The Bush Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The tendency to spend that money on economy-growing endeavors needs to be quantified so that an actual cost-benefit analysis can be performed. Otherwise, we're both just blowing hot air.

What effect did the Bush tax cuts have upon and just after their implementation?

The Bush tax cuts got us out of the recession in the early years of his first term. The dotcom bubble bursting wrecked the NASDAQ. Unemployment steadily rose due to it and once our economy fully recovered in early 05, he should have ended his tax cuts and we go back to Clinton era taxes. That and he needed to cut government, which he did in 05 or 06...but he didn't do enough of it.
 
I can't help but wonder how much of that money actually ended up going towards hiring by companies. Something tells me that companies would be more inclined to hold on to what they've got in harsh economic times rather than spend the way the political right seem to think they have/will.

The question is not how much of that money will go toward hiring but how much termination we would see if those small business owners suddenly have a tax increase.

Less than 10 percent of small businesses would be affected. That is a snow job. But, fine. Why not agree to have them expire in 2 years as a compromise? Most economists say we have now avoided a double dip and are going to be in a better place in 2012. Separate the two and make the tax cuts permanent for 98% of Americans and have the other 2% expire on 1/1/2013.

We'd still save over $600 billion that could go to deficit reduction. If you don't support that, you're not serious.

I would have less objection to that plan than the other, but obviously I would not actively support any plan that entertains the absurd notion that the current income tax system is remotely acceptable in any form.

The largest reason why I could support such a compromise is because I believe the optimistic economist to be wrong and believe it would be just as hard to increase taxes in 2012 than it is now.
 
If you think nullification is out of style, just wait till the Tea Party repeals the 16th Amendment without every having a Federal Vote on the matter.

Viva State Legislatures!
 
The Constitution can be amended without any Federal involvement. It requires a vote of 2/3rds of all state legislatures to propose a convention. The convention then meets and proposes an amendment. That proposition then must be validated by a vote of 2/3rds of state legislatures or state conventions.

It's an utterly brilliant safeguard against federal tyranny. It's also, I believe, the ultimate purpose of the Tea Party.
 
Yep, the Tea Party has already begun their work at the state AND local levels....
 
It's also had me changing my direction politically. I believe I can have possibly more impact as a State Representatives than I can in Congress. By going the nullification route, I can appear to be the best hope to appeal Obamacare. How? The Republicans in the House and Senate will be unable to make a dent in Obamacare until 2012 at the latest. We can agree, no matter how farfetched you may find my solution - the Senate and Congress Republicans have no hope. By default, my proposal - having the advantage of not being attempted - will seem the superior of the two. Combine that with my unique blend of youth, indisputable Constitution-based arguments for States Rights and average-joe appeal I would easily become an attractive talk show guest which is the easiest way to gain national momentum.
 
Last edited:
It's also had me changing my direction politically. I believe I can have possibly more impact as a State Representatives than I can in Congress. By going the nullification route, I can appear to be the best hope to appeal Obamacare. How? The Republicans in the House and Senate will be unable to make a dent in Obamacare until 2012 at the latest. We can agree, no matter how farfetched you may find my solution - the Senate and Congress Republicans have no hope. By default, my proposal - having the advantage of not being attempted - will seem the superior of the two. Combine that with my unique blend of youth, indisputable Constitution-based arguments for States Rights and average-joe appeal I would easily become an attractive talk show guest which is the easiest way to gain national momentum.

:dry:

Are you really that narcissistic?
 
It's also had me changing my direction politically. I believe I can have possibly more impact as a State Representatives than I can in Congress. By going the nullification route, I can appear to be the best hope to appeal Obamacare. How? The Republicans in the House and Senate will be unable to make a dent in Obamacare until 2012 at the latest. We can agree, no matter how farfetched you may find my solution - the Senate and Congress Republicans have no hope. By default, my proposal - having the advantage of not being attempted - will seem the superior of the two. Combine that with my unique blend of youth, indisputable Constitution-based arguments for States Rights and average-joe appeal I would easily become an attractive talk show guest which is the easiest way to gain national momentum.

Are you talking a Constitutional Amendment via state legislatures overturning "Obamacare" or are you talking about nullification? Because if it is the former, good luck. You will need 35 states to agree to that and I just don't see that happening.

The latter...well something tells me you've been reading too much Thomas E. Woods.

Nullification is, again, something that died with the Civil War. It is unlikely that we'll ever return to that. Not without a huge economic and federal collapse, anyway. But yeah...running on that in certain parts of Florida would be very, very appealing. Coupled with a good talk show circuit on Fox News (depending on your constituents) could lead to an election in the State Legislature or House of Representatives...depending who you run against.

But yammering on Fox News and actually leading are very different. For example, Michelle Bachmann says a lot of crazy **** on Hannity, Beck and the rest of Fox everyday. But her craziness that makes her popular with the base also marginalizes her. You think Boehner is going to let her chair any committee? Very doubtful.
 
:dry:

Are you really that narcissistic?


I'm that observant.

Why is it narcissistic to believe that you have the ability to change the world? Why is it narcissistic to have ambition?

I'm a 21 year old, charismatic physically attractive political activist with a comprehensive, well developed political philosophy. I have a resume that includes doing volunteer work during Katrina and cleaning the beaches during the oil spill with political volunteerism dating back to being 12 years old. I have worked 12 hour days in the Florida summer heat with construction workers, in hardhats and steel toe boots in Northwest Florida. I have worked temporary seasonal tourist jobs in a city whose revenue is determined by tourist season. My current job is in the service industry for $7.75 an hour. I am my constituency.

I also have been doing minor consulting work for a Congressman since I was 18. I work an asst. campaign manager to a 200,000 dollar campaign when I was 18. At age 21 I am working on a book on George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Marquis de Lafayette having been granted access to letters written by Washington that have never before been used in an academic study (thanks to a family connection). I’ve founded a libertarian community activist group that places a strong emphasis on community education. I am establishing a free “community” college that allows knowledgeable citizens in the community to volunteer time teaching classes at a local coffee shop (I teach philosophy, political science, economics and American history).

I'm also a college drop out in an area that has a majority of families without college degrees. I've taught myself the principals of Austrian economics, developed a comprehensive understanding of objectivism and have fully formed political platform that is a unique mixture of extremism and pragmatic politics. I can preach capitalism as the economic philosophy of individualism on college campuses while demonstrating how the Founding Fathers would favor drug legalization at Lions Club meetings. I can hold my grounds on all terrain amongst any demographic.

I've been privileged to have a wonderfully special father. I wasn't born rich, far-far from it (my father blew most of his cash on a failed effort to develop to Belize and other exorbitant projects), but I have always had connections and privileged company. In working for him I've exchanged personal emails with people like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich. I've known Spencer Bachus of Alabama personally for years, when I was 18 I had a conversation with his Chief of Staff and had my opinion treated as a peer, not many individuals have had that experience. More important than these connections, however, is my father's knowledge. He was Communications Chairman for the RNC in 72 and was in charge of the National Republican Parties nationwide campaign strategy...the election following Watergate. (He was extremely successful.) My father was one of the RNC's most successful political consultants and literally wrote the party book for campaign strategy. He was dean of the Political Consultant RNC College.

And I've learned from all of that.

I am confident because I appreciate how much potential I hold have. I understand it and refuse to run from it. I can be a leader who can truly breach demographics. I can speak policy with greater comprehension than any politician in Northwest Florida, I'm young and thus exciting. My campaign would become a national story due to the lack of people like me in the GOP.

And if I can get Glenn Beck's TV show I can build influence in the most important political event in decades: the Tea Party movement.

When he was 22 Alexander Hamilton became the Chief of Staff of General George Washington.

That is the standard I set myself to rise to.

(See how I am able to slip in Founding Father trivia in a personal message? You don't think Glenn Beck would become my number 1 fan with that sort of knowledge coming out of a 23 year old politician?)
 
Are you talking a Constitutional Amendment via state legislatures overturning "Obamacare" or are you talking about nullification? Because if it is the former, good luck. You will need 35 states to agree to that and I just don't see that happening.

The latter...well something tells me you've been reading too much Thomas E. Woods.

Nullification is, again, something that died with the Civil War. It is unlikely that we'll ever return to that. Not without a huge economic and federal collapse, anyway. But yeah...running on that in certain parts of Florida would be very, very appealing. Coupled with a good talk show circuit on Fox News (depending on your constituents) could lead to an election in the State Legislature or House of Representatives...depending who you run against.

But yammering on Fox News and actually leading are very different. For example, Michelle Bachmann says a lot of crazy **** on Hannity, Beck and the rest of Fox everyday. But her craziness that makes her popular with the base also marginalizes her. You think Boehner is going to let her chair any committee? Very doubtful.

The Constitutional Amendment would be to repeal the 16th (which I can do blindfolded when you consider the fact that any politician that didn't support the measure would be forever marked with the label of IRS supporter).

Nullification would be for Obamacare. Nullification would also be how I would solve drug law, though that requires the successful passing of legalization state laws.

You are quite simply wrong to say that Nullification died in the Civil War as Nullification survives today in the 13 states that allow medical marijuana. To lesser extent it is also evident in the Arizona immigration law and the legal challenges to Obamacare (you are right about reading more Thomas Woods, he taught a class I took last semester from the Mises institute as well). Furthermore, to say that Nullification died with the Civil War would be the equivalent of saying the Constitution died in the Civil War (which you could certainly make the argument for) because it's impossible to have the Constitution be functional without Nullification.
 
The Bush tax cuts got us out of the recession in the early years of his first term. The dotcom bubble bursting wrecked the NASDAQ. Unemployment steadily rose due to it and once our economy fully recovered in early 05, he should have ended his tax cuts and we go back to Clinton era taxes. That and he needed to cut government, which he did in 05 or 06...but he didn't do enough of it.
So you're arguing that this current economic crisis is separate from the one encountered by Bush?
 
The question is not how much of that money will go toward hiring...
It is a very relevant question, especially when you're trying to argue the effectiveness of the tax cuts. :huh:

StorminNorman said:
...but how much termination we would see if those small business owners suddenly have a tax increase.
...which is why I advocated an approach of cost-benefit analysis. These are both very pertinent questions. I think it's daft to ignore/dismiss one in favor of the other. That seems awfully partisan.
 
It is a very relevant question, especially when you're trying to argue the effectiveness of the tax cuts. :huh:

...which is why I advocated an approach of cost-benefit analysis. These are both very pertinent questions. I think it's daft to ignore/dismiss one in favor of the other. That seems awfully partisan.

Decisions on hiring have typically been made preparing for the tax cuts, so I don't see businesses hiring more if they keep the tax cuts as much as I see businesses firing people due to tax increases.

I am obviously not against a result of greater hiring, and if that happens - awesome. I just don't expect it given the circumstances.
 
I'm that observant.

Why is it narcissistic to believe that you have the ability to change the world? Why is it narcissistic to have ambition?

I'm a 21 year old, charismatic physically attractive political activist with a comprehensive, well developed political philosophy. I have a resume that includes doing volunteer work during Katrina and cleaning the beaches during the oil spill with political volunteerism dating back to being 12 years old. I have worked 12 hour days in the Florida summer heat with construction workers, in hardhats and steel toe boots in Northwest Florida. I have worked temporary seasonal tourist jobs in a city whose revenue is determined by tourist season. My current job is in the service industry for $7.75 an hour. I am my constituency.

I also have been doing minor consulting work for a Congressman since I was 18. I work an asst. campaign manager to a 200,000 dollar campaign when I was 18. At age 21 I am working on a book on George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Marquis de Lafayette having been granted access to letters written by Washington that have never before been used in an academic study (thanks to a family connection). I’ve founded a libertarian community activist group that places a strong emphasis on community education. I am establishing a free “community” college that allows knowledgeable citizens in the community to volunteer time teaching classes at a local coffee shop (I teach philosophy, political science, economics and American history).

I'm also a college drop out in an area that has a majority of families without college degrees. I've taught myself the principals of Austrian economics, developed a comprehensive understanding of objectivism and have fully formed political platform that is a unique mixture of extremism and pragmatic politics. I can preach capitalism as the economic philosophy of individualism on college campuses while demonstrating how the Founding Fathers would favor drug legalization at Lions Club meetings. I can hold my grounds on all terrain amongst any demographic.

I've been privileged to have a wonderfully special father. I wasn't born rich, far-far from it (my father blew most of his cash on a failed effort to develop to Belize and other exorbitant projects), but I have always had connections and privileged company. In working for him I've exchanged personal emails with people like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich. I've known Spencer Bachus of Alabama personally for years, when I was 18 I had a conversation with his Chief of Staff and had my opinion treated as a peer, not many individuals have had that experience. More important than these connections, however, is my father's knowledge. He was Communications Chairman for the RNC in 72 and was in charge of the National Republican Parties nationwide campaign strategy...the election following Watergate. (He was extremely successful.) My father was one of the RNC's most successful political consultants and literally wrote the party book for campaign strategy. He was dean of the Political Consultant RNC College.

And I've learned from all of that.

I am confident because I appreciate how much potential I hold have. I understand it and refuse to run from it. I can be a leader who can truly breach demographics. I can speak policy with greater comprehension than any politician in Northwest Florida, I'm young and thus exciting. My campaign would become a national story due to the lack of people like me in the GOP.

And if I can get Glenn Beck's TV show I can build influence in the most important political event in decades: the Tea Party movement.

When he was 22 Alexander Hamilton became the Chief of Staff of General George Washington.

That is the standard I set myself to rise to.

(See how I am able to slip in Founding Father trivia in a personal message? You don't think Glenn Beck would become my number 1 fan with that sort of knowledge coming out of a 23 year old politician?)

Wow, you exemplify humility don't you?? :whatever:
 
Wow, you exemplify humility don't you?? :whatever:

I exemplify confidence. I am humble when I have reasons to be humble, I typically have a good grasp of what I am good at and what I am not good at. You want humble? Ask me how I am at golf, or basketball, or music.

I am good at politics. Very, very good. I fail to see how I, or anyone else for that matter, benefits from me pretending that isn't the case.
 
The Constitutional Amendment would be to repeal the 16th (which I can do blindfolded when you consider the fact that any politician that didn't support the measure would be forever marked with the label of IRS supporter).

Nullification would be for Obamacare. Nullification would also be how I would solve drug law, though that requires the successful passing of legalization state laws.

You are quite simply wrong to say that Nullification died in the Civil War as Nullification survives today in the 13 states that allow medical marijuana. To lesser extent it is also evident in the Arizona immigration law and the legal challenges to Obamacare (you are right about reading more Thomas Woods, he taught a class I took last semester from the Mises institute as well). Furthermore, to say that Nullification died with the Civil War would be the equivalent of saying the Constitution died in the Civil War (which you could certainly make the argument for) because it's impossible to have the Constitution be functional without Nullification.

But all politicians, at least at the Federal level, realize that abolishing the income tax would absolutely destroy the government's ability to function. Ron Paul is an elected official who says as much...but h'es fringe, because most Americans don't want to live in a country without social security, medicare, public education, student loans, etc. You may, but it is not happening.

As for Nullification...Serious attempts at nullifying or ignoring major Federal laws did end with the Civil War. Medicinal marijuana is one thing...opting out of the new healthcare system is another. It will fail in court and then states would be just belligerent to continue. When Arkansas's governor tried to openly defy Brown v. Board of Education, President Eisenhower sent in the National Guard and disbanded Arkansas's State Guard. It ended in humiliation for Arkansas and remains a shameful chapter in their history that they tried to prevent black children from going to school...because they didn't like the law.

And why did Arkansans stand down? Because the Federal government superseded the state government via a Supreme Court ruling and had the might of the US military. Open rebellion would not have ended well, as it didn't nearly 150 years ago.

The Constitution did not die in the Civil War, it was saved from destruction. If the states had successfully seceded, the Union would not have survived the 19th century. I know you don't believe that, but it would set the precedent that anytime one state doesn't like a law or an election (like President Lincoln in 1860), they can secede. The Union would have dissolved and the Constitution would be a historical document regarded the same way as the Articles of Confederation.

Something tells me you would have preferred the latter's government. But men like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made sure the Constitution would create a strong central government. And for the Union to survive, it had to have legitimate power--which the Civil War decided.

States if in mass agreement can make Amendments to the Constitution to supersede the Federal government. But openly defy major laws to the detriment of their citizens? Not happening.
 
You're asserting that we had fully recovered. If that ended that recession, doesn't that mean that the one we're currently in is a separate recession?
 
Since I received a warning, I'm going to retract the candor of this post. I assume it's being responded to as I type this. Anyways, it has been a rough week. That said, I stand by my statements that a College education and work is key, and that comparing yourself to Hamilton is completely ridiculous, and is no standard to hold yourself to, especially since it is an outdated one.
 
Last edited:
You're asserting that we had fully recovered. If that ended that recession, doesn't that mean that the one we're currently in is a separate recession?

Yes. I never said that they were the same so I am wondering what you are getting at.
 
Well......back to Bush....Reading the book right now...and man this is a heck of a read IMO...Very interesting
 
Just to side with Bush, a little, I never thought the man was racist. Incompetent maybe, but when I met him he was rather nice and not at all mean or malicious. Very funny guy. So, yeah, definitely not racist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"