Here's one reason Kerry is doomed

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

“How can we trust President Bush to create 2.6 million jobs when he has the worst record since Herbert Hoover when it comes to the nation's economy? Since President Bush took office, the nation has lost 3 million jobs, the worst of the last 11 Presidents combined. The President’s answer to the staggering economy is more tax cuts for the rich and an ‘on your own’ message for average American families. Last year, the Bush Administration promised Americans they would create 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004. With their rate of return, this administration would be considered a bad investment.

:o

Is this guy for real?

Worst record since Herbert Hoover? Try to be serious for a second....

I thought the democrats had abandoned the "worst economy since the dawn of time :blah:" but it appears they are sticking to their "We don't know sh*t about economics" platform.

[2pac Shakur]

it appears they are sticking to their "We don't know sh*t about economics" platform.

Bush has been using it for 3.5 years now...

[Truth Soldier]

“How can we trust President Bush to create 2.6 million jobs when he has the worst record since Herbert Hoover when it comes to the nation's economy? Since President Bush took office, the nation has lost 3 million jobs, the worst of the last 11 Presidents combined. The President’s answer to the staggering economy is more tax cuts for the rich and an ‘on your own’ message for average American families. Last year, the Bush Administration promised Americans they would create 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004. With their rate of return, this administration would be considered a bad investment.

:o

Is this guy for real?

Worst record since Herbert Hoover? Try to be serious for a second....

I thought the democrats had abandoned the "worst economy since the dawn of time :blah:" but it appears they are sticking to their "We don't know sh*t about economics" platform.

Bush has the worst jobs record of any President since Hoover. And he has promised considerably more jobs than he has delivered. Boy Kerry sure is a moron for bringing these points up.

Keep the analysis coming.

[Branwell]

Worst record since Herbert Hoover? Try to be serious for a second....


I can't tell whether you are (a) denying that Bush is likely to be the first president since Hoover to preside over a decline in total employment (barring a sudden burst of job creation), or (b) saying that this one statistic cannot seriously be taken to indicate "the worst record since Herbert Hoover when it comes to the nation's economy."

If it's (a), then you appear to be mistaken, if I can believe all those news articles I've read making the same comparison.

If it's (b), then I'm inclined to agree with you. The change in total employment over a 4-year span is obviously not the only economic indicator of importance, and in any case the decline during Bush's administration has been much smaller than that during Hoover's.

[Griffin 5]

The "worst record since Hoover" charge might be more impressive if we did not hear it every 4 years. It's kind of like the "he's another Hitler" and the "this will be another Vietnam" charges.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

when he has the worst record since Herbert Hoover when it comes to the nation's economy? Since President Bush took office, the nation has lost 3 million jobs, the worst of the last 11 Presidents combined. The President’s answer to the staggering economy is more tax cuts for the ...


Clearly, Kerry is trying to say that this is a terrible economy we are in. He ISN'T trying to say "according to ONE statistic, Bush is doing terrible, while according to all the other, more relevant statistics, he is doing great".

[2pac Shakur]

The "worst record since Hoover" charge might be more impressive if we did not hear it every 4 years. It's kind of like the "he's another Hitler" and the "this will be another Vietnam" charges.

Anybody say these things after Clinton's first term?

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

And, WRT, "the largest declines".

It is measured against historically low unemployment (during, yes I admit it, the Clinton years). Try to keep that in mind,

[Griffin 5]

The "worst record since Hoover" charge might be more impressive if we did not hear it every 4 years. It's kind of like the "he's another Hitler" and the "this will be another Vietnam" charges.

Anybody say these things after Clinton's first term?No, they didn't. Usually campaigning is done near the end of a Presidential term.

[2pac Shakur]

The "worst record since Hoover" charge might be more impressive if we did not hear it every 4 years. It's kind of like the "he's another Hitler" and the "this will be another Vietnam" charges.

Anybody say these things after Clinton's first term?No, they didn't. Usually campaigning is done near the end of a Presidential term.

No campaigning after Clinton's first term?

[Griffin 5]

If by "campaigning" you mean the normal stuff that goes on in Washington to support or oppose bills, the yes there was campaigning. But if you are talking election-related campaigning, then there was no campaigning (for federal offices) until around a year and a half after his first term ended.

[whisper]

The U.S. economy is a behemoth. According the President any but the tiniest bit of influence over the economy is foolish. This is a two way street. Bush is no more responsible for the poor economy the Clinton was responsible for the good economy.

As for it being as bad as Hoover, come on. The current U.S. economy is so much larger than it was in Hoover's time it isn't even comparable. 2M lost jobs is a much higher percentage in the past than it is now.

Here are some links:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=101

Whether Bush gains or loses jobs during his tenure, the fact is that unemployment has been – compared to past downturns – relatively mild. In fact, the economy lost a smaller percentage of jobs in the Bush downturn than in seven of the ten previous downturns going back to 1945 when the federal government began keeping the statistics on total nonfarm employment. (see table)

Look at the what also preceded this downturn. Hundreds of people were employed in the dot-com boom doing jobs in companies that had no means of making money. Sure, they were "employed." But, it wasn't going to last. Ignoring how foolish the dot-com boom was further distorts these numbers.

There are a lot of things Bush should be blamed for. The economy isn't one of them. (Mind you, were the economy booming and the Republicans were crowing at how great Bush was b/c of the economy, I'd be writing about how foolish THAT line of B.S. is.)

[Guerilla poster]

Oh right, Kerry should be as factually correct as Bush always is.

[Moe Szyslak]

when he has the worst record since Herbert Hoover when it comes to the nation's economy? Since President Bush took office, the nation has lost 3 million jobs, the worst of the last 11 Presidents combined. The President’s answer to the staggering economy is more tax cuts for the ...


Clearly, Kerry is trying to say that this is a terrible economy we are in. He ISN'T trying to say "according to ONE statistic, Bush is doing terrible, while according to all the other, more relevant statistics, he is doing great".
I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about unemployment.

He never said the economy sucked. I think what he was saying was that Bush gave out big tax cuts to the rich to fix the economy, and as far as jobs are concerned, it has done nothing.

[O. Hannah]

I got tax cuts and I'm not rich.
My friend got tax cuts and he's not rich.
Also, how you gonna give tax cuts to folks that barely pay tax as it is.
Have I stumbled into the world socialist forum?

I have ZERO problem with tax cuts...so you realize how ridiculous it sounds to complain about tax cuts?

Now SPENDING is another topic...I give Bush a D- on this one. I cannot fathom getting bent out of shape over penny tax cuts while there is pound spending. :roll:

[Renshi G]

Have I stumbled into the world socialist forum?


Welcome! :D

[2pac Shakur]

I got tax cuts and I'm not rich.
My friend got tax cuts and he's not rich.
Also, how you gonna give tax cuts to folks that barely pay tax as it is.
Have I stumbled into the world socialist forum?

I have ZERO problem with tax cuts...so you realize how ridiculous it sounds to complain about tax cuts?

Now SPENDING is another topic...I give Bush a D- on this one. I cannot fathom getting bent out of shape over penny tax cuts while there is pound spending. :roll:

I'm no economist, but I keep wondering, "Where is Ross Perot (news - web sites) when we need him?" The deficit is big, and yet we keep spending while simultaneously cutting taxes. The government tells us that the tax cuts are working. Consumer spending and business investment are up, and jobs may not be far behind. But I have a sneaky suspicion it's really the spending that's doing the trick.


Keynesian economics, as I understand it, proposes that in down times, what the government should do is "prime the pump." That was the general theory behind the famed WPA program that helped to end the Great Depression. To promote employment, Keynes declared that the government must spend to create jobs, decent-paying ones at that. As folks' incomes improve, so their purchasing increases, creating demand for goods and services, thereby creating more jobs.


SUDDENLY, THE CASH FLOWS. Since the mid-Thirties, this neoclassical view of economics prevailed. That is, until Reagan and now, Bush. It seems to me altogether possible that the tax cuts, based on newfangled, unproven "supply side" economics, do not work -- or do not work fast enough, anyway. So say I'm right, and acknowledge that the Administration is facing an election year: While continuing to pledge allegiance to the tax cuts, it does a quiet about face and begins to spend. Because spending works.
[...]

DOO-DOO ECONOMICS. One month after signing the new $400 billion drug bill, it turns out the actual cost will run $134 billion more than promised. Now, the president plans to increase spending on missiles, from $75 billion to more than $90 billion, a 20% increase this year. That's part of a $400 billion-plus defense bill, not including last fall's $87 billion for continuing operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) or further appropriations slated for after the November election. He wants $120 million for "healthy marriages," as opposed to the unhealthy kind -- the GOP accuses Democrats of social engineering!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bw/20040212/bs_bw/sb200402105333sb002

[Moe Szyslak]

I got tax cuts and I'm not rich.
My friend got tax cuts and he's not rich.
Also, how you gonna give tax cuts to folks that barely pay tax as it is.
Have I stumbled into the world socialist forum?

I have ZERO problem with tax cuts...so you realize how ridiculous it sounds to complain about tax cuts?

Now SPENDING is another topic...I give Bush a D- on this one. I cannot fathom getting bent out of shape over penny tax cuts while there is pound spending. :roll:

If someone cuts taxes to achieve stated goal A, and it doesn't achieve goal A, but achieves/moves toward secondary goal B which is a long term, not so publicly stated goal of a party platform, I think a valid complaint can be made.

Everyone got a tax cut, it was supposed to create jobs. It didn't. If you say they are finally taking effect, nice try, the first round of cuts was 30 months ago.

A agree that spending is rediculous. It is the bigger problem of the equation. IMO, spend more, tax less is more of an effort to win an approval rating than anything else. Today's government is a long way away from what I think the constitution stands for, and that is to make the best decision for the country regardless of opinion. I hope term limits never go away, that way we only have to deal with this BS for first term presidents. It is almost enough to rationalize voting for Bush in the hopes that he will stop buying everyone off his second term. IMO, he is spending 500 billion in future taxpayer money on his campaign this year.

Of course once you put Kerry in there, he could very easily do the same thing. Of course, there are many other reasons to choose Kerry over Bush that more than make up for this non-risk.

[IAm@Work.com]

Everyone got a tax cut, No, they didn't. Only the people who pay income taxes got a cut.
it was supposed to create jobsNo, it was supposed to stimulate the economy.
. It didn't.Or did, no one is sure as ours is too complex an economy to equate every outcome with one specific input.

A agree that spending is ridiculous.You got that right. How much more ridiculous spending do you think Congress would approve without the cuts?

Two points to make:
- No matter how much you want to blame the president, he does not spend any money that Congress does not appropriate. It's Congress's fault our spending it out of control, not the President's. It has been out of control my entire life, BTW, and I am probably as old as any two average posters to this forum.

- If you think the thing under discussion is unemployment, I would like to know why the current 6.2% unemployment is the "worst since Hover" when it was almost 11% in late 1982. Did Hover serve at a different time than I thought? Highest unemployment soon after the war was 7.9 in October 1949. Don't they mean "worst since Reagan"?

[TwistedMentat]

That was the general theory behind the famed WPA program that helped to end the Great Depression.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bw/20040212/bs_bw/sb200402105333sb002Amazing how Lisa can make a throw off comment like this and treat a highly debatable issue as fact. Many economic researchers have concluded that WPA and other aspects of the New Deal actually deepened and extended the Great Depression. These analysts credit WWII with actually sparking the economic growth to end the Depression.

[Harry]

Everyone got a tax cut, No, they didn't. Only the people who pay income taxes got a cut.
it was supposed to create jobsNo, it was supposed to stimulate the economy.
. It didn't.Or did, no one is sure as ours is too complex an economy to equate every outcome with one specific input.

A agree that spending is ridiculous.You got that right. How much more ridiculous spending do you think Congress would approve without the cuts?

Two points to make:
- No matter how much you want to blame the president, he does not spend any money that Congress does not appropriate. It's Congress's fault our spending it out of control, not the President's. It has been out of control my entire life, BTW, and I am probably as old as any two average posters to this forum.

- If you think the thing under discussion is unemployment, I would like to know why the current 6.2% unemployment is the "worst since Hover" when it was almost 11% in late 1982. Did Hover serve at a different time than I thought? Highest unemployment soon after the war was 7.9 in October 1949. Don't they mean "worst since Reagan"?

Only if you think the unemployment numbers you quote reflect the actual number of people without a job.

[Tim><]

Everyone got a tax cut, No, they didn't. Only the people who pay income taxes got a cut.
it was supposed to create jobsNo, it was supposed to stimulate the economy.
. It didn't.Or did, no one is sure as ours is too complex an economy to equate every outcome with one specific input.

A agree that spending is ridiculous.You got that right. How much more ridiculous spending do you think Congress would approve without the cuts?

Two points to make:
- No matter how much you want to blame the president, he does not spend any money that Congress does not appropriate. It's Congress's fault our spending it out of control, not the President's. It has been out of control my entire life, BTW, and I am probably as old as any two average posters to this forum.

- If you think the thing under discussion is unemployment, I would like to know why the current 6.2% unemployment is the "worst since Hover" when it was almost 11% in late 1982. Did Hover serve at a different time than I thought? Highest unemployment soon after the war was 7.9 in October 1949. Don't they mean "worst since Reagan"?

Only if you think the unemployment numbers you quote reflect the actual number of people without a job.

You have absolutely lost your mind. Do you actually think that the percentage of people without a job under the 11% unemployment in 1982 is less than the percentage of people without a job under the current 5.6% unemployment?

Do accuracy, believability or perspective even enter into your thought process? Or are you merely a less appealing, less funny Tupac?

[Harry]

Everyone got a tax cut, No, they didn't. Only the people who pay income taxes got a cut.
it was supposed to create jobsNo, it was supposed to stimulate the economy.
. It didn't.Or did, no one is sure as ours is too complex an economy to equate every outcome with one specific input.

A agree that spending is ridiculous.You got that right. How much more ridiculous spending do you think Congress would approve without the cuts?

Two points to make:
- No matter how much you want to blame the president, he does not spend any money that Congress does not appropriate. It's Congress's fault our spending it out of control, not the President's. It has been out of control my entire life, BTW, and I am probably as old as any two average posters to this forum.

- If you think the thing under discussion is unemployment, I would like to know why the current 6.2% unemployment is the "worst since Hover" when it was almost 11% in late 1982. Did Hover serve at a different time than I thought? Highest unemployment soon after the war was 7.9 in October 1949. Don't they mean "worst since Reagan"?

Only if you think the unemployment numbers you quote reflect the actual number of people without a job.

You have absolutely lost your mind. Do you actually think that the percentage of people without a job under the 11% unemployment in 1982 is less than the percentage of people without a job under the current 5.6% unemployment?

Do accuracy, believability or perspective even enter into your thought process? Or are you merely a less appealing, less funny Tupac?

Good one. Speaking of less funny...

[Tim><]

Everyone got a tax cut, No, they didn't. Only the people who pay income taxes got a cut.
it was supposed to create jobsNo, it was supposed to stimulate the economy.
. It didn't.Or did, no one is sure as ours is too complex an economy to equate every outcome with one specific input.

A agree that spending is ridiculous.You got that right. How much more ridiculous spending do you think Congress would approve without the cuts?

Two points to make:
- No matter how much you want to blame the president, he does not spend any money that Congress does not appropriate. It's Congress's fault our spending it out of control, not the President's. It has been out of control my entire life, BTW, and I am probably as old as any two average posters to this forum.

- If you think the thing under discussion is unemployment, I would like to know why the current 6.2% unemployment is the "worst since Hover" when it was almost 11% in late 1982. Did Hover serve at a different time than I thought? Highest unemployment soon after the war was 7.9 in October 1949. Don't they mean "worst since Reagan"?

Only if you think the unemployment numbers you quote reflect the actual number of people without a job.

You have absolutely lost your mind. Do you actually think that the percentage of people without a job under the 11% unemployment in 1982 is less than the percentage of people without a job under the current 5.6% unemployment?

Do accuracy, believability or perspective even enter into your thought process? Or are you merely a less appealing, less funny Tupac?

[Harry]

Everyone got a tax cut, No, they didn't. Only the people who pay income taxes got a cut.
it was supposed to create jobsNo, it was supposed to stimulate the economy.
. It didn't.Or did, no one is sure as ours is too complex an economy to equate every outcome with one specific input.

A agree that spending is ridiculous.You got that right. How much more ridiculous spending do you think Congress would approve without the cuts?

Two points to make:
- No matter how much you want to blame the president, he does not spend any money that Congress does not appropriate. It's Congress's fault our spending it out of control, not the President's. It has been out of control my entire life, BTW, and I am probably as old as any two average posters to this forum.

- If you think the thing under discussion is unemployment, I would like to know why the current 6.2% unemployment is the "worst since Hover" when it was almost 11% in late 1982. Did Hover serve at a different time than I thought? Highest unemployment soon after the war was 7.9 in October 1949. Don't they mean "worst since Reagan"?

Only if you think the unemployment numbers you quote reflect the actual number of people without a job.

You have absolutely lost your mind. Do you actually think that the percentage of people without a job under the 11% unemployment in 1982 is less than the percentage of people without a job under the current 5.6% unemployment?

Do accuracy, believability or perspective even enter into your thought process? Or are you merely a less appealing, less funny Tupac?


Good one. Speaking of less funny...

[Tim><]

IOW, you have confirmed all of our suspicions. Congratulations!!! :band1:

[yoyo]

Everyone got a tax cut, No, they didn't. Only the people who pay income taxes got a cut.
it was supposed to create jobsNo, it was supposed to stimulate the economy.
. It didn't.Or did, no one is sure as ours is too complex an economy to equate every outcome with one specific input.

A agree that spending is ridiculous.You got that right. How much more ridiculous spending do you think Congress would approve without the cuts?

Two points to make:
- No matter how much you want to blame the president, he does not spend any money that Congress does not appropriate. It's Congress's fault our spending it out of control, not the President's. It has been out of control my entire life, BTW, and I am probably as old as any two average posters to this forum.

- If you think the thing under discussion is unemployment, I would like to know why the current 6.2% unemployment is the "worst since Hover" when it was almost 11% in late 1982. Did Hover serve at a different time than I thought? Highest unemployment soon after the war was 7.9 in October 1949. Don't they mean "worst since Reagan"?

Only if you think the unemployment numbers you quote reflect the actual number of people without a job.

You have absolutely lost your mind. Do you actually think that the percentage of people without a job under the 11% unemployment in 1982 is less than the percentage of people without a job under the current 5.6% unemployment?

Do accuracy, believability or perspective even enter into your thought process? Or are you merely a less appealing, less funny Tupac?

Don't you know that this economy is so severly bad and the downturn so very deep that bajillions of people HAVE STOPED LOOKING FOR WORK at rates far, far higher than any point in time since the earth cooled?! That's why you can't compare 11+% with 5+%. Geez, what a dolt.

[Tim><]

Stupid me :duh:

[yoyo]

Stupid me :duh:

Yeah, I can't believe you missed seeing the endless soup lines.

[Tim><]

Stupid me :duh:

Yeah, I can't believe you missed seeing the endless soup lines.

I thought all of those people were on line for job interviews :-?

[Ronald Reagan]

He never said the economy sucked. I think what he was saying was that Bush gave out big tax cuts to the rich to fix the economy, and as far as jobs are concerned, it has done nothing.

No, but I'm sure many people liked being trickled on.

[Harry]

Stupid me :duh:

The most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Congratulations Jud.

[Basso]

Stupid me :duh:

The most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Congratulations Jud.

Don't worry Harry. Someday you will also have an intelligent post. I mean...Its bound to happen if you just keep posting. :roll:

[Harry]

Stupid me :duh:

The most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Congratulations Jud.

Don't worry Harry. Someday you will also have an intelligent post. I mean...Its bound to happen if you just keep posting. :roll:

Good one. :roll:

[Tim><]

Stupid me :duh:

The most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Congratulations Jud.

Don't worry Harry. Someday you will also have an intelligent post. I mean...Its bound to happen if you just keep posting. :roll:

Good one. :roll:

Who will vouch for Harry? He is dying here . . .

[Abducens]

Count your blessings. He's so intimidated by DP and myself that he won't even talk to us anymore. At least you still get his dancing bear routine.

[Will Durant]

Stupid me :duh:

The most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Congratulations Jud.

Don't worry Harry. Someday you will also have an intelligent post. I mean...Its bound to happen if you just keep posting. :roll:

Good one. :roll:

Who will vouch for Harry? He is dying here . . .
I will stick up for Harry . . .

Harry is right. Dogboy is wrong.

Harry will NEVER have an intelligent post even if he keeps posting until the SOA stops messing around with their E&E system.

[2pac Shakur]

The U.S. economy is a behemoth. According the President any but the tiniest bit of influence over the economy is foolish. This is a two way street. Bush is no more responsible for the poor economy the Clinton was responsible for the good economy.


Tell that to W please...

By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.

It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.

The issue here goes beyond using the Government Printing Office to publish campaign brochures. In this budget, as in almost everything it does, the Bush administration tries to blur the line between reverence for the office of president and reverence for the person who currently holds that office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/opinion/13KRUG.html

[Tim><]

The U.S. economy is a behemoth. According the President any but the tiniest bit of influence over the economy is foolish. This is a two way street. Bush is no more responsible for the poor economy the Clinton was responsible for the good economy.


Tell that to W please...

By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.

It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.

The issue here goes beyond using the Government Printing Office to publish campaign brochures. In this budget, as in almost everything it does, the Bush administration tries to blur the line between reverence for the office of president and reverence for the person who currently holds that office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/opinion/13KRUG.html

I agree that Bush is wrongfully taking credit for natural improvements in the economy. This is a trait common to all politicians, though. It's really nothing more than survival instinct. If a sitting president is going to blamed for anything that goes wrong during his administration, he has to take credit for everything tha goes right.

[Harry]

Count your blessings. He's so intimidated by DP and myself that he won't even talk to us anymore. At least you still get his dancing bear routine.

Ooh, I'm soooo scared! That's why I won't talk to you anymore. Don't hurt me, please?

[Tim><]

Oh boy! The previews are over - here comes the show.

[Harry]

Stupid me :duh:

The most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Congratulations Jud.

Don't worry Harry. Someday you will also have an intelligent post. I mean...Its bound to happen if you just keep posting. :roll:

Good one. :roll:

Who will vouch for Harry? He is dying here . . .
I will stick up for Harry . . .

Harry is right. Dogboy is wrong.

Harry will NEVER have an intelligent post even if he keeps posting until the SOA stops messing around with their E&amp;E system.

Here's one: Abe Lincoln was a terrible president.




:crazy:

[Tim><]

a swing and a miss

[Harry]

Oh boy! The previews are over - here comes the show.

Move along, nothing to see here folks. Unless you like watching a donkey kiss an ass. Oh no, another homosexual reference! Watch out for the righteous indignation in stereo.

[Harry]

a swing and a miss

Oh, I think Yoda will agree with statement.

[Tim><]

Three strikes! One out.

[2pac Shakur]

The U.S. economy is a behemoth. According the President any but the tiniest bit of influence over the economy is foolish. This is a two way street. Bush is no more responsible for the poor economy the Clinton was responsible for the good economy.


Tell that to W please...

By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.

It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.

The issue here goes beyond using the Government Printing Office to publish campaign brochures. In this budget, as in almost everything it does, the Bush administration tries to blur the line between reverence for the office of president and reverence for the person who currently holds that office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/opinion/13KRUG.html

I agree that Bush is wrongfully taking credit for natural improvements in the economy. This is a trait common to all politicians, though. It's really nothing more than survival instinct. If a sitting president is going to blamed for anything that goes wrong during his administration, he has to take credit for everything tha goes right.

As soon as something goes right, I'm sure he will try to take credit.
Luckily, he will probably have been voted out of office by then.

[Abducens]

Count your blessings. He's so intimidated by DP and myself that he won't even talk to us anymore. At least you still get his dancing bear routine.

Ooh, I'm soooo scared! That's why I won't talk to you anymore. Don't hurt me, please?

Move along, nothing to see here folks. Unless you like watching a donkey kiss an ass. Oh no, another homosexual reference!

Ding! I win! Man, you make it too easy. :lol:

[Abducens]

Oh, don't feel like talking anymore? Guess you're turning tail and running just like in that Sports thread.

Glad you still know when you're outmatched. :lol: Another win for old Abducens.

[Harry]

Oh, don't feel like talking anymore? Guess you're turning tail and running just like in that Sports thread.

Glad you still know when you're outmatched. :lol: Another win for old Abducens.

Wow, looks like someone needs validation. I think I'll quit my job and just respond to you all day. Would that be ok?

Oh yeah, almost forgot. You win! Feel better?

[Abducens]

Uh oh! He's back! Step right up and see Harry the amazing pathetic poster try to salvage his dignity! :lol:

[Harry]

:cry: You hurt me so much. :cry:

[Abducens]

:lol: I know.

[4sigma]

Stupid me :duh:

The most intelligent thing you have ever posted. Congratulations Jud.

Don't worry Harry. Someday you will also have an intelligent post. I mean...Its bound to happen if you just keep posting. :roll:

Good one. :roll:

Who will vouch for Harry? He is dying here . . .
I will stick up for Harry . . .

Harry is right. Dogboy is wrong.

Harry will NEVER have an intelligent post even if he keeps posting until the SOA stops messing around with their E&E system.

You may find the following link helpful in projecting the likelihood of Harry ever having an intelligent post. http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys. The link refers to monkeys and Shakespeare, but the parallels to Harry and intelligent posting are clearly sufficiently similar that it can be used as a good first-order approximation.

[Tim><]

Ciò è troppo divertente!

[Harry]

Ciò è troppo divertente!

Not really.

[Tim><]

:lol:

[Tim><]

:bump: for Shekky

[Harry]

:bump: for Jud

[fallout]

:bump:

For the hell of it.

[Tim><]

:bump: for M&R

[Harry]

Laugh now if you want, but wait until your boy starts spending his $180 million. There will be plenty of laughs to go around.

[fallout]

Laugh now if you want, but wait until your boy starts spending his $180 million. There will be plenty of laughs to go around.

Unfortunately even if he is undeserving of a second term, $180 mill goes a long way towards getting just that.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Also, how you gonna give tax cuts to folks that barely pay tax as it is.


:bump: for this post. This is a keeper.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

:bump: for Shekky

Thanks. I think. Not sure what I did to deserve this--but I thank you.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

So, I read something somewhere where Kerry was lambasting Bush for going to Daytona. He said something like "in the time that Bush spent in Daytona, we lost X manufacturing jobs." Does this imply that if Bush had not gone to Daytona, we would still have those jobs? ...


I missed so many good posts...


My favorite, though, was when he said - after just having linked lost jobs to Bush at Daytona - that the American people are tired of negative campaigning and accusations.



Ah...that would be the "politics of personal destruction".

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Laugh now if you want, but wait until your boy starts spending his $180 million. There will be plenty of laughs to go around.

I have no illusions that the GOP will not put Kerry in a negative light. Name a single politician that hasn't done the same to their opponent. It works.

I just laugh at Mr. High and Mighty Kerry claiming the high road approximately three seconds after linking Bush's appearance at Daytona with lost jobs. At least wait a few minutes between comments.

Plus, the more palatable way to smear your opponent is to never mention his name directly, but have your operatives leak a bunch of damaging information about him at opportune moments.

Kerry's "alpha male" routine (where he says the word "fight" in every sentence) seems like someone desperately attempting to sound tough. Other war heroes never went that far out of their way to let people know how tough they were--like Kennedy, Dole, Bush I, etc....