George Bush

[Fish catching kid]

Has anyone heard about Bushes bad reveiws for maintaining good habitat for salmon in the Columbia. What do you guys and girls think about that?


Kid

[Go Harley]

It ain't just the Columbia he's messing up. He's wiping out all the environmental progress we've made in the last 10 years across the entire nation.

I am not very happy about it, to say the least.

[Stratocaster]

Bush just flicks a switch and poof were back to pollution.Meanwhile the states sit on their hands and do nothing.

[fish_on]

I think this should be on the life in general thread.

[Drachir]

Fish_On

I agree this should on the Life in General BB.

Bush is going to ruin this country!! If we go to War in Iraq w/o NATO & UN sanctions, we will just be opening ourselves up to more & more Terrorism. It will become easy for our enemies to rally support against the USA!!

[Gun Rod Bow]

Would all of the "sky is falling"...

..."Republicans are ruining the world"...

..."We better not hit the bad people 'cause they might hit us back"...

...Whiny babies please go to the Life in General page to comiserate and plan your next protest march. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Thank You

[ultralight]

If Bush is re-elected, we'll be lucky to be fishing for northern pike minnow and carp.

But then again, I may be pretty content to drive a Hummer for a couple of thousand bucks (after a $50,000 rebate, of course)

[Stz ll]

Bush will not be re-elected!!!

Bush's idea of enviromental control is to sell it to the highest bidder. See what kind of profit can be made off of it's destruction.

[ 02-26-2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Stz ll ]

[omnivore]

Let see how Bush's doing:

Economy -- F
Homeland Security -- D
Civil Rights -- F
Education -- F
Health Care/Medicare -- F
Environment -- F
Foreign Policy -- F
Fiscal Responsibility -- F

What the hell is he doing?

[fish_on]

I think he is doing well with the train wreck he was left to work with. God help us if Gore had been elected we would be running scared with our skit showing everytime someone threated us, now we have someone who will stand up for this country. It's also easy to criticize, how about some of you dems come up with some answers. I see how well you have done with the west coast, let's see
Oregon #1 unemployment
Schools in shambles
not business freindly
taxes business to death
education system sucks
seems you have not done any better.

[ 02-26-2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: fish_on ]

[speyfly]

Train wreck? You must have been hiding under a rock the 90's.

[Boedy]

We are living with realities of what the Dems created in the 90's today. Where is that big Tobacco settlement money now? They spent there way to this problem and Bush got stuck with the results of their irresponsible spending.

[monoman]

Spey
Do you really think that the Bush caused every thing bad and it all happen in two years?

[omnivore]

Originally posted by fish_on:
I think he is doing well with the train wreck he was left to work with.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I'll take that train wreck any day

[ultralight]

"I inherited a bad economy!"

-Bush's excuse in 2004 debate.

[speyfly]

Boedy, remember that the Repud's had the House and the Senate from 1994 on other than the Senate from 2000 to 2002 . What does that tell ya? Fine work they have done huh!

[ 02-26-2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[monoman]

UL
I believe he did. Most figures I have read point that out also. If the Dems don't find somebody other than those that seem to be runing, he might not have to debate!

[Stratocaster]

Republican or democrat the economy would still suck, get off your political horses and get back down to earth. The economy was tanking before bush took office, then 9/11 then corporate scandals. Bush is no more responsible than i am. But he will be held responsible in 04 if the economy dosent turnaround.

[ultralight]

The economy had begun to weaken at the time of transition, but I would not call it a bad economy by any stretch of imagination. The important thing is that Bush is continuing to use that excuse, more than two years after he's been in charge. With the departure of his chief of the Council of Economic Advisers, Bush's economic plan is virtually non-existent. He's got tax cuts for the rich and give-aways to large corporations, but there is nothing substantive measures to stimulate growth. This sort of ineptitude won't fool anybody in the long run.

[Stratocaster]

UL my 401 took its biggest hit in oct. 2000.Also i agree that tax cuts are probably not a good idea right now as war looms. But as far as cuts for the rich, greenspan said he thought that while most of bushs plan was not sound he thought that the elimination of the dividend tax was a great idea for stimulating the economy.

[ 02-26-2003, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[ultralight]

Originally posted by fisherdan:
greenspan said he thought that while most of bushs plan was not sound he thought that the elimination of the dividend tax was a great idea for stimulating the economy.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Please show me where he uttered such words :whazzup:

[ 02-26-2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: ultralight ]

[Stratocaster]

I watched it with my own eyes last week, when he was testifying before congress about bushs economy package.Again he was not for the package but felt the elimination of the dividend tax would allow some corps. to invest back into their companies. In fact thats the only positive thing he said about it.

[ultralight]

Originally posted by fisherdan:
I watched it with my own eyes last week,

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That's the reason why I want to see the source

[TheTexan]

Originally posted by ultralight:
The important thing is that Bush is continuing to use that excuse, more than two years after he's been in charge.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Please show me where he uttered such words. :whazzup:

[Flatfish]

What continues to amaze me is folks think GW has anything to do with the economy. It took Clinton 7 years to undo Reaganomics. Now folks think George is to blame. You elected Bill. Now you can live with a democratic hangover. I bet you are proud.

Mark.

[ultralight]

Originally posted by ex-tex:
Please show me where he uttered such words. :whazzup:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hey, you can't copy my words, verbatim
:grin:

[The Fishing Geek]

Okay, let's analyze fish_on's list of what he thinks the Democracts have done:

Oregon #1 unemployment - our state flourished with tech jobs during the boom. Tech tanked. That has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. Nice try, but no brownie point.

Schools in shambles - They've been in steady decline for a long time. Seems to me that it was both Democrats and Republicans who were in the Legislature last term, and nobody wanted to take care of the problem. Republicans were against Measure 28. Nice try, but no brownie points.

not business freindly - We've got a lot of unemployed people. That's friendly. Otherwise, without a definition for this we can't blame anyone. Nice try, but no brownie points.

taxes business to death - Small businesses bear a large part of the tax burden. Corporations get away with a lot when it comes to avoiding their tax burdon, but I can be fairly certain that it wasn't a Democrat that would have voted for Corporate tax breaks. Nice try, but no brownie points.

education system sucks - Now you're just being repetitive. Nice try, but no brownie points.

Seems like your points are baseless, and someone's not gonna be getting any brownies with THAT point total. :grin:

[ultralight]

Originally posted by Flatfish:
What continues to amaze me is folks think GW has anything to do with the economy.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">If not, then why have presidential economic advisors and let him propose budget, tax cut, etc.?

[speyfly]

Here porky, porky, porky ...
If you want to see Repud’s pork in action take a look. Repud’s, don’t look at this one cuz you will be painted into a corner.
FOR REPUD'S PORK CLICK HERE

[True]

Ah, another one to add to my Favorites list!

Thanks, Speyfly!

True

[speyfly]

True, if you notice, the information is pre 9/11/ 2001. I will post the more resent stuff when you get threw puking.

[TheTexan]

Originally posted by ultralight:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helv">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Originally posted by ex-tex:
Please show me where he uttered such words. :whazzup:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hey, you can't copy my words, verbatim
:grin: </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">UL, I may have plagarized your work, but it was a serious question. Where have you seen Bush use this excuse?

[ultralight]

As a matter of fact, I've heard his Press Secretary say that last week, on C-SPAN.

[Flatfish]

Dave. Lets go fishing sometime. You are alright. we may not agree on tics, but who cares.

Mark and the bipartisan dog.

[Stratocaster]

UL, its the best i could do , but the reference to his support of eliminating the double tax on dividends is in there. Why is that so hard for you to believe? web page

[lost_sailor]

The average voter is no economic wizard. It will boil down to: things was purty good, then after Bush got selected everything was purty messed up like.

Maybe Bruce Springsteen will run after all.

[Stratocaster]

Since when does our government run the economy? Its not our governments fault that the internet bubble that fueled the 90s boom burst. The government can certainly tweak it a little, but its ran by free enterprise. And any changes they make take years to come to fruition good or bad. I for one hold our state and local govenments more responsible.

[lost_sailor]

free enterprise doesn't control the money supply, interest rates, foreign trade rules, or war anxiety.

The gov't isn't exactly uninvolved.

[ultralight]

Originally posted by fisherdan:
UL, its the best i could do , but the reference to his support of eliminating the double tax on dividends is in there. Why is that so hard for you to believe? web page

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I hope you didn't spend two hours trying to find something that's not there, but I can appreciate your good faith effort.

What I didn't point out earlier is that even I would support the elimination of double taxation on dividends, however, as Mr. Greenspan is warning, this is absolutely the wrong time to do it. It causes too much strain on already tilted budget deficit, and it does little to stimulate growth or create jobs. Besides, in this time of great sacrifices for many low-income Americans due to impending war, the dividend tax elimination favors the very rich and the corporations.

[Stratocaster]

Good points, but our economy was souring before any war anxieties and interest rates were still low. Mostly consumer confidence waned and people pulled out of the market, but now we are in different times. Unless things turn around before election time then well give some other knucklehead a shot.But i agree they arent uninvolved maybe thats the problem.

[Stratocaster]

UL it didnt take long but its all i could find. Again i watched the thing and he said it was the only thing he agrees with. Ill try and find a transcript for you. I agree that our taxes should not be cut or raised especially now. Also greenspan stated the economy was in good shape and we do not need a stimulus package. So is the economy in good or bad shape, whos to believe?

[ 02-26-2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[ultralight]

I believe you dan. I was just trying to get you to tell the whole story, that Greenspan disagreed with the package and even the timing of the dividend tax elimination. Unfortunately, he'll probably lose his job over it.

Actually, I don't mind our federal gov't over-spending when there is a war or a recession to win the war or get us out of the spiral-down economy, but it should be short term and the long term plan should be fiscally responsible. What Bush is proposing, giving money back to big corporations and the super-rich, when there is extreme shortage of money, does not make any sense at all.

Everyone agrees that we need to stimulate the economy by creating more jobs, so we'll have more revenue to offset the expenditures. But there is very little in Bush's economic aid package that will do that, and it makes me wonder if he's really serious about the economy and people's welfare.

What troubles me is if he's competent to somewhat figure this out on his own, without other people telling him exactly what to do. He never really had to earn a living and make ends meet like the most folks who work for a living, so I sincerely question his connection with daily reality of average citizens. He seems to think that he can be re-elected by raising record amount of donations from corporations and rich folks to not have to care about the little guys, like me.

[ 02-26-2003, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: ultralight ]

[Stratocaster]

I totally agree about his budget proposal, its as if hes trying to not get re-elected. Hes going to have to do something different, are they really that out of touch, time will tell.

[TheTexan]

Originally posted by ultralight:
As a matter of fact, I've heard his Press Secretary say that last week, on C-SPAN.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">UL,
I am going to have to plagarize you again and ask to see it or hear it myself. I am almost certain that we both could hear the same words and come away with a totally different meaning.

[ 02-27-2003, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: ex-tex ]

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by fisherdan:
I watched it with my own eyes last week, when he was testifying before congress about bushs economy package.Again he was not for the package but felt the elimination of the dividend tax would allow some corps. to invest back into their companies. In fact thats the only positive thing he said about it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I watched the hearing where he spoke of this. What he actually said was that he (Greenspan) had been in favor of eliminating the dividend tax for a long time, but not as a stimulative measure, but as a measure to remove a distortion in how capital is treated in the marketplace He went on to say that he was in favor of eliminating the dividend tax now only if it was done in a revenue neutral manner, ie., by either raising another tax or eliminating some spending.

He didn't say that the tax cut would be stimulative. Very few economists feel that the tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Very few members of the investment community believe that the tax cuts will stimulate the economy, as witnessed by the financial markets performance recently in response to the tax cut proposals.

Recently, 10 Nobel Prize winning economists and 400 other economists published an open letter in the New York Times, to the Administration, protesting that the tax cuts are likely to be devastating to the economy and this country. This is not a position on the dividend tax, it is a position on the overall act of cutting taxes without balancing the budget.

The tax on dividends does not stimulate companies to invest back into their companies. Indeed, it would have the opposite effect. It creates an incentive for companies to distribute cash to their investors. I'm not saying that that is a bad or a good thing, it's just what the incentive is.

There is an economic trainwreck coming, and Bush is at the helm. He didn't lay all the track, but he could, if he chose to, slow the train down. It is fiscal idiocy and the height of irresponsibility, to cut taxes as we prepare to start a war.

[ 02-27-2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[ultralight]

Originally posted by ex-tex:
UL,
I am going to have to plagarize you again and ask to see it or hear it myself. I am almost certain that we both could hear the same words and come away with a totally different meaning.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You probably don't know this, but I don't broadcast C-SPAN myself. So, you might want to switch from FOX to C-SPAN occassionally to catch a rerun. But if you're patient enough with C-SPAN, I'm sure Arie Fleisher will repeat it soon.

BTW, don't worry about plagiarizing my words. Freely I give [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[The Fishing Geek]

You C-SPAN addicts need to get out more. :tongue:

[ultralight]

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
You C-SPAN addicts need to get out more. :tongue:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">But aren't there germs out there? [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img]

[ 02-27-2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: ultralight ]

[DanS]

10 Nobel Prize winning economists and 400 other economists

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You're going to listen to THOSE guys when several expert economists here on iFish disagree? :grin:

[speyfly]

Here is a link that you should add to your favorites. Some pretty interesting stuff and a way that you too can get involved. Enjoy CLICK HERE

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by DanS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helv">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv"> 10 Nobel Prize winning economists and 400 other economists

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You're going to listen to THOSE guys when several expert economists here on iFish disagree? :grin: </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Yeah, what was I thinking.