

No, the picture is not as simple as you would like us to believe. But it is simple enough to deduce since George Bush arrived, we have suffered from seriously bad judgement and no real leadership. The real answer as I have heard noted here before is a split between the parties. When the Congress is run by a Republican majority, there cannot be an effective Republican executive. The same with Democrats. Neither party has the United States' best interest in the forefront. Their own power is the premium interest and they demonstrate that at every chance. So far the "Contract with America" in the Republican controlled executive and legislative branches has amounted "a contract on America" as we are subjected to abuse after abuse to not just the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but to the financial viability of the economy in the next decades, our ability to defend ourselves in world where we are perceived to be the opposite of what think we stand for, a world where we have next to no allies and a domestic policy paralysis based on a near constant distraction by an orchestrated communication campaign to instill fear in the hearts of citizens, and should they be unable actually read, there is a color coded system for communicating the desired level of fear for good citizens to conform to, just to ensure no body is left behind.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #27 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 09:28 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Following your lead, I will refrain from calling you an obtuse fuck blinded by your political agenda, which seems remarkably akin to screwing the American public with double talk and rubber standards for ethics.
I don't recall labeling anyone as an "obtuse fuck", but perhaps I did. If so, I apologize. Can you (or Old300) not admit to being unequivocally anti-Bush and pro-Democrat? If I'm blinded by my political agenda, so are a lot of others here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Now, precisely what you frame as a ludicrous proposition is the true situation. Just because you, an internet persona like the rest of us, suggest the conclusion that Bush, with the same Congress Clinton had, can't even come near balancing the budget - he is actually recording the largest deficits in our history as a nation - find that a black and white standard for conservatism that your boy doesn't measure up to is hard to overlook doesn't make it not so if you merely deny it.
I'd be able to make it through an army obstacle course easier than I was able to figure out that last sentence, but I think I know where you're going. Let me state a few things for the record:
  • I'm not a GWB apologist - I bristle at the misplaced blame that is so often, so wrongly heaped upon him. He's no more an angel than any public servant, but blaming him for every perceived transgression or wrongdoing is irrational.
  • I would consider Bush more of a moderate than a conservative fiscally...truth be told, he's more socially moderate than conservative too.
  • There are plenty of aspects of "true conservatives" that don't sit well with me - socially, we're hit and miss. Sometimes I appear to contradict myself by way of outwardly incompatible beliefs. C'est la vie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Where is all that tax cutting coming back to the Government's coffers in added jobs? Surely the tax cuts have funded the creation of sufficient jobs to have more Americans employed than ever before, including Clinton's terms? Could it be that even the Republicans have not figured out how to tax those entering the new job market at the poverty level with a decade old minimum wage standard at a rate sufficient to pay back the money he gave them?
Clinton enojyed the most "irrationally exuberant" economy in the country's history. Just about any president will pale in comparison. For the last time, you can't credit or discredit a president for the economy. I've not credited Bush with the post 9/11 recovery, despite the fact that many economists credited he and congress for effectively minimizing the impact those events had on us. Bush witnessed significant losses in jobs, and has witnessed a significant number of those jobs return. The real numbers are out there someplace, they're probably not as bad as you think. I'm too tired to make absolute statements or back-link everything. So sue me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
9-11, without Iraq, would not have generated anywhere near the budget strain it has had with Iraq. And Iraq is not universally conceded as a shining moment of leadership - and Iraq was all George Bush and his team of one ball jugglers with tunnel vision. But even 9-11 doesn't explain the problems with spending money.
Mistakes abound in Iraq, but seriously - "Iraq was all George Bush and his team of one ball jugglers with tunnel vision"? I suppose a vast majority of the UN are our hand-puppets, including Germany and France, despite the fact that they needed no help from us profiting from the exploitation of Iraq (three words for the blinded - "Oil for Food). Here's where you start losing me on the slippery slope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
The issue is pandering to rich, greedy Americans with the unwarranted, and obviously unsuccessful tax cuts for the rich. I live a good life, and know many very well off people. None of them can really afford to be Republican though. A number of them find it irresistable to be Republican - apparently they feel by association they are really more high and mighty than they would if they didn't join the rich man's party.
If you're a liberal but take issues with the Democrats, who do you vote for? Far too often, politics involves making decisions based on compromises - where I've any control, I refuse to compromise on the quality of people that work for or with me...I've no such luxury with politics. You can be a conservative and still differ with your party - especially Republicans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
No, the picture is not as simple as you would like us to believe. But it is simple enough to deduce since George Bush arrived, we have suffered from seriously bad judgement and no real leadership. The real answer as I have heard noted here before is a split between the parties. When the Congress is run by a Republican majority, there cannot be an effective Republican executive. The same with Democrats. Neither party has the United States' best interest in the forefront. Their own power is the premium interest and they demonstrate that at every chance. So far the "Contract with America" in the Republican controlled executive and legislative branches has amounted "a contract on America" as we are subjected to abuse after abuse to not just the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but to the financial viability of the economy in the next decades, our ability to defend ourselves in world where we are perceived to be the opposite of what think we stand for, a world where we have next to no allies and a domestic policy paralysis based on a near constant distraction by an orchestrated communication campaign to instill fear in the hearts of citizens, and should they be unable actually read, there is a color coded system for communicating the desired level of fear for good citizens to conform to, just to ensure no body is left behind.
This is laden with FUD, and certainly isn't based in any reality familiar to me. I'd have a lot of trouble sleeping with that much unresolved angst - some of your posts make a bit more sense to me now. I don't know how else to help you but to suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's not healthy to carry around so much cynicism. Let it go, James.
Qubes is offline  
post #28 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 10:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I don't recall labeling anyone as an "obtuse fuck", but perhaps I did. If so, I apologize. Can you (or Old300) not admit to being unequivocally anti-Bush and pro-Democrat? If I'm blinded by my political agenda, so are a lot of others here.
I didn't say you did. I just didn't think that was necessary to use the meat of your phrasing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I'd be able to make it through an army obstacle course easier than I was able to figure out that last sentence, but I think I know where you're going. Let me state a few things for the record:
  • I'm not a GWB apologist - I bristle at the misplaced blame that is so often, so wrongly heaped upon him. He's no more an angel than any public servant, but blaming him for every perceived transgression or wrongdoing is irrational.
  • I would consider Bush more of a moderate than a conservative fiscally...truth be told, he's more socially moderate than conservative too.
  • There are plenty of aspects of "true conservatives" that don't sit well with me - socially, we're hit and miss. Sometimes I appear to contradict myself by way of outwardly incompatible beliefs. C'est la vie.
I don't think George is being blamed for things he did not have a direct hand in bringing about. I also think when your policy, which you are able to bring about because you have a party in the legislative branch that is under your thumb, is a failure the tax payers should not be burdened with paying PR companies to release faux news stories enunciating your version of the facts to suggest the policy was other than a dismal failure.

