Who'll be the better president?

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by farlex85

And as for the previous, actually, you could trace it back to Regan (at least I think it was Regan, correct me if I'm wrong) who actually aided Bin Laden to help fight the Soviets. Clinton was not the first to have a chance to stop that train.

Bin Laden was as much as an ally as he ever was going to be back in the 1980's. What turned bin Laden towards American hatred is the Saudis going to the USA for aide in dealing with Kuwait rather than bin Laden's rogue army. That was around 1990. The train just started rolling in GHWB's Presidency and it came to full throttle throughout Clinton's Administration. GHWB had no way of knowing bin Laden wasn't just a loony speaking his mind though. The proof came in 1993 and repeated with embassy bombings. GHWB, therefore, had little opportunity to stop it and doing so would have been preemptive (there is nothing he could cite as a reason to strike). Clinton had many opportunities and plenty of evidence to back it up but failed to act. When the presidency changed to GWB, terrorism wasn't even mentioned. It was not until the Cole bombing that terrorism became a subject of concern--but only mildly. Bin Laden went into hiding before the Cole attacks and remains in hiding ever since. 9/11 obviously brought the issue front and center.

So... if we look at the bin Laden-USA history, Clinton and GWB receive some blame. The crucial difference between them is the Clinton administration knew where bin Laden slept and GWB administration did not.

But, theoreticals aren't really going to accomplish anything so... meh.

Originally Posted by SK-1

My point(and what I should have said) is that no school creates a genius. If the measurement of intelligence is scaled by who graduated at a higher position, then Bush WAS the BETTER choice for president than John Kerry.
With the " No child left behind" programs in our school systems, more potential geniuses are smothered by the system than nurtured.

I agree. Education systems are only there to establish a base line of facts. Education systems, thus far, have failed to incite research and exploration which is the makings of a "genius."

It should also be noted that mostly states decide their curriculum. No Child Left Behind Act was an attempt to make sure all students are at least competent.

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

have to say it:

your "friend" paid a MILLION $ in tax? either you pay that much as well or he is a member of the family, because there is no chance that a millionaire would mix with an average joe.

Things must be different still, " over the pond". I "Mix" as you say with wealthy people about every day. I do 60 in a good year and the guy I most like to fish with is a multi-millionaire.(and a former boss)
I game with 3, six-digit income producers and my wife takes care of 2 elderly VERY rich people. We mix-a-lot

I do know snobbish rich ppl but they have never employed me and I would never socialize with them.

[TUngsten]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

GWB:
1. No Child Left Behind Act
2. Patriot Act
3. 9/11
4. Recommitment of NASA to go to the Moon
5. Sub-Prime Mortgage crisis

1. Failure - ask any teacher
2. Subjugation of constitutional rights of all Americans? Failure
3. ? mega failure
4. pre-9/11 idea conceived because there was nothing else going on, now fail
5. failure of epic proportions

Excellence job pointing out the failures of 8 years of the Bush administration. There are certainly dozens more, most especially the War on Terror = epic failure.

Most of the things you list came when the republicans controlled the house and senate as well.

I agree with Thoughtdisorder. Register Independent.

Listen to NPR too, for good measure The most independent, unbiased source of news in the country. paid for by the people. Voluntarily.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by TUngsten

1. Failure - ask any teacher
2. Subjugation of constitutional rights of all Americans? Failure
3. ? mega failure
4. pre-9/11 idea conceived because there was nothing else going on, now fail
5. failure of epic proportions

...

That is a "noteworthy" test. Not a "success" test. Whether you like Bush or not, his Presidency is going down in history with a lot of pages dedicated to him and his terms.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

That is a "noteworthy" test. Not a "success" test. Whether you like Bush or not, his Presidency is going down in history with a lot of pages dedicated to him and his terms.

Really, thats kind of inward looking, internationally it's just the opposite, most countries in Europe for example think he is inept, has lacked any kind of foreign policy and can barely read and string coherant sentances together, he is very much seen as a joke sad to say ( I could go aforward with a lot more than that, for example, the fact that Blair held him up internationally for 5 years), now he certainly will go down in history for that......I doubt very much for little else, unless of course you really want to delve deeply into disaster management, the nightmare aside which was 9/11, think New Orleans, think of one of the biggest natural tradegies in your countries history, think blunder after blunder from your leadership......again, good history, we wont even go anywhere near wars and conflict!

Having said all that, I dont see those improvements in your day to day life you may have had from his 8 years but from much of what I read, things have pretty much slid downhill since 2001? Is that not true?

[DaedalusHelios]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Bin Laden was as much as an ally as he ever was going to be back in the 1980's. What turned bin Laden towards American hatred is the Saudis going to the USA for aide in dealing with Kuwait rather than bin Laden's rogue army. That was around 1990. The train just started rolling in GHWB's Presidency and it came to full throttle throughout Clinton's Administration. GHWB had no way of knowing bin Laden wasn't just a loony speaking his mind though. The proof came in 1993 and repeated with embassy bombings. GHWB, therefore, had little opportunity to stop it and doing so would have been preemptive (there is nothing he could cite as a reason to strike). Clinton had many opportunities and plenty of evidence to back it up but failed to act. When the presidency changed to GWB, terrorism wasn't even mentioned. It was not until the Cole bombing that terrorism became a subject of concern--but only mildly. Bin Laden went into hiding before the Cole attacks and remains in hiding ever since. 9/11 obviously brought the issue front and center.

So... if we look at the bin Laden-USA history, Clinton and GWB receive some blame. The crucial difference between them is the Clinton administration knew where bin Laden slept and GWB administration did not.

But, theoreticals aren't really going to accomplish anything so... meh.

Got a source on that? Thats alot of accusations.

I know this isn't the crazy picture thread but I thought this was a funny picture:

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by DaedalusHelios

The bottom two do pay taxes. Where do you get this stuff.

In what part of your imagination?
This is GOVERNMENT DATA... trust your government.... they're here to (take all your money and try to help themselves stay in power by giving it to others...) help.

Table 2
Congressional Budget Office data, 2005
			Share of federal 		Share of Total
			Income taxes 			Pre-tax Income
Top 1% 				39% 			18%
Top 5% 				61% 			31%
Top 10% 			73% 			41%
Top 20% 			86.3% 			55%
Second Highest 20% 		13.1% 			20%
Middle 20% 			4.4% 			13%
Second Lowest 20%	 	-0.9% 			8.5%
Bottom 20% 			-2.9% 			4.0%

CBO data also shows that the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle
class, paid only 4.4% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40% of income earners actually paid a
negative 3.8% of federal income taxes. That means they got money back on net from the federal
income tax system, rather than paying money.

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Remember people, when it comes to taxation it is the job of the Governement to make sure that the spread of wealth is equal to every one.

In who's figment of imagination? Oh, that's right... Karl Marx...

This is called a Lorenz Curve,


the straighter the "curve" the more equal the distribution of wealth.

This is done by taxing the rich and giving benefits to the poor. i.e. decreasing the upper 25% of by taxation and then giving benefits to the lower 25% does this.

As i see it now (if the graphic that was posted above is correct) Obama is trying to do this.

There are advantages and disadvantages by doing this though,

advan) the poorer 25% should now have more dispossable income - therefore GDP should now rise

disadvan) the richer might say "sod this, i'm moving to x country where they wont tax me"

so yea there are good things and bad things by doing such things but the general "net gain" is that GDP increases.



A little knowledge in Economics goes a long way.

A long way to showing how little you UNDERSTAND.

Regarless of what you "try to spread around", there will always be a "bottom 20%"...

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

No he stole from the rich, there was NO Government then, he stole from anyone who had riches, not exclusively those in power, however those particular people in power, abused their power so he saw it as an entitlement to take back what belonged to the people.....bottom line....agree with it or not, he was more popular with the majority!

dude... Robin Hood is a myth... a STORY.
And, there was Government... you might have heard that England was, for quite some time, A KINGDOM... and without government, how on earth was there a Sheriff?

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by niko084

It's a classic case of people making statements in a different time.

Another classic thing I like to say..

An old man with white hair said it, it must be true...

I make that joke religiously simply because I find it incredibly stupid that we always resort back to statements and things done many years ago and act accordingly, now learning from your past is one thing, but what about evolution and moving forward, some people literally hold themselves back from progression.

Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Communism failed last time someone tried, but Obama will be so much better at it?

[Polaris573]

Originally Posted by DaedalusHelios

Got a source on that? Thats alot of accusations.

Osama was an ally the United States used to fight the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. We provided weapons (stinger missiles to shoot down Mi-24 Helicopters), and training from U.S. special forces to him and his insurgents fighting the Soviets. Afghanistan rebels were able to eventually repel the Soviet invaders and their invasion of Afghanistan is believed by many to have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is well known information, if you want more facts I suggest you research that part of history yourself. We can't always be finding links for you.

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by DaedalusHelios

Got a source on that? Thats alot of accusations.

WOW. Its called common knowledge in these parts

[phanbuey]

"Soviet invaders and their invasion of Afghanistan is believed by many to have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union" Not really, it was the rotting economic core within the union. The Soviet Union collapsed economically, not militarily. But it's definitely true that Osama was US trained and armed as were his mujhadeen; the soviets had so few economic resources that they ended up sending disgruntled, undertrained, and under-equipt 18 year old kids to fight.


Obama is not a communist. Communist ideals spread and thrive in environments where there is a huge gap between the ritch and the average (ahem). By balancing the wealth, Obama is preserving capitalism rather than promoting an environment where the majority poor are getting progressively more pissed off at the system. Wait till 80% of the American population has no healthcare and live in poverty, AND HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. THEN you will see some communist ideals.

[Polaris573]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

"Soviet invaders and their invasion of Afghanistan is believed by many to have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union" Not really, it was the rotting economic core within the union. The Soviet Union collapsed economically, not militarily. But it's definitely true that Osama was US trained and armed as were his mujhadeen; the soviets had so few economic resources that they ended up sending disgruntled, undertrained, and under-equipt 18 year old kids to fight.

I never said it was the one and only reason. Still you do realize that wars cost money do you not? Can you not make the connection between spending large amounts of money on an unnecessary and futile war and its damage to an already unstable economy? All Soviet forces were finally withdrawn in 1989 with over 14,00 soldiers dead and only a handful of years before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet you're telling me that it did not contribute in any significant way to the collapse?

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Polaris573

I never said it was the one and only reason. Still you do realize that wars cost money do you not? Can you not make the connection between spending large amounts of money on an unnecessary and futile war and its damage to an already unstable economy? All Soviet forces were finally withdrawn in 1989 with over 14,00 soldiers dead and only a handful of years before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet you're telling me that it did not contribute in any significant way to the collapse?

Yeah I am. We were bleeding money since the 50's. The union would have collapsed with or without the war. I was one of the kids that waited in the breadlines. The problems ran much deeper than some wag the dog war that was designed to attract attention away from the misery of every day life. The loss of the Afghan war was a symptom of the collapse, not the other way around.

"The command-administrative model of war-communism hobbled economic development..."

---

Last edited by phanbuey; Oct 18, 2008 at 09:59 PM.

[Polaris573]

Over 100,000 soldiers deployed to a foreign nation for 10 years, with 14,000 dead, the loss of 147 tanks, 1315 APCs, 114 Airplanes, 333 Helicopters, and returning disillusioned veterans did in no way hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union?

[Bigjohn]

I'm sure it did, but the "government managed economy" had a lot more to do with it...

[Polaris573]

Please read my posts, it feels futile to discuss this if you guys don't. Never once did I say or imply that it was "the biggest reason" or "the only reason", only that it was a contributing factor.

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

I'm sure it did, but the "government managed economy" had a lot more to do with it...

Plus, I believe the US had influenced this managed economy to a GREAT degree by doing what we did back then...

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Polaris573

Over 100,000 soldiers deployed to a foreign nation for 10 years, with 14,000 dead, the loss of 147 tanks, 1315 APCs, 114 Airplanes, 333 Helicopters, and returning disillusioned veterans did in no way hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union?

I think you fail to understand that this is not "the straw that broke the camel's back." It was a camel who showed everyone that it had a broken back by not being able to even carry a straw.

First 25,000 died. but also:

1. 100000 soldiers is nothing. Literally, less than a fraction of the forces that could have been deployed - think for one second... The Red Army. US has more than that in Iraq and the Russians had a conscription based force and were next door to Afghanistan.

2. The Soviets occupied afghanistan just as Bush occupied Iraq, but the economy was long out of money. 100000 soldiers is nothing for an occupation. They had won initially, but could not unite/oppress the country, and Gorbachev grew impatient with the results.

Saying that it hastened the collapse is a cause-effect fallacy. Did it hasten it? Yes, but not for the reasons you argue. Only in the sense that it made it more aparant what a shitty situation the Union was in, rather than contributing to the shittiness of that situation. Glastnost and Perestroika's effects, as well as the percieved leniency of Gorby greatly overshadowed any effects of the afghan war.

The "contributing factor" is an argument in shades of gray. Each one of us can argue from our perspective and be completely correct. ITs just that from my point of view, the Afghan war did not contribute in a significant way to the collapse.

[Polaris573]

Okay, I think it's silly to think it had no effect and you think it's a silly idea that it did. I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. So I think it would be best just to get this thread back on topic. Good discussion though.

[WhiteLotus]

Originally Posted by das müffin mann

i like that last paragraph, nicely said

aye, i agree

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The first time he ran for President was in 2000. Bush basically killed McCain's campaign with negative ads coming to a head with this:

He was ruined after that. I don't like Bush...not one bit.

McCain is considerably better than Bush. That should be plainly obvious reading the history between them. Remember, the attacks Bush launched at McCain had McCain considering changing his party to Democrat. Apparently, the wounds that Bush created healed somewhat around 2003-2004 so McCain stayed Republican.

A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...CA1.ready.html

So this is the Second time McCain has ran for President? I did not know that at all, learn something new every day. As much as i do favour Obamas "reality" thinking, i can't but think that a guy with much more experience would do a better job.

Originally Posted by SK-1

Things must be different still, " over the pond". I "Mix" as you say with wealthy people about every day. I do 60 in a good year and the guy I most like to fish with is a multi-millionaire.(and a former boss)
I game with 3, six-digit income producers and my wife takes care of 2 elderly VERY rich people. We mix-a-lot

I do know snobbish rich ppl but they have never employed me and I would never socialize with them.

That's fair enough, i guess a better question i should have put was "how do you know such a person?"

I d apologise for any rudeness

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

In who's figment of imagination? Oh, that's right... Karl Marx...


A long way to showing how little you UNDERSTAND.

Regarless of what you "try to spread around", there will always be a "bottom 20%"...

Actually read the graph, if equal distribution is successful, then there will be no bottom or top 25%, every one will have the same. This is very "communist" like though which we all know on paper works well, but in real life on a grand scale seems to fail.

Oh and btw, I sit on the fence. There are both great points in Keynesian and neo-classical economics. The best for the economy is to use the best bits of both.

oh and also I have studied both micro and macro economics, so yea i do understand quite a bit about economics.

I do know for sure that whoever becomes President is going to have the worst time trying to reduce the tidal wave of crapness that the US economics has become - we haven't seen the worst of it yet. And this will be down to the mistakes that the Bush administration has made, whoever wins will inevitably get shafted.

[Bigjohn]

Actually read the graph, if equal distribution is successful, then there will be no bottom or top 25%, every one will have the same. This is very "communist" like though which we all know on paper works well, but in real life on a grand scale seems to fail.

Yeah... FAIR... that's what we need... FAIRness... LOL

Oh and btw, I sit on the fence. There are both great points in Keynesian and neo-classical economics. The best for the economy is to use the best bits of both.

Trickle down is the only thing that does work.
Here is a "story" to help all understand.

Bob has a good deal of money.... makes MORE than the 250k that obama want's to use as his rape limit... Bob has a nice house, bob has 3 cars and a boat. Let's say that Bob makes, for ease of calculating... 300,000. Under the current tax plan (Bush), Bob's after tax $ is (for round numbers), about 200,000. This is good for bob. Bob hires a gardning service to keep up his lawn. Bob has a detail service come to his house every week and clean his cars, and docks his boat in a slip at the lake. Bob likes to replace his car every 3 years too, and he's investing.

Along comes herr presidente obama...

Bob's income is still 300,000, but herr presidente obama allows the bush tax cuts to expire, remove the cap on social security taxes, and now BOB is taking home about 150,000.

Well, Now, Bob's a calculating man. Bob still wants to save and invest for his future, so he starts looking for ways to save that 50k that the government is now taking from him... so, he stops having his gardener come every week, now only every other week. And he decides to keep his cars for 4 years... and they don't need to be washed but every other week... and that expensive boat slip? Nope. Put the boat on the trailer and haul it back and forth - or just sell it outright... and so on.

How does that HURT the economy? Well, by raping BOB, he can no longer afford to pay Juan the gardener.. Juan just had his income from BOB cut in half. The car dealer will now sell fewer cars to guys like BOB... and the boat slip guy just lost a customer too. Perhaps bob won't remodel the cabinets in his kitchen either... and the carpets can last 'just a while longer'....

But of course, the government know better what to do with Bob's money.... After all, Bob was only 'spending it extravagantly' on selfish things... now, the government can use it to give food stamps... to Bob's gardener!

oh and also I have studied both micro and macro economics, so yea i do understand quite a bit about economics.

So you know this then:
Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned. (Source:http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm)

I do know for sure that whoever becomes President is going to have the worst time trying to reduce the tidal wave of crapness that the US economics has become - we haven't seen the worst of it yet. And this will be down to the mistakes that the Bush administration has made, whoever wins will inevitably get shafted.

Umm -
This shit storm mess was created by jimmy Carter, the democrats, and persisted under clinton, and the fantastic leadership of the Democrat controlled congress....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiEWC...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw...eature=related

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

Really, thats kind of inward looking, internationally it's just the opposite, most countries in Europe for example think he is inept...

Again, I didn't say he had a good Presidency (I'd argue that no President ever has as there is always opposition). I am saying he has authored a great deal of history for the better or for the worst.

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

Having said all that, I dont see those improvements in your day to day life you may have had from his 8 years but from much of what I read, things have pretty much slid downhill since 2001? Is that not true?

Personally, it is not true and I won't delve into details. Bush was alright. There was better (GHWB) and there was worse (Herbert Hoover).

Originally Posted by DaedalusHelios

Got a source on that? Thats alot of accusations.

You can find your own sources. I'm not going to waste time proving something I know to be factual.

Originally Posted by phanbuey

...the soviets had so few economic resources that they ended up sending disgruntled, undertrained, and under-equipt 18 year old kids to fight.

I wouldn't call them undertrained nor underequiped. A lot of military's around the world have a lot of 18 year olds enlisted. The reason they withdrew was mostly because of the guerilla tactics used by Afghans and the harsh terrain of the country. Had we not given them the weapons to take down helicopters and destroy tanks, they would have been crushed but, with those weapons, they could pick them off as fast as the Soviet Union could bring them in.

Edit: They also refuse to surrender...

Originally Posted by phanbuey

Obama is not a communist. Communist ideals spread and thrive in environments where there is a huge gap between the ritch and the average (ahem). By balancing the wealth, Obama is preserving capitalism rather than promoting an environment where the majority poor are getting progressively more pissed off at the system. Wait till 80% of the American population has no healthcare and live in poverty, AND HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. THEN you will see some communist ideals.

Who said he was a communist? He's a socialist running on a progressivism agenda...

Communism <- Socialism <- [Progressivism] <- [Liberalism] <- Capitalism

The Democratic party of the USA was Liberalist until about 1999 when they shifted towards progressivism (Source: Paul Begala, Democratic Strategist). Obama, being about the most left-leaning Senator in the US Senate coupled with his "spread the wealth" statements puts smack-dab on socialist. Even McCain is using the word "socialist" to attack Obama on the issue of taxes now. I don't remember the last time that happened in an election. It's scary...

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

dude... Robin Hood is a myth... a STORY.
And, there was Government... you might have heard that England was, for quite some time, A KINGDOM... and without government, how on earth was there a Sheriff?

The Sherrif was appointed by the King himself....thats King as in KINGdom, this country had no parliment until the 12th century......ohhhh and by the way, he was a REAL person and did exisit, at least in the form of Loxley, he was also actually part on the nobility himself.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/institution.cfm

Edit: I should have added that Robin Hood "the myth" is not necessarily the same as "Robin of Loxley", there is no absolute evidence they were the same person as in real person related to mythical person if you get my meaning.