Are you kidding me the conservatives at a boy network puts Bush job rating at 33%. Will he reach Carters 30%. Of course when those who work for you cant even announce the correct national anthem for the President from China. Fire that Rove guy. They only planned for this visit for 6 months. Just more waist.
Fox News Bush At 33%
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
Doesn't surprise DJV
-When asked in an open-ended question which is the most important problem facing the country today,respondents to a recent CBS News poll named "economy/jobs" second after the Iraq war - and ahead of immigration, terrorism, and healthcare.
yet--In many ways, they say, these are the best of times: Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, lower than the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. The economy is showing strong, consistent growth, without significant inflation. And the stock market is roaring along.
add to that lowest interest rates in decades--highest home ownership ever---
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/p01s02-usec.html
-When asked in an open-ended question which is the most important problem facing the country today,respondents to a recent CBS News poll named "economy/jobs" second after the Iraq war - and ahead of immigration, terrorism, and healthcare.
yet--In many ways, they say, these are the best of times: Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, lower than the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. The economy is showing strong, consistent growth, without significant inflation. And the stock market is roaring along.
add to that lowest interest rates in decades--highest home ownership ever---
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/p01s02-usec.html
Doesn't surprise DJV
-When asked in an open-ended question which is the most important problem facing the country today,respondents to a recent CBS News poll named "economy/jobs" second after the Iraq war - and ahead of immigration, terrorism, and healthcare.
yet--In many ways, they say, these are the best of times: Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, lower than the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. The economy is showing strong, consistent growth, without significant inflation. And the stock market is roaring along.
add to that lowest interest rates in decades--highest home ownership ever---
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/p01s02-usec.html
additional notes of interest----
Bush Bashing
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has blasted the Bush administration for not allegedly taking the lead in the international effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, saying the reliance on European allies to convince Iran to give up its enrichment program "shows the Bush failure in foreign policy there and elsewhere."
But when asked in 2003 whether he would support a strike against North Korea to eliminate their nuclear arsenal, Reid said, "We cannot be the lone ranger in all these problems of international terrorism. We need this community of world support."
---I'm waiting for Kerry and Hilliaryto jump in on same issue
Online Offensive
Posters on liberal Web logs this week are calling Vice President Cheney a "reprehensible hypocrite," who is "totally devoid of any moral values," and a "Scheming, selfish, arrogant, lying, smug, law breaking, law exploiting war criminal."
Such remarks may not be unusual in the blogosphere, but you may ask what the vice president did to provoke such vitriol. Turns out, the posters were upset over Cheney's tax returns, which show Cheney gave 77 percent of his 2005 income to charity and availed himself of a Hurricane Katrina-inspired law allowing citizens to deduct more than the usual 50 percent of income donated to charitable causes.
-When asked in an open-ended question which is the most important problem facing the country today,respondents to a recent CBS News poll named "economy/jobs" second after the Iraq war - and ahead of immigration, terrorism, and healthcare.
yet--In many ways, they say, these are the best of times: Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, lower than the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. The economy is showing strong, consistent growth, without significant inflation. And the stock market is roaring along.
add to that lowest interest rates in decades--highest home ownership ever---
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/p01s02-usec.html
additional notes of interest----
Bush Bashing
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has blasted the Bush administration for not allegedly taking the lead in the international effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, saying the reliance on European allies to convince Iran to give up its enrichment program "shows the Bush failure in foreign policy there and elsewhere."
But when asked in 2003 whether he would support a strike against North Korea to eliminate their nuclear arsenal, Reid said, "We cannot be the lone ranger in all these problems of international terrorism. We need this community of world support."
---I'm waiting for Kerry and Hilliaryto jump in on same issue
Online Offensive
Posters on liberal Web logs this week are calling Vice President Cheney a "reprehensible hypocrite," who is "totally devoid of any moral values," and a "Scheming, selfish, arrogant, lying, smug, law breaking, law exploiting war criminal."
Such remarks may not be unusual in the blogosphere, but you may ask what the vice president did to provoke such vitriol. Turns out, the posters were upset over Cheney's tax returns, which show Cheney gave 77 percent of his 2005 income to charity and availed himself of a Hurricane Katrina-inspired law allowing citizens to deduct more than the usual 50 percent of income donated to charitable causes.
It's easier then we think. Iraq a screw up. Gas was $1.45 when Bush took office today its $3.00. Health car up almost 100% for many in last 4 years. And our borders are sieves. The screw up with Katrina. And first time in 20 years take home pay dropped even with so called tax breaks for everyone. And interest rates are back up and that just another way to say tax. But mainly it's Iraq the border and energy.
---Bush and gas price
Share with us how any adinistration has anything to do with price of oil? I can think of 2 possibilties --home drilling and refineries which was voted DOWN by dems.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Health care up almost 100% for many in last 4 years
When is last year health care had decrease. What do you think it did under Clinton or anyone else--and you can bet the ranch it won't change next admin regardless of who wins.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The borders--under which admin were they secure??
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Katrina---We certainlly differ here--I blame storm and levees on catastrophe
Share with us how any adinistration has anything to do with price of oil? I can think of 2 possibilties --home drilling and refineries which was voted DOWN by dems.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Health care up almost 100% for many in last 4 years
When is last year health care had decrease. What do you think it did under Clinton or anyone else--and you can bet the ranch it won't change next admin regardless of who wins.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The borders--under which admin were they secure??
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Katrina---We certainlly differ here--I blame storm and levees on catastrophe
All I know when Bush and Cheney were elected. A talking head now has his own show mad money. Said buy Halburten and Ex/Mobile. Did he know something. Anyway you know how it works. Your in office's it's happening on your watch. You get both the good and bad of things. And right now folks seem to missed any good ones.
What Dogs fails to understand is that the hated Dems are not in charge of anything. Even Clinton's years were stifled by a Republican Congress. Bush has had EVERYTHING his way since 9-11 and EVERYTHING is a mess. Irag is a sick joke, health care a complete mess, borders a joke, FEMA useless, and don't forget things like FEMA and borders and security were supposed to get top attention because everything changed since 9-11.
Depends why it would be down to 1% Smurph
If its because public blames him for price of oil-Katrina-borders and thinks economy is in shambles--you are correct I'd be in the 1 %.
I can understand those opposing war but gas prices -economy-crime-education ect can't see how objective person would have complaint.
How can you blame an admin for price of oil--now if Admin passed an additional 50 cent gas tax like Kerry and Dems tried to slip through in Clinton era I would say yes.
Only 2 areas I have been very unhappy with in this admin--the expanding of medicare benefits--and the flop in general of GOP's contract with america. Not so much on war spending and the catastrophes that ate up huge sums--but the pork barrell spending which has escalated substantially during this admins watch.
If its because public blames him for price of oil-Katrina-borders and thinks economy is in shambles--you are correct I'd be in the 1 %.
I can understand those opposing war but gas prices -economy-crime-education ect can't see how objective person would have complaint.
How can you blame an admin for price of oil--now if Admin passed an additional 50 cent gas tax like Kerry and Dems tried to slip through in Clinton era I would say yes.
Only 2 areas I have been very unhappy with in this admin--the expanding of medicare benefits--and the flop in general of GOP's contract with america. Not so much on war spending and the catastrophes that ate up huge sums--but the pork barrell spending which has escalated substantially during this admins watch.
DOGS THAT BARK said:
We went through this one before, but some seem to have short memories. From Factcheck.org.
----
Kerry once voiced support for a 50-cent increase in the gasoline tax. Bush calls that "wacky," but Bush's chief economist praised the idea.
March 30, 2004
Modified: March 30, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version
Summary
A Bush ad released March 30 attacked Kerry for once supporting the "wacky" idea of raising the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. That was a decade ago. More recently, the man who later became Bush's own chief economist said higher gasoline taxes would lead to "less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming" and that raising gasoline taxes 50 cents to pay for a cut in income-tax rates "may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer." How "wacky" is that?
Analysis
As we've noted before , Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon. Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76.
Bush Cheney '04 Ad
"Wacky"
Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approved this ad.
Announcer: Some people have wacky ideas. Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That?s John Kerry. He supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. If Kerry?s tax increase were law, the average family wouldpay $657 more a year.
Raising taxes is a habit of Kerry?s. He supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times. Maybe John Kerry just doesn?t understand what his ideas mean to the rest of us.
Good Policy or "Wacky" Idea?
The Bush ad ridicules Kerry for "wacky ideas" such as "taxing gasoline more so people drive less." Taxing gasoline is surely unpopular, and never more so than now when prices are hitting record levels. But "wacky?" In fact, the idea of raising gasoline taxes was praised in 1999 by Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, who is now the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
Mankiw wrote a Fortune magazine piece that carried the headline: "Tax Gas Now!"
Mankiw: Let's cut income taxes by 10% and finance it with a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax. . . .
Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer.
From Bush's chief economist:
Fortune issue: May 24, 1999
ECONOMICS
Gas Tax Now!
First Principles
By N. Gregory Mankiw
Many members of Congress have been pushing for a cut in income taxes, but they've been unsure how to pay for it. Fortunately, I've figured out an answer: with a tax increase. Let's cut income taxes by 10% and finance it with a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax.
Yes, I know, this may sound like one of those pantywaist ideas only a pointy-headed Cambridge academic can love. But hear me out: By marrying the tax-cutting logic of the Republican right with the environmental concerns of the Democratic left, this might be a package that works for both.
Any would-be tax cutter faces a basic problem: Taxes are at a historical high as a percentage of national income, and the government is running a budget surplus, but cutting taxes somehow seems fiscally irresponsible. The explanation is that the impending retirement of the baby boom, together with the existing commitments to Social Security and Medicare, make the federal government's long-term fiscal position tenuous at best. The era of big government, rather than being over, as President Clinton once claimed, is very much with us.
The debate over tax policy, therefore, needs to go beyond arguments about the level of taxation and consider the mix. Unless we get serious about shrinking the role of government--which neither political party seems willing to do right now--taxes are going to remain high for the foreseeable future. Yet not all taxes are created equal. Some dampen prosperity by adversely changing the incentives people face, while others do the opposite.
Supply-siders have long argued that income taxes reduce the incentive to work and save, and thus depress economic growth. About this, they are exactly right. In the past, however, some supply-siders pushed their arguments to ridiculous extremes--claiming, for instance, that tax cuts would generate so much growth that they would be self-financing. The experience of the Reagan years put this theory to rest, but it should not cast doubt on the more modest view that lower income tax rates would be good for the economy.
Gasoline taxes, by contrast, actually improve incentives in various ways. If you have ever been stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, you have probably wished there were fewer cars on the road. A gasoline tax would help to accomplish this by encouraging people to car-pool, take public transportation, or live closer to work.
Another benefit of a rise in the gas tax would be a reduction in the size of vehicles. Whenever a person buys a large car or a sport-utility vehicle, he makes himself safer, but he puts his neighbors at risk. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a person driving a typical car is five times more likely to die if hit by a sport-utility vehicle than if hit by another car. A gas tax is an indirect way of making people pay when their massive vehicles impose risk on others, which in turn makes them take account of this risk when choosing whether to buy some monster urban-assault vehicle or go with a sensible compact.
Environmentalists should also favor a higher gasoline tax. The burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline is widely believed to be the cause of global warming. Experts disagree about how dangerous this threat really is, and most economists who have studied the subject believe global warming would not be nearly the economic catastrophe that some environmentalists claim. But there is no doubt that a tax on gasoline, or on fossil fuels more generally, would help cut such emissions.
A common fear about the gasoline tax is that it might fall disproportionately on the poor. Yet that is not necessarily the case. A 1991 study by MIT economist James Poterba called "Is the Gasoline Tax Regressive?" concluded that "low-expenditure households devote a smaller share of their budget to gasoline than do their counterparts in the middle of the expenditure distribution." Moreover, if Congress were to use a hike in the gas tax to pay for a cut in income taxes, there is nothing to stop it from cutting tax rates on lower incomes more than on higher incomes.
Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer.
__________
Fortune issue: May 24, 1999
ECONOMICS
Gas Tax Now!
First Principles
By N. Gregory Mankiw
Many members of Congress have been pushing for a cut in income taxes, but they've been unsure how to pay for it. Fortunately, I've figured out an answer: with a tax increase. Let's cut income taxes by 10% and finance it with a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax.
Yes, I know, this may sound like one of those pantywaist ideas only a pointy-headed Cambridge academic can love. But hear me out: By marrying the tax-cutting logic of the Republican right with the environmental concerns of the Democratic left, this might be a package that works for both.
Any would-be tax cutter faces a basic problem: Taxes are at a historical high as a percentage of national income, and the government is running a budget surplus, but cutting taxes somehow seems fiscally irresponsible. The explanation is that the impending retirement of the baby boom, together with the existing commitments to Social Security and Medicare, make the federal government's long-term fiscal position tenuous at best. The era of big government, rather than being over, as President Clinton once claimed, is very much with us.
The debate over tax policy, therefore, needs to go beyond arguments about the level of taxation and consider the mix. Unless we get serious about shrinking the role of government--which neither political party seems willing to do right now--taxes are going to remain high for the foreseeable future. Yet not all taxes are created equal. Some dampen prosperity by adversely changing the incentives people face, while others do the opposite.
Supply-siders have long argued that income taxes reduce the incentive to work and save, and thus depress economic growth. About this, they are exactly right. In the past, however, some supply-siders pushed their arguments to ridiculous extremes--claiming, for instance, that tax cuts would generate so much growth that they would be self-financing. The experience of the Reagan years put this theory to rest, but it should not cast doubt on the more modest view that lower income tax rates would be good for the economy.
Gasoline taxes, by contrast, actually improve incentives in various ways. If you have ever been stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, you have probably wished there were fewer cars on the road. A gasoline tax would help to accomplish this by encouraging people to car-pool, take public transportation, or live closer to work.
Another benefit of a rise in the gas tax would be a reduction in the size of vehicles. Whenever a person buys a large car or a sport-utility vehicle, he makes himself safer, but he puts his neighbors at risk. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a person driving a typical car is five times more likely to die if hit by a sport-utility vehicle than if hit by another car. A gas tax is an indirect way of making people pay when their massive vehicles impose risk on others, which in turn makes them take account of this risk when choosing whether to buy some monster urban-assault vehicle or go with a sensible compact.
Environmentalists should also favor a higher gasoline tax. The burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline is widely believed to be the cause of global warming. Experts disagree about how dangerous this threat really is, and most economists who have studied the subject believe global warming would not be nearly the economic catastrophe that some environmentalists claim. But there is no doubt that a tax on gasoline, or on fossil fuels more generally, would help cut such emissions.
A common fear about the gasoline tax is that it might fall disproportionately on the poor. Yet that is not necessarily the case. A 1991 study by MIT economist James Poterba called "Is the Gasoline Tax Regressive?" concluded that "low-expenditure households devote a smaller share of their budget to gasoline than do their counterparts in the middle of the expenditure distribution." Moreover, if Congress were to use a hike in the gas tax to pay for a cut in income taxes, there is nothing to stop it from cutting tax rates on lower incomes more than on higher incomes.
Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer.
__________
I respect this point of view. I realize Bush does not have a lot to do with many areas of our national interest.DOGS THAT BARK said:
Gas prices are largely out of his control. AND as I've stated several times - I actually want gas to go up. My target is $5 per gallon. I think that's a price that will positively shift the country.
BUT - the things that Bush is directly responsible - I don't see how he can be viewed positively at all. Our soldiers deserve better planning than what Bush did. Bush used the old "wishful thinking" strategy. Awful. Hey - I'm no peacenik - I would have liked to see true shock and awe once the invasion started. We need to treat every war like iour lives depended on it. Bush thought this would just be a 6 month sideshow. He made the worst mistake a president can make - he was foolish with our brave military. You just cant do that. You gotta be better than that if you wanna be prez.
Matt You somehow missed this part of same fact check article--probably just a slip up
By saying that Kerry "supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times" this ad could give you the idea that Kerry voted for 11 different tax increases, which isn't true. Actually, a close look at the Bush campaign's own count shows that nine of the eleven were about a single increase. Five of those votes came in the manuevering that led to a single 4.3-cent-per-gallon increase in 1993, as part of President Clinton's economic package. Four more votes for "higher" taxes were actually cast against Republican attempts to repeal that same 4.3-cent increase in 1996, 1998 and 2000. (On one of those votes most Republicans voted against repeal, too.) The Bush campaign also counts a vote in 2000 against a proposal to suspend the federal gasoline tax entirely for six months -- which left gasoline taxes unchanged, not "higher." The 11th instance cited by the Bush campaign wasn't a vote at all -- just that Kerry quote from 1994 that he'd once supported a 50-cent increase.
---which brings me back to intial point--there are some things that we have no control over in cost of gas--the only price issue that we do that is constant is gas tax--whether it be state or federal--and I don't think anyone would question which party is tax orientated.--and while on state tax issue--take a look at map and tell me what you see
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
By saying that Kerry "supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times" this ad could give you the idea that Kerry voted for 11 different tax increases, which isn't true. Actually, a close look at the Bush campaign's own count shows that nine of the eleven were about a single increase. Five of those votes came in the manuevering that led to a single 4.3-cent-per-gallon increase in 1993, as part of President Clinton's economic package. Four more votes for "higher" taxes were actually cast against Republican attempts to repeal that same 4.3-cent increase in 1996, 1998 and 2000. (On one of those votes most Republicans voted against repeal, too.) The Bush campaign also counts a vote in 2000 against a proposal to suspend the federal gasoline tax entirely for six months -- which left gasoline taxes unchanged, not "higher." The 11th instance cited by the Bush campaign wasn't a vote at all -- just that Kerry quote from 1994 that he'd once supported a 50-cent increase.
---which brings me back to intial point--there are some things that we have no control over in cost of gas--the only price issue that we do that is constant is gas tax--whether it be state or federal--and I don't think anyone would question which party is tax orientated.--and while on state tax issue--take a look at map and tell me what you see
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
Last edited:
DOGS THAT BARK said:Matt You somehow missed this part of same fact check article--probably just a slip up
By saying that Kerry "supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times" this ad could give you the idea that Kerry voted for 11 different tax increases, which isn't true. Actually, a close look at the Bush campaign's own count shows that nine of the eleven were about a single increase. Five of those votes came in the manuevering that led to a single 4.3-cent-per-gallon increase in 1993, as part of President Clinton's economic package. Four more votes for "higher" taxes were actually cast against Republican attempts to repeal that same 4.3-cent increase in 1996, 1998 and 2000. (On one of those votes most Republicans voted against repeal, too.) The Bush campaign also counts a vote in 2000 against a proposal to suspend the federal gasoline tax entirely for six months -- which left gasoline taxes unchanged, not "higher." The 11th instance cited by the Bush campaign wasn't a vote at all -- just that Kerry quote from 1994 that he'd once supported a 50-cent increase.
---which brings me back to intial point--there are some things that we have no control over in cost of gas--the only price issue that we do that is constant is gas tax--whether it be state or federal--and I don't think anyone would question which party is tax orientated.--and while on state tax issue--take a look at map and tell me what you see
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
No, I didn't 'slip-up' and leave it out, I just wanted to quickly rebut your contention that Kerry and the dems were trying to 'push through' a 50 cent gas tax.
The above is about the broader issue of taxes in general and wasn't really the topic.
Did you read the part I put in bold and that you imply I intentionally left out because it somehow supports your position? Actually it doesn't.
It shows that Bush's ad that said Kerry voted for a tax increase 11 times was a total lie. You should have thanked me for leaving it out.
Now back to that 50 cent tax increase that 'the dems' and Kerry were trying to push through? :nono:
You wish to see conservation raise it a buck. That will get more then 3% of the cars parked. And that will crash the market in hurry and price will drop below a buck in a hurry. Add in the buck and your still better off then today. At least that's what they had to say on money this weekend. It would only take about two weeks to see if it would work. Lest face it none of us will volunteer at least not enough to see if it would work with out the buck. At least get the 3% drop witch is the key.
as a guy that defends bush from some of the unfair attackers that suffer from chronic b.d.s.....
i just listened to the speech in irvine calif......and,it`s not hard to understand why the guy`s favorability rating sucks.....
he could be THE WORST public speaker ever to hold office.....worse that gerald ford and carter....
this administration continues to screw up the border issue...botches getting positive info on iraq to the public....botches making the public understand how crucial success in iraq is...
doesn`t get the message out on a solid economy...unemployment rates...
i understand theres plenty of negativity to go round...but,the administration is obligated to get THEIR message out....which they do poorly...that is, when they do take the offensive...which is very,very seldom....
it`s the administration`s job to figure ways to circumvent the msm and get THEIR OWN message out....
the guy just comes across as a bumpkin.with that weird laugh/snicker that sneaks through at the most inappropriate times... ..it`s hard nor to call a spade a spade....
i`ll make a deal with the dems...if you get control of congress this year,i`m with you on impeachment....go for it...
of course,that makes cheney the pres.....
which makes me happy because i think he`s exponentially more qualified to deal with the border,iran,gas prices et al than bush is...
i`d be happy as a clam...
how `bout you guys?....deal?.....
it`s only for 2.5 more years....
pretty please?
i just listened to the speech in irvine calif......and,it`s not hard to understand why the guy`s favorability rating sucks.....
he could be THE WORST public speaker ever to hold office.....worse that gerald ford and carter....
this administration continues to screw up the border issue...botches getting positive info on iraq to the public....botches making the public understand how crucial success in iraq is...
doesn`t get the message out on a solid economy...unemployment rates...
i understand theres plenty of negativity to go round...but,the administration is obligated to get THEIR message out....which they do poorly...that is, when they do take the offensive...which is very,very seldom....
it`s the administration`s job to figure ways to circumvent the msm and get THEIR OWN message out....
the guy just comes across as a bumpkin.with that weird laugh/snicker that sneaks through at the most inappropriate times... ..it`s hard nor to call a spade a spade....
i`ll make a deal with the dems...if you get control of congress this year,i`m with you on impeachment....go for it...
of course,that makes cheney the pres.....
which makes me happy because i think he`s exponentially more qualified to deal with the border,iran,gas prices et al than bush is...
i`d be happy as a clam...
how `bout you guys?....deal?.....
it`s only for 2.5 more years....
pretty please?
Last edited:
Bush not to blame for oil prices? Does he have, or ever had ANY IDEA OR THOUGHT TOWARDS A ALTERNATIVE. has he encouraged any thought towards alternatives? No, he just continues swallowing Saudi ****, and watching guys like fat ass Exxon bloat 2 record profits.
I don't think anyone with half a brain would actually blame Bush for causing the storm/Katrina. But same as 9/11, his response was delayed & 2 Little to late. But most annoying is his cocky "I'm in control folks" attitude he gives people and the shit lies he throws around "great job your doing down here Brownie". Ya great job--
Carter or Ford, you kidding me Garden?? Bush probably the only person in America that finishes behind Vince Young in the wonder test. Bush rates more like studdering John giving a speech. Saying same stupid phrases over and over again.
I don't think anyone with half a brain would actually blame Bush for causing the storm/Katrina. But same as 9/11, his response was delayed & 2 Little to late. But most annoying is his cocky "I'm in control folks" attitude he gives people and the shit lies he throws around "great job your doing down here Brownie". Ya great job--
Carter or Ford, you kidding me Garden?? Bush probably the only person in America that finishes behind Vince Young in the wonder test. Bush rates more like studdering John giving a speech. Saying same stupid phrases over and over again.
"Now back to that 50 cent tax increase that 'the dems' and Kerry were trying to push through?"
---The bill in question was on promoted by Dem Sen. Charles Robb in 1993, to increase the gasoline tax 10 cents per gallon each year for five years. True Kerry never voted for it because the Rebs knocked it down before it could be voted on. Did Kerry support it? Depends on which flop and period of time you catch him--but per his quote to Boston Globe after the Rebs shit canned the bill---
--One Boston Globe news story from 1994 quotes Kerry as complaining that the Concord Coalition's scorecard had not rated him highly enough as a deficit-cutter: "It doesn?t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax," the Globe quoted Kerry as saying.
So you tell me Matt--did the Dems and Kerry support a 50cent gas tax? :shrug:
---The bill in question was on promoted by Dem Sen. Charles Robb in 1993, to increase the gasoline tax 10 cents per gallon each year for five years. True Kerry never voted for it because the Rebs knocked it down before it could be voted on. Did Kerry support it? Depends on which flop and period of time you catch him--but per his quote to Boston Globe after the Rebs shit canned the bill---
--One Boston Globe news story from 1994 quotes Kerry as complaining that the Concord Coalition's scorecard had not rated him highly enough as a deficit-cutter: "It doesn?t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax," the Globe quoted Kerry as saying.
So you tell me Matt--did the Dems and Kerry support a 50cent gas tax? :shrug:
You guys Who really cares about shit 17 or 18 years ago. The Bush bull shit machine was out yesterday telling everyone who would listen the big boss would be looking closely at big oil today looking to enforce penalties against price gaugers. Anybody see what he has accomplished? Monumental investigation I'm sure. Bushie incredible job your doing down here!