I think Bush is desperate to appeal to his base, and he finds the old stand by, tax cuts and mortgaging the middle class's next three generation's earning power, works best, every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Clinton enojyed the most "irrationally exuberant" economy in the country's history. Just about any president will pale in comparison. For the last time, you can't credit or discredit a president for the economy. I've not credited Bush with the post 9/11 recovery, despite the fact that many economists credited he and congress for effectively minimizing the impact those events had on us. Bush witnessed significant losses in jobs, and has witnessed a significant number of those jobs return. The real numbers are out there someplace, they're probably not as bad as you think. I'm too tired to make absolute statements or back-link everything. So sue me.
Can't be bothered suing. I disagree with your premise that the head of the Republican Party, with a Republican Congress, is iimpotent when it comes to affecting the economy. If that is something you truly believe, then you must conclude Bush is lying when he says his "cut taxes and mortgage the unborn's future" program is responsible for the upswing in jobs. I believe there are significantly more Americans now, so we need significantly more jobs. It is also apparent the taxes being collected from those new jobs have not made up the give-aways to the rich Bush claims were needed to create the new jobs. Another bad deal. Pay the rich a premium dollar for good paying, taxable jobs and we got low paying, likely no-net tax jobs. And, whether you want to admit it or not, it was the policy Bush introduced and got his thugs in Congress to pass. I hold him responsible and you elect to give him a pass.


Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Mistakes abound in Iraq, but seriously - "Iraq was all George Bush and his team of one ball jugglers with tunnel vision"? I suppose a vast majority of the UN are our hand-puppets, including Germany and France, despite the fact that they needed no help from us profiting from the exploitation of Iraq (three words for the blinded - "Oil for Food). Here's where you start losing me on the slippery slope.
We must get our data from different worlds. The UN begged for more time to have the weapons inspectors complete their job. France and Germany did not agree with our plan to invade, because they were convinced the UN weapons inspectors were doing their job, and the overall sanctions were keeping him in check. I think you and those on your side of this argument like to quote statements you cherry pick from a ten year long time line leading up to the invasion. Immediately prior to the invasion, don't you recall the UN, and especially Germany and France (remember Freedom Fries?) were very vocal and firm in their objections to our near unilateral decision to invade Iraq on trumped up WMD charges.

And the "Oil for Food" program was an international disgrace. Quite a few American businesses were involved as well, and I believe if you Google the subject of indictments from that event you will find a Houston company at the head of the list. On the scale of our Iraq blunder, which has cost thousands of lives and nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars, the Oil for Food scandal isn't even Bush League.


Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
If you're a liberal but take issues with the Democrats, who do you vote for? Far too often, politics involves making decisions based on compromises - where I've any control, I refuse to compromise on the quality of people that work for or with me...I've no such luxury with politics. You can be a conservative and still differ with your party - especially Republicans.
I vote for people. Some are Republicans, some are independents, and most are Democrats. Like for President, I won't vote for an independent - that is like not voting. I think I am an American, and I think the two party political system, while it has proven it can work, is becoming so dysfunctional it is beginning to be harmful to America. There is too much potential for too much power which is too hard for the generally unqualified candidates that get voted into office to resist abusing. So I try to spread the power out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
This is laden with FUD, and certainly isn't based in any reality familiar to me. I'd have a lot of trouble sleeping with that much unresolved angst - some of your posts make a bit more sense to me now. I don't know how else to help you but to suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's not healthy to carry around so much cynicism. Let it go, James.
Not too much cynicism, just a familiarity with human nature that maybe you have to be old to understand. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #29 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 07:37 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I respect you, really, but you honestly must get a refresher course in civics under your belt. You can't possibly credit a budget surplus or shortfall to the sitting President...that's not the way it works.
Take a civics class yourself, douchebag. The President submits the budget in the first place, and he also has veto powers over it when it comes back to his desk after being "marked up" and "earmarked" by Congress. You really don't have a clue how it works, do you? I think it's pretty obvious at this point that you don't have much more than a high school education, so take your own advice. In the meantime, Google "White House Budget Office", you clueless fuck.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #30 of 45 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 09:14 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Take a civics class yourself, douchebag. The President submits the budget in the first place, and he also has veto powers over it when it comes back to his desk after being "marked up" and "earmarked" by Congress. You really don't have a clue how it works, do you? I think it's pretty obvious at this point that you don't have much more than a high school education, so take your own advice. In the meantime, Google "White House Budget Office", you clueless fuck.
Get over yourself already. I'm perfectly aware of how the budget process works. What you and others here continue to dance around is the fact that NEITHER the President NOR Congress enact the budget completely by themselves. Put simply, in deference to your thickness here, you can't blame one without implicating the other. Feel free to argue this all you want, you only further my case that your upturn in bombastic tenor and namecalling is designed to mask your tenous grip on the subject.

Let me make it really easy for you. The Wikipedia has the Budget Process described in terms even you can understand.

If you're capable of reading that short article, what you'll find is that Congress has more power over the budget than does the President.
  • "In addition to the President, each independent agency and cabinet department also submits its own budget proposal which will be incorporated into the final version of the budget."
  • "The next step is the drafting of a budget resolution...Once both houses pass the resolution, a conference report is drafted by members of the Senate and the House. The purpose of the conference report is to reconcile any differences that may exist between the House and the Senate versions. Usually, the conference report is adopted finalizing the budget resolution."
  • "In contrast to most legislation passed by Congress, the budget resolution is a concurrent resolution and thus does not become law and does not require the signature of the President. As a result, no money has actually been appropriated at that point. The budget resolution then serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process."

To insinuate that Bush gets what he wants in the budget because of the fear of the veto is so ignorant as to be laughable. Bush is almost as unfamiliar with the pronunciation of the word "nuclear" as he is with his ability to veto legisltation. Either way, the President isn't allowed to become an obstructionist - Congress can overturn a veto with a 2/3rds majority vote on any piece of legislation returned to them by the President. Even though the budget isn't legislation and doesn't become law. He only signs off on the spending decisions the appropriations committees make:

"Since the President's signature is ultimately required to implement spending, policy and revenue actions, the Congress ignores the President's priorities at the peril of losing out on its own." - from http://www.house.gov/rules_bud/annual.htm

Simple fucking civics.

This point has been belabored enough - it's not even germane to my basic issue with your rantings. You lot consistently imply that the deficit is ALL Bush's fault...it's not ALL his fault - that's what I take issue with. I've never said the budget problems are troubling for me - they are - but this situation isn't the fault of any one person, it isn't due to ignorance or neglect, and it isn't the result of any one factor we here could hope to fully and succinctly describe in this forum. For being as high and mighty as you come across, it's AMAZING how dense you've chosen to be regarding my point here, and how relentlessly you continue to pursue it in spite of such obvious evidence that you've no grasp of this mechanism.

Last edited by Qubes; 07-11-2006 at 09:20 AM.
Qubes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome