pat buchanan vs GWB

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:52 am

Well for all of you who voted for Bush both times because he was a logical extension of reaganomics, the first bush admin and the conservative christian movment, here is your old poster child lambasting the president. GWB was never about the old school conservative ideals. Lets take back the republican party from the neocons. Small government, low taxes (with low spending), more money into education, and my god can we have a progressive social/international policy that is accepting of others in this new world of globalism and the shared international community?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:51 am

Isn't it interesting that this article/opinion comes out in time to promote Buchanan's new book?

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:42 am

"Pitchfork Pat" is David Duke without the membership card.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:50 am

DA MIDLE OPTION WAS 2 HARD 2 PAS UP!!!!1!!1! OMG LOL :twisted:

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:55 am

I'm not a republican - Her Majesty would not approve.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:51 am

I think that I might still be registered Republican, but nowadays I can't tell the difference between the 2 major parties. . .

Oh, and I voted with CLL on this one. :twisted:

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:12 pm

I am aregistered Republican because I agree with that party on the majority of issues, but I decide bas-ed on the issue. I am pro-stem cell research, pr-choice and pro gay rights, among other things.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:34 pm

I would be a Goldwater Republican, if such a thing existed anymore.

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:42 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Isn't it interesting that this article/opinion comes out in time to promote Buchanan's new book?

hahahahha yeah

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:28 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:I think that I might still be registered Republican, but nowadays I can't tell the difference between the 2 major parties. . .

Oh, and I voted with CLL on this one.

The Republican party is the one that believes in running up debt and ignoring human rights.

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:40 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I think that I might still be registered Republican, but nowadays I can't tell the difference between the 2 major parties. . .

Oh, and I voted with CLL on this one.

The Republican party is the one that believes in running up debt and ignoring human rights.

& the dems are the party that believes in running up taxes & ignoring national security.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:17 pm

"No" could mean that you are simply not a Republican, or that you are a Republican, but do not believe that your party is going in the wrong direction, or that you are a Republican, believe that your party is going in the wrong direction, but are just not upset about it.
:hmm:

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:35 am

yupchagee wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I think that I might still be registered Republican, but nowadays I can't tell the difference between the 2 major parties. . .

Oh, and I voted with CLL on this one.

The Republican party is the one that believes in running up debt and ignoring human rights.

& the dems are the party that believes in running up taxes & ignoring national security.

Bush lost the world trade center, New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan (after winning it), most of our allies and now Lebanon. He also allowed North Korea to develop the bomb, and is well on his way to letting Iran do the same. He has utterly failed to protect our borders and has attempted and is still attempting to sell American assets, such as ports, to foreign powers.

He's also run up more debt than any president in U.S. history and given less support in tax breaks to the middle and lower classes than he's taken by withdrawing benefits.

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:43 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:
yupchagee wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I think that I might still be registered Republican, but nowadays I can't tell the difference between the 2 major parties. . .

Oh, and I voted with CLL on this one.

The Republican party is the one that believes in running up debt and ignoring human rights.

& the dems are the party that believes in running up taxes & ignoring national security.

Bush lost the world trade center, New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan (after winning it), most of our allies and now Lebanon. He also allowed North Korea to develop the bomb, and is well on his way to letting Iran do the same. He has utterly failed to protect our borders and has attempted and is still attempting to sell American assets, such as ports, to foreign powers.

He's also run up more debt than any president in U.S. history and given less support in tax breaks to the middle and lower classes than he's taken by withdrawing benefits.

The WTC attack was in the works long before he took office. You're blaming Bush for not doing in 8 mos what Clinton didn't do in 8 yrs. Iraq & Afganistan weren't ours to lose. I think the world is better off without the Taliban & Baathists ruling countries, but maybe that's just me. As for NO, are you suggesting that Bush is somehow responsible for huricanes? Or that he should have somehow managed to stop or deflect it? BTW, LA didn't absorb the most powerfull part of Katrina. That distinction goes to MS. The same FEMA that had so much trouble in NO did a good job in MS & FL the yr before. Same FEMA, different govs & mayors.

He did cut tax rates (over strenuous objections of dems). As a result, our economy is doing very well. Despite the well documented history of reduced tax rates boosting GDP, many refuse to accept it. While tax rates are lower, tax revenues are higher.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:58 pm

yupchagee wrote:While tax rates are lower, tax revenues are higher.

I will respond to this, since you could make the argument that this falls under this thread's topic of Presidential feces. If lowering taxes raises tax revenue, then why not lower taxes all the way to zero, and make tax revenue infinite? Problem solved!
:roll:

Edit: I just realized that this is not the Bush's feces thread. Sorry to get off topic. :oops:

In the Buchanan Vs. Bush debate, it is hard to find a winner there. :lol:

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:52 pm

JSPB22 wrote:
yupchagee wrote:While tax rates are lower, tax revenues are higher.

I will respond to this, since you could make the argument that this falls under this thread's topic of Presidential feces. If lowering taxes raises tax revenue, then why not lower taxes all the way to zero, and make tax revenue infinite? Problem solved!

Obviously without taxes there would be no tax revenue. The theory that decreased tax rates lead to economic growth & therefore increased tax revenue has been borne out by the tax cuts of JFK, Reagan & GW Bush. Can you site any counter examples?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:17 pm

yupchagee wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
yupchagee wrote:While tax rates are lower, tax revenues are higher.

I will respond to this, since you could make the argument that this falls under this thread's topic of Presidential feces. If lowering taxes raises tax revenue, then why not lower taxes all the way to zero, and make tax revenue infinite? Problem solved!

Obviously without taxes there would be no tax revenue. The theory that decreased tax rates lead to economic growth & therefore increased tax revenue has been borne out by the tax cuts of JFK, Reagan & GW Bush. Can you site any counter examples?

OK, how about the JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush tax cuts. I know Sean Hannity and other FOX talking heads like to repeat this lie, but the numbers just do not bear out their claims.
http://www.cbpp.org/3-3-03tax.htm

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:44 pm

I have neither the time nor inclination to wade through this. It is a fact that tax revenues increased during the 60's, 80's & are increasing now. It is also a fact that umemployment was low then & is low now. It is possible to twist #'s to "prove" almost anything.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:23 am

yupchagee wrote:I have neither the time nor inclination to wade through this. It is a fact that tax revenues increased during the 60's, 80's & are increasing now. It is also a fact that umemployment was low then & is low now. It is possible to twist #'s to "prove" almost anything.

Which is what you are trying to do when you say revenues increased.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:16 am

I just want to point out that there are few who believe that tax cuts are moral because it will increase revenue.

Some people happen to wish that less legalized plunder was going on, and that people could keep (not receive) more of the money that belongs to them. . .

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:44 am

Irn-Bru wrote:I just want to point out that there are few who believe that tax cuts are moral because it will increase revenue.

Some people happen to wish that less legalized plunder was going on, and that people could keep (not receive) more of the money that belongs to them. . .

And when you have unbridled spending that outweighs those revenues by the largest margins ever?

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:28 pm

JSPB22 wrote:
yupchagee wrote:I have neither the time nor inclination to wade through this. It is a fact that tax revenues increased during the 60's, 80's & are increasing now. It is also a fact that umemployment was low then & is low now. It is possible to twist #'s to "prove" almost anything.
Which is what you are trying to do when you say revenues increased.

Are you saying that the 60's, 80's & present were/are not periods of economic growth & low unemployment (& low inflation in the latter 2 cases)? You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:20 pm

Your right! Why didn't I see it before? It's all so clear now.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:56 am

JSPB22 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I just want to point out that there are few who believe that tax cuts are moral because it will increase revenue.

Some people happen to wish that less legalized plunder was going on, and that people could keep (not receive) more of the money that belongs to them. . .

And when you have unbridled spending that outweighs those revenues by the largest margins ever?

Then the problem isn't the tax cuts. . .

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:15 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I just want to point out that there are few who believe that tax cuts are moral because it will increase revenue.

Some people happen to wish that less legalized plunder was going on, and that people could keep (not receive) more of the money that belongs to them. . .

And when you have unbridled spending that outweighs those revenues by the largest margins ever?

Then the problem isn't the tax cuts. . .

No, but they certainly exacerbate the problem. I have no problem with tax cuts, especially for the working poor, and the middle class. These are the people who actually spend the money they get from tax relief. The trickle-down argument holds no water, because the rich can already afford to invest, and extra wealth is simply hoarded, and does not return to the economy. Also, paying down the national debt, is a huge moral issue. We are saddling tomorrow's generations with today's debt. At some point we are going to default on our obligations. Where will that leave the economy?

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

pat buchanan vs GWB

are you a republican that is upset with the direction of your party?

pat buchanan vs GWB