A New Direction

[Rhino]

Received via e-mail:

A New Direction

Now that the Democrats have taken over Congress, here are the challenges -

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means what?

Unemployment is at 25-year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20-year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50% (just as predicted) over last year.
A new direction from there means what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20-year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years (if he's alive at all), while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means what?

Just as President Bush foretold on a number of occasions, Iraq wa s to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means what?

Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning, which collectively sucked 24 trillion dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his suitcases in the White House. It's easy to attempt to discredit, disgrace and defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush; what's not so easy to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no matter who might try.

SAEPE EXPERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATRES AETERNI
"Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever"
Bill Bratton- Former Sergeant of Marines

[Maggie_T]

A new direction from all that means a tobogan slide in the direction of economic disaster as well as a new high in terrorist threats to this country.

Just where liberals want America to be.

Congratulations, American voters! You really f**** big time in order to get back at those Republican meanies. I hope you're all happy.

[RED]

This information was just as true and logical before the election. I'd think Bush would have thought it to be too confrontational to his patriotic opponents, and wouldn't have used it. If he did, the left would have demonized him and no doubt his approval ratings would have dropped into the 30s. Good reason to keep quiet. :rolleyes:

[Maggie_T]

The left would have demonized him?! My dear RED, the left has been doing nothing but demonize Bush since he won the elections in 2000. Ever since then, they have had nothing but hatred and disdain for him, and they 've been going out of their way to show it in detail.

Where have you been, man?

[DesertFox]

George W. Bush has never NOT been demonized by the press, even before he became prez.

[PaulRevere]

The left would have demonized him?! My dear RED, the left has been doing nothing but demonize Bush since he won the elections in 2000. Ever since then, they have had nothing but hatred and disdain for him, and they 've been going out of their way to show it in detail.

Where have you been, man?

You are soooooo wrong, my dear lady. The press and the left have hated and demonized him ever since he filed his papers to run for president.

Ever since he defeated that democrat woman to become governor of Texas, for some.

[Maggie_T]

I stand corrected.

[DeclinetoState]

A new direction means that we let illegal aliens vote, we establish socialized medicine, we leave Iraq with our tails between our legs, we let any woman or girl have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, we give every kid in school, male or female, a free supply of condoms, we force Wal-Mart to let its employees unionize (whether they want to or not), we raise taxes all around, we ban SUVs, we let anybody who wants to go to college for free (and we make sure that anyone who does go passes every class taken), we no longer talk about Christmas outside of our church or home, and we make sure liberals have at least as much air time on talk radio as those rabid hatemongering conservatives.

[Maggie_T]

Exactly. The tobogan slide to hell I referred to.

[DesertFox]

A new direction means that we let illegal aliens vote, we establish socialized medicine, we leave Iraq with our tails between our legs, we let any woman or girl have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, we give every kid in school, male or female, a free supply of condoms, we force Wal-Mart to let its employees unionize (whether they want to or not), we raise taxes all around, we ban SUVs, we let anybody who wants to go to college for free (and we make sure that anyone who does go passes every class taken), we no longer talk about Christmas outside of our church or home, and we make sure liberals have at least as much air time on talk radio as those rabid hatemongering conservatives.Also, all males must now suck dick and pronounce it good.

[DoctorDoom]

To RATs, change is scalar, not vectorial. RATs care only for the amount of change, not the direction.

[RED]

RED said: This information was just as true and logical before the election. I'd think Bush would have thought it to be too confrontational to his patriotic opponents, and wouldn't have used it. If he did, the left would have demonized him and no doubt his approval ratings would have dropped into the 30s. Good reason to keep quiet. :rolleyes:

The left would have demonized him?! My dear RED, the left has been doing nothing but demonize Bush since he won the elections in 2000. Ever since then, they have had nothing but hatred and disdain for him, and they 've been going out of their way to show it in detail.

Where have you been, man?

Apparently, my fault my sarcasm didn't come through. And of course, Bush would have felt any response to be too confrontational, to his 'patriotic' (his word) opponents :rolleyes: who have demonized him, judging by the unfortunate fact, he has failed to be confrontational to those 'traitors' (my word) for the past six years. :sad:

[RED]

Also, all males must now suck dick and pronounce it good.

I'm sure the feminized girley-men of the left won't find it much of a problem to categorize as good. :shame:

[Maggie_T]

Apparently, my fault my sarcasm didn't come through.

Sowy. :(


And of course, Bush would have felt any response to be too confrontational, to his 'patriotic' (his word) opponents :rolleyes: who have demonized him, judging by the unfortunate fact, he has failed to be confrontational to those 'traitors' (my word) for the past six years. :sad:

I hear you. I wonder what will take to make Bush (and others like him) to understand that liberals wil NEVER, EVER, EVER, like him, no matter how far he bends backwards to please them. The only way liberals will ever have any tolerance for conservatives is if they stop being conservative.

But some people just will NOT acknowledge that, more's the pity.

[Seabee]

we no longer talk about Christmas outside of our church or home

How will be able to talk about Christmas in a church when their will be no more churches if the lie-berals have their way.

[Lazarus]

This loss of power that the Dems have experienced over the last 15 years has been emotionally devastaing to them... This is why they have been so irrationally viscious toward Bush and Cheney, even in the early days before they ever put the fist policy in place...

On the Iraq situation they must walk a fine line to achieve what they want... They want to turn Iraq into the new Vietnam in the public mind because Vietnam was THEIR fiasco that simply wont go away... So if they can turn Iraq into the perceived Republican Vietnam, they (along with the help of their willing accomplices in the MSM) can wipe away the memory of the real Vietnam trajedy... And at the same time, hopefully regain the golden years they enjoyed of controlling Washington - like the days before Ronaldus Magnus freed us from their tyranny...

But they must demonize the Iraq war without cutting the legs off of the Troops there... And until they control the Whitehouse, they cannot recall the troops - At best, all they can do is cut off the money... And nothing will go down the wrong way with the American public like leaving troops in a hostile environment without beans and bullets... If they cut off funding, and the situation begins to deteriorate, they may as well get measured for theit political caskets...

So I agree with the commentary I heard on the radio the other day - They will bluster and strut for the cameras, but in the end, they will fund Mr Bush's troop increase... To not fund it is political suicide...

[RED]

Sowy. :(

Not necessary. :biggrin:

RED said: And of course, Bush would have felt any response to be too confrontational, to his 'patriotic' (his word) opponents :rolleyes: who have demonized him, judging by the unfortunate fact, he has failed to be confrontational to those 'traitors' (my word) for the past six years. :sad: [/quote]


I hear you. I wonder what will take to make Bush (and others like him) to understand that liberals wil NEVER, EVER, EVER, like him, no matter how far he bends backwards to please them. The only way liberals will ever have any tolerance for conservatives is if they stop being conservative.

But some people just will NOT acknowledge that, more's the pity.

Well, If he didn't figure it out in six years of ridicule and lies, I'm sure Bush will never figure it out, and besides, it's too late anyway. The gentleman above noted that the DIMs went into hysterics because they have lost power. We know who they are, but just who do they think they are? It's about leading this country and making it safe, it's not about gaining power by undermining soldiers in harm's way for power's sake. I don't see any hysterical conservatives over the November losses. Hell, Bush took the Republican defeat he caused, right in stride. :rolleyes:

[DesertFox]

Bush knows. If we were privy to his private conversations we'd see he's very much aware of the nature of the enemy. I'm afraid, though, that he thinks the way to defeat them is to display gentlemanly manners so that the public draws appropriate conclusions by comparing the classless Left with the classy Right. That might have worked once, but its time is past. The last 40 years have so degraded public manners and what's acceptable that people wondered what all the fuss was about when we conservatives objected to John Effin' saying Bush "f*cked up" the war. There isn't a sense of wrongness about such language in public anymore.

I've noted elsewhere that you fight at a grave disadvantage if the other fellow hits below the belt and you loftily disdain such tactics. We need a prez who will take these bastards on full force, using all the reach of office and the power of the bully pulpit to take the bastards on rather than treat them with courtesy while they shit all over him.

[RED]

We need a prez who will take these bastards on full force, using all the reach of office and the power of the bully pulpit to take the bastards on rather than treat them with courtesy while they shit all over him.

Amen to that. But unfortunately in this dangerous time, when America has many enemies, conservatives, and consequently America, will suffer greatly into the future for taking the high road when in mortal battle with lying RATS. :flame:

[Maggie_T]

Bush knows. If we were privy to his private conversations we'd see he's very much aware of the nature of the enemy. I'm afraid, though, that he thinks the way to defeat them is to display gentlemanly manners so that the public draws appropriate conclusions by comparing the classless Left with the classy Right. That might have worked once, but its time is past. The last 40 years have so degraded public manners and what's acceptable that people wondered what all the fuss was about when we conservatives objected to John Effin' saying Bush "f*cked up" the war. There isn't a sense of wrongness about such language in public anymore.

I've noted elsewhere that you fight at a grave disadvantage if the other fellow hits below the belt and you loftily disdain such tactics. We need a prez who will take these bastards on full force, using all the reach of office and the power of the bully pulpit to take the bastards on rather than treat them with courtesy while they shit all over him.


Bless you for saying that, Fox.

I've been saying it, too. Till I got blue in the face. All I got for my trouble was disdain and tut-tutting from the High Priests and Priestesses of Civl Discourse.

Here in Maine it's simply nauseating they way "conservatives" bend over backwards to be civil to liberals. I used to post (occasionally) on a local conservative website, until the time that I used the full battery of my sarcastic charm on a liberal :D and was subject to what I can only describe as a witch trial ... with conservatives as judges. And of course, that set liberals off. My word, I was never chastized as in that occasion, not even by my mother in my younger tomboyish days. Defending myself was easy. But taking all that shit from allegedly conservatives was the last straw. I asked the owner of the website to remove my name from the place to avoid the temptation to return. He didn't want to at first. But I explained to him (in detail) why I wanted my name removed from the list. He was sorry to let me go. He's a nice guy. Also, I met some of the posters later on and they told me they could not believe the way (I quote) "some people who call themselves conservatives" reacted.

That's why I agree with the Doc


ANN COULTER FOR PRESIDENT!!!!



At least, she know how to deal with the scum of the earth. She does not go around putting pearls before swine, she doesn't. :biggrin:

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Bush knows. If we were privy to his private conversations we'd see he's very much aware of the nature of the enemy. I'm afraid, though, that he thinks the way to defeat them is to display gentlemanly manners so that the public draws appropriate conclusions by comparing the classless Left with the classy Right. That might have worked once, but its time is past. The last 40 years have so degraded public manners and what's acceptable that people wondered what all the fuss was about when we conservatives objected to John Effin' saying Bush "f*cked up" the war. There isn't a sense of wrongness about such language in public anymore.

I've noted elsewhere that you fight at a grave disadvantage if the other fellow hits below the belt and you loftily disdain such tactics. We need a prez who will take these bastards on full force, using all the reach of office and the power of the bully pulpit to take the bastards on rather than treat them with courtesy while they shit all over him.

I started to add something here . . . but what could possibly be the point?

Well and truly said, Fox. Just so.

[Seabee]

they cannot recall the troops - At best, all they can do is cut off the money... And nothing will go down the wrong way with the American public like leaving troops in a hostile environment without beans and bullets... If they cut off funding, and the situation begins to deteriorate, they may as well get measured for theit political caskets...

There far left loonies are already hinting at it. First, they tried to use sympathy for the troops in Iraq to get votes, that did not work. They could not contain their disdain for the military so they attacked the intellectual capacity of the toops, that backfired. So, now they are trying to hit the military in the one place where they can the pocket book.

The Dimwitted Ones are so politically short sighted they will not see the political ramifications of cutting funding to the troops. There will be proposals sent up, some will make it through with the assistance of Republicans who just want to hold on to power. They will be passed under the guise of holding the President accountable but in the end the only ones who will suffer are the troops in theatre.

The only thing that is a slight comfort is knowing it will cause their political destruction. As for me though, that is not enough, sacrificing troops for political gain deserves much more than ruin.

[Lubbock]

I read an article on the net this morning that said Murtha has started the ball rolling to cut off the funds.

If I can find it again, I'll post the link.

EDIT: Here it is:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070114-113535-3275r.htm

[RED]

I've been saying it, too. Till I got blue in the face. All I got for my trouble was disdain and tut-tutting from the High Priests and Priestesses of Civl Discourse.

Here in Maine it's simply nauseating they way "conservatives" bend over backwards to be civil to liberals. I used to post (occasionally) on a local conservative website, until the time that I used the full battery of my sarcastic charm on a liberal :D and was subject to what I can only describe as a witch trial ... with conservatives as judges. And of course, that set liberals off. My word, I was never chastized as in that occasion, not even by my mother in my younger tomboyish days. Defending myself was easy. But taking all that shit from allegedly conservatives was the last straw. I asked the owner of the website to remove my name from the place to avoid the temptation to return. He didn't want to at first. But I explained to him (in detail) why I wanted my name removed from the list. He was sorry to let me go. He's a nice guy. Also, I met some of the posters later on and they told me they could not believe the way (I quote) "some people who call themselves conservatives" reacted.

That's why I agree with the Doc


ANN COULTER FOR PRESIDENT!!!!



At least, she know how to deal with the scum of the earth. She does not go around putting pearls before swine, she doesn't. :biggrin:

Amen to that! I must say I've just recently had run ins with socalled conservatives. Unbelievably, I got banned from an all conservative board, and another board by a conservative moderator for simply pointing out my disappointment with the President and the administration, especially on the subject of illegal immigration and no pardon for the border agents. Hey, true is true, and I'm not tip-toeing around for conservatives with their blindfolds on.

[Etaoin]

This loss of power that the Dems have experienced over the last 15 years has been emotionally devastaing to them... This is why they have been so irrationally viscious toward Bush and Cheney, even in the early days before they ever put the fist policy in place...

On the Iraq situation they must walk a fine line to achieve what they want... They want to turn Iraq into the new Vietnam in the public mind because Vietnam was THEIR fiasco that simply wont go away... So if they can turn Iraq into the perceived Republican Vietnam, they (along with the help of their willing accomplices in the MSM) can wipe away the memory of the real Vietnam trajedy... And at the same time, hopefully regain the golden years they enjoyed of controlling Washington - like the days before Ronaldus Magnus freed us from their tyranny...

But they must demonize the Iraq war without cutting the legs off of the Troops there... And until they control the Whitehouse, they cannot recall the troops - At best, all they can do is cut off the money... And nothing will go down the wrong way with the American public like leaving troops in a hostile environment without beans and bullets... If they cut off funding, and the situation begins to deteriorate, they may as well get measured for theit political caskets...

So I agree with the commentary I heard on the radio the other day - They will bluster and strut for the cameras, but in the end, they will fund Mr Bush's troop increase... To not fund it is political suicide...

Good point, Laz...but the real vitriol, the irrational spewing of venom, the vicious lying and ridicule really began in earnest under Reagan. I believe the reason was that since the depression they had control of the presidency, both houses of congress and the supreme court. The minor exceptions were Eisenhower and Nixon, but even there, the GOP never had total control. The dems had the support of the media and thought that they were on the verge of TOTAL CONTROL. Along came Reagan, who killed the fairness doctrine and then the internet was developed, which they ignored.

The conservatives and the Libertarians took to the net like ducks to water and took over the radio audiences. A different, rational view soon dominated those areas of the information highway and the GOP began to win (narrowly) control of the House and Senate.

With this control, the GOP refused to prosecute the democrats for the brazen attempts to steal elections. No charges were brought even when fraudulent voting was caught on video tape. The failure to convict Clinton and his myrmidons for their criminal activities, is undoubtedly due to the 900+ FBI files that were delivered to the Clintons. Needless to suggest, those files will be quite active in the coming presidential campaign! Could that be the source of the recent revelations @ Obama's Muslim background?

I may be wearing a tin hat on this subject, but it is (to me) the only thing that makes the GOP's irrational and illogical behavior seem reasonable.

[DoctorDoom]

How will be able to talk about Christmas in a church when their will be no more churches if the lie-berals have their way.No doubt the atheists are desperately trying to find a way to say that since America is governed by the fedgov, no religious presence is constitutional in the country. The arsewipes have tried equally foolish things.

[DoctorDoom]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AC2008.gif

[TheIrishman]

Here's the answer I got to this article on another forum:

>The stock market is at a new all-time high

Over any extended period, the stock market can be expected to reach an all-time high. That's just what US stock markets do. However, the Bush era has been an unusually weak one for stock growth.

For example, in the 50 years before Bush took office, the S&P 500 grew from 21.36 to 1,342.54. That's a bit over 8.63% annualized growth. On Bush's watch, it has grown from 1,342.54 to 1,430.51 (current as of this posting). That's a bit under 1.07%. In other words, the market's been growing at less than one eighth of its average historical pace!

>America's 401 K's are back.

A 401(k) investment in a generic S&P 500 index stock, back the day before Bush took office, would actually be worth LESS, today, after inflation, than it was six years ago! That's highly unusual for a period this long. Of course, 401(k)s have still been growing, thanks to people putting contributions in them, but unfortunately so has consumer debt, such that the US has actually had a negative savings rate on Bush's watch, which is rare indeed.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction would mean a return to stock growth rates that compare favorably with historical averages. It would mean a return to 401(k) and other savings growth rates that outpace consumer debt growth, such that the population grows more financially sound over time.

>Unemployment is at 25 year lows.

That's simply inaccurate. The unemployment rate today is 4.5%. At the end of 2000, the unemployment rate stood at 3.9%. Not only are we not at a 25-year low, we're not even at a six-year low. You need to check your sources, so you won't make such laughably foolish assertions in the future.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A net decrease in the unemployment rate. It's up on Bush's watch, despite plenty of people dropping out of the labor market (which would typically push unemployment rates lower).

>Taxes are at 20 year lows.

Taxes on the wealthy are, indeed, at incredible low points, and the result has been sky-rocketing budget deficits. That means that we're running up debt we'll have to pay back, with interest. Since the poor and middle class pay a greater overall percentage share of the tax burden now than they did before the cuts, this means that unless tax balances shift, they'll wind up, over the long term, paying amounts that would have been paid by the wealthy if we hadn't postponed that tax liability, with IOUs, thanks to the tax cut. In essence, the tax cut will be a net transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper class.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction means shifting that tax burden back to the wealthy, where it was before.

>Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.

Over any extended period, federal tax revenues always hit new all-time highs. With a growing population and growing productivity, that's an inevitability over any sufficiently extended duration. What isn't inevitable is that tax revenues will keep up with normal spending growth. Just as a growing population and a growing GDP mean growing revenues, they also mean growing spending requirements: the government has to spend at higher levels just to provide the same level of services, when the population and economy grow. Sadly, since the tax cuts, federal tax revenues stopped keeping pace with normal spending growth. In fact, even with spending growth having been slightly less than the historical normal rates, tax revenues growth rates have fallen drastically below that level. The result has been the squandering of a record surplus and the creation of a record deficit. Those are ultimately sums we'll have to collect more taxes to pay, plus interest, in the future.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A return to federal tax revenues rising at a normal pace, so that by keeping spending growth a bit below normal, we can return to a balanced budget.

>The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as
>predicted over last year.

A year-to-year snapshot allows for some appetizing cherry-picking, by Bush apologists, but the obvious question is what is the snapshot leaving out. If you take a step back and look at the full Bush era, a very different picture emerges. The move from a record surplus, in FY 2000, to the deficit we ran in our last full fiscal year (FY 2006), is a shift into red ink of unprecedented speed.

But even the snapshot you're providing is simply inaccurate on its own terms. According to the most recent CBO numbers I could find:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7634/
10-10-Cyclical_Measures.pdf

See Table 1, line 1. The deficit went from $318 billion in FY 2005 to $260 billion in FY 2006. That's an 18% decline, year over year, not "almost 50%". Moreover, we're currently in FY 2007, and you'll see that far from declining 50%, the deficit is projected to expand 10%.... even if you don't assume Congress will fix the AMT.

>A new direction from there means. what?

Well, maybe it's being a bit aggressive, but on Clinton's watch, we went from record deficits to record surpluses. That would certainly be a nice direction to see us go in, rather than our current direction, where deficits are headed up recently (FY 2007 vs. FY 2006), and over the Bush era as a whole.

>Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5
>years.

Unfortunately, that's largely as a result of gimmick loans, which have allowed people to run up incredible amounts of debt in buying homes, inflating the market without inflating equity. In fact, average equity is down over the last several years. In essence, foreign savers own bigger portions of our homes, by way of mortgages, so that even with higher paper values for the homes, our own value in them is lower, on average.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction would mean home prices driven by rising income levels (they've fallen on Bush's watch), rather than by cheap debt. On Clinton's watch, home values grew at a very good pace, but so did incomes. People didn't need trick loans and record-low mortgage rates to afford their houses... they could do it with rising household income. Returning to consistently and substantially rising household income would be a great step in the right direction.

>Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.

Inflation has been in check since Volcker's Fed policies had their effect, back in the early-to-mid 80s. Although I certainly don't want to see a change of direction there, I don't think there's much risk of it as long as Fed policy stays as it is. The problem, though, is that interest rates may need to rise more to keep inflation in check, if we don't get federal debt under control.

>Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since
>9/11/ 01.

Yet again, a simple factual misstatement. It completely disregards the Anthrax attacks, which were terrorism by any reasonable analysis. Republicans consistently ignore or forget those attacks... presumably because they seem to have involved right-wingers targeted Democrats. There have also been a great many hate crimes, some of which rise to the standard definition of terrorism, along with attacks like the Beltway sniper, which may or may not meet your definition of terrorism.

>A new direction from there means, what?

Well, considering on Bush's watch we had the worst terrorist attack in our history, and then al Qaeda also successfully carried out arguably the worst terrorist attacks in the history of Indonesia, the UK, and Spain, I'd say a new direction would be an era in which these major terrorist attacks weren't happening.

>Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark
>cave

We don't know where Bin Laden is living, do we? Despite Bush announcing we'd get him, dead or alive, we haven't, for well over five years now... and Bush has actually publicly stated that he doesn't much care. Meanwhile, we've distracted ourselves with a pointless war in Iraq. A new direction would be keeping our eye on the ball, hunting down the man responsible for 9/11, and bringing him to justice.

>Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of
>occasions, Iraq was
>to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism

Yes. Iraq, which had some of the fewest ties to international terrorism in the entire middle east, has, in fact, been transformed into the number one breeding ground of terrorists on Earth. Obviously, a new direction would be nice, as a sizeable majority of Americans would agree (including Bush, whose major policy initiative right now searches for a new direction in Iraq).

While we're on the subject of areas where a new direction would be nice, there's the utter collapse of FEMA as an effective agency, there's the weakness of the dollar, there's the record trade deficit, there's the increased poverty rate, there's the rising gap between rich and poor, there are record consumer bankrupcies, there's the rising murder rate, there's the frittering away of dramatic Clinton-era social improvements, there's the sub-par GDP growth rate, there's the record-awful job creation rate, there's the destruction of America's good name around the world, there's the torture of detainees, there's the indefinite imprisonment, without trial, of anyone the President feels like labeling an enemy combatant, there's the major foreign policy setbacks in Russia, North Korea, and Iran, there's the warrantless wiretapping of US persons, in direct contravention of US law, there's the lack of any progress in reining in illegal immigration, there's run-away global warming, there's the slippage of the US's leadership position on biotechnology, there's the healthcare crisis, there's the US's third-world numbers when it comes to education, infant mortality, and childhood immunizations, and there's the near-total stagnation of the US's efforts on high technology and space exploration.

[RED]

Yes. Iraq, which had some of the fewest ties to international terrorism in the entire middle east, has, in fact, been transformed into the number one breeding ground of terrorists on Earth. Obviously, a new direction would be nice, as a sizeable majority of Americans would agree (including Bush, whose major policy initiative right now searches for a new direction in Iraq).

While we're on the subject of areas where a new direction would be nice, there's the utter collapse of FEMA as an effective agency, there's the weakness of the dollar, there's the record trade deficit, there's the increased poverty rate, there's the rising gap between rich and poor, there are record consumer bankrupcies, there's the rising murder rate, there's the frittering away of dramatic Clinton-era social improvements, there's the sub-par GDP growth rate, there's the record-awful job creation rate, there's the destruction of America's good name around the world, there's the torture of detainees, there's the indefinite imprisonment, without trial, of anyone the President feels like labeling an enemy combatant, there's the major foreign policy setbacks in Russia, North Korea, and Iran, there's the warrantless wiretapping of US persons, in direct contravention of US law, there's the lack of any progress in reining in illegal immigration, there's run-away global warming, there's the slippage of the US's leadership position on biotechnology, there's the healthcare crisis, there's the US's third-world numbers when it comes to education, infant mortality, and childhood immunizations, and there's the near-total stagnation of the US's efforts on high technology and space exploration.

First of all, was this written by Joe Bisqwik?

And which version will the American people believe? ... the version put out by the left because this is how the MSM, the indoctrinator of choice for the sheeple, will portray the results of the Bush presidency.

The leftist who wrote the drivel above, is even complaining about illegal immigration. It's true of course that illegal immigration is out of control, and it's Bush's fault, but it's the last thing some liberal would complain about. It's just not 'fair' that those uncounted millions of poor people should have to live in their own country, Mexico. :rolleyes:

[TheIrishman]

Here's the answer I got to this article on another forum:

>The stock market is at a new all-time high

Over any extended period, the stock market can be expected to reach an all-time high. That's just what US stock markets do. However, the Bush era has been an unusually weak one for stock growth.

For example, in the 50 years before Bush took office, the S&P 500 grew from 21.36 to 1,342.54. That's a bit over 8.63% annualized growth. On Bush's watch, it has grown from 1,342.54 to 1,430.51 (current as of this posting). That's a bit under 1.07%. In other words, the market's been growing at less than one eighth of its average historical pace!

>America's 401 K's are back.

A 401(k) investment in a generic S&P 500 index stock, back the day before Bush took office, would actually be worth LESS, today, after inflation, than it was six years ago! That's highly unusual for a period this long. Of course, 401(k)s have still been growing, thanks to people putting contributions in them, but unfortunately so has consumer debt, such that the US has actually had a negative savings rate on Bush's watch, which is rare indeed.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction would mean a return to stock growth rates that compare favorably with historical averages. It would mean a return to 401(k) and other savings growth rates that outpace consumer debt growth, such that the population grows more financially sound over time.

>Unemployment is at 25 year lows.

That's simply inaccurate. The unemployment rate today is 4.5%. At the end of 2000, the unemployment rate stood at 3.9%. Not only are we not at a 25-year low, we're not even at a six-year low. You need to check your sources, so you won't make such laughably foolish assertions in the future.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A net decrease in the unemployment rate. It's up on Bush's watch, despite plenty of people dropping out of the labor market (which would typically push unemployment rates lower).

>Taxes are at 20 year lows.

Taxes on the wealthy are, indeed, at incredible low points, and the result has been sky-rocketing budget deficits. That means that we're running up debt we'll have to pay back, with interest. Since the poor and middle class pay a greater overall percentage share of the tax burden now than they did before the cuts, this means that unless tax balances shift, they'll wind up, over the long term, paying amounts that would have been paid by the wealthy if we hadn't postponed that tax liability, with IOUs, thanks to the tax cut. In essence, the tax cut will be a net transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper class.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction means shifting that tax burden back to the wealthy, where it was before.

>Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.

Over any extended period, federal tax revenues always hit new all-time highs. With a growing population and growing productivity, that's an inevitability over any sufficiently extended duration. What isn't inevitable is that tax revenues will keep up with normal spending growth. Just as a growing population and a growing GDP mean growing revenues, they also mean growing spending requirements: the government has to spend at higher levels just to provide the same level of services, when the population and economy grow. Sadly, since the tax cuts, federal tax revenues stopped keeping pace with normal spending growth. In fact, even with spending growth having been slightly less than the historical normal rates, tax revenues growth rates have fallen drastically below that level. The result has been the squandering of a record surplus and the creation of a record deficit. Those are ultimately sums we'll have to collect more taxes to pay, plus interest, in the future.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A return to federal tax revenues rising at a normal pace, so that by keeping spending growth a bit below normal, we can return to a balanced budget.

>The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as
>predicted over last year.

A year-to-year snapshot allows for some appetizing cherry-picking, by Bush apologists, but the obvious question is what is the snapshot leaving out. If you take a step back and look at the full Bush era, a very different picture emerges. The move from a record surplus, in FY 2000, to the deficit we ran in our last full fiscal year (FY 2006), is a shift into red ink of unprecedented speed.

But even the snapshot you're providing is simply inaccurate on its own terms. According to the most recent CBO numbers I could find:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7634/
10-10-Cyclical_Measures.pdf

See Table 1, line 1. The deficit went from $318 billion in FY 2005 to $260 billion in FY 2006. That's an 18% decline, year over year, not "almost 50%". Moreover, we're currently in FY 2007, and you'll see that far from declining 50%, the deficit is projected to expand 10%.... even if you don't assume Congress will fix the AMT.

>A new direction from there means. what?

Well, maybe it's being a bit aggressive, but on Clinton's watch, we went from record deficits to record surpluses. That would certainly be a nice direction to see us go in, rather than our current direction, where deficits are headed up recently (FY 2007 vs. FY 2006), and over the Bush era as a whole.

>Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5
>years.

Unfortunately, that's largely as a result of gimmick loans, which have allowed people to run up incredible amounts of debt in buying homes, inflating the market without inflating equity. In fact, average equity is down over the last several years. In essence, foreign savers own bigger portions of our homes, by way of mortgages, so that even with higher paper values for the homes, our own value in them is lower, on average.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction would mean home prices driven by rising income levels (they've fallen on Bush's watch), rather than by cheap debt. On Clinton's watch, home values grew at a very good pace, but so did incomes. People didn't need trick loans and record-low mortgage rates to afford their houses... they could do it with rising household income. Returning to consistently and substantially rising household income would be a great step in the right direction.

>Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.

Inflation has been in check since Volcker's Fed policies had their effect, back in the early-to-mid 80s. Although I certainly don't want to see a change of direction there, I don't think there's much risk of it as long as Fed policy stays as it is. The problem, though, is that interest rates may need to rise more to keep inflation in check, if we don't get federal debt under control.

>Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since
>9/11/ 01.

Yet again, a simple factual misstatement. It completely disregards the Anthrax