Originally posted by Elly3438
Mattrock - well, if the president has nothing to do with the economy, then why is Bush giving money back to the people, AGAIN, when the country obviously can\'t afford it and it didn\'t do anything the first time. If the president just goes with the flow of things, then why have economic stimulus plans? I think the government can do stupid things to mess things up even more, and of course with a republican in office, the idea is to print print and print money, and get into more and more debt.... and eventually, the country will implode on itself and come crashing down.
And as for the ANWAR, leave it alone! Damn, do humans have to destroy EVERY part of the world for their greedy consumption and gas guzzling SUVs? Screw that, leave at least a few places in the world untainted by dirty human hands....
This just goes to support my point in so perfect a way that it would be amusing if not so distressing.
First of all, you didn\'t finish reading my post. I\'m not supporting Bush, just saying that he\'s not responsible for the current economic condition. I\'m saying that political rhetoric makes it look that way. And by political rhetoric, of course I mean the drivel that the news media and the opponents of any high level elected official feed to people who eat it up so readily when it fits their personal agenda. So allow me a moment to correct the rampant inaccuracies in your talking points.
1. Bush isn\'t giving money back to the people, the economic stimulus plan is a bipartisan effort that is just as heavily championed by Nancy Polosi (whom I\'m sure you have a much higher opinion of) as it is by Bush.
2. Saying that it didn\'t do anything the first time is partly accurate (which further goes to the credit of my point and the discredit of your assertion to the contrary) but hard to answer. I agree with this because what was given back was on such a small scale. The little rebate checks some got did not do much more than give us back some of the money that we paid in taxes before (which I certainly don\'t think is a bad thing because I\'ll guarantee you that I can use it more responsibly than can the government, be it democratic or republican. One more thing on this: the reason the country can\'t afford it has much less to do with taxation than it does with inappropriate government spending. Bush did a bad job with spending...so did virtually every president before him democratic and republican alike. The president isn\'t the problem, the government is.
3. the president doesn\'t just go with the flow of things (and if you\'d have read my entire post you would have seen me say this already). He can create policy that will help to prolong a good market and expedite a bad one...but he can\'t make policy that will eliminate either. If the greatest dem president that ever there was remained in office for eternity we would still have market cycles. We\'d still have recessions and expansions. That\'s reality and you won\'t get it in political rhetoric. Btw, this answers the question of \"why\" with the new economic stimulus plan: it is a bipartisan effort to delay the coming recession. And it will probably do just that: delay it...not stop it.
4. \"and of course with a republican in office, the idea is to print print and print money, and get into more and more debt.... and eventually, the country will implode on itself and come crashing down.\"
My answer: lol - I\'m not a republican (though I am conservative) but I\'d advise you to do your homework a little more thoroughly before making statements like this one. Generalizing to that extent really hurts credibility. Your homework assignment starts with FDR. Let us know what you learn.
5. and finally, ANWAR: dirty human hands? I have never understood the ultra left wing self-loathing thing so I\'m not sure how to answer this. This is the best I can do: :wow:
Now understand that I say all of this tongue in cheek and mainly to point out the ultra political influences in your arguments. IMHO (or who am I kidding, it\'s not so humble lol) these arguments are made from an emotional standpoint, meaning they are based on how you feel. As I mentioned in an earlier post emotion and logic don\'t play well together. Politics is emotion and economics is logic. That\'s why guys like Warren Buffet and Greenspan don\'t run for president and why folks like Obama turn down Wall Street jobs for political aspirations.
Hope I wasn\'t too harsh or offensive, it\'s just that I get so tired of hearing all the rhetoric and talking points from both sides. Some issues require us to put our hearts on the back burner in favor of our heads. :beer:
Edit: Voted and commented on your eldar. Beautiful work. Good to know we can disagree on the politics of economy and yet still agree on good taste in minis!
:beer:
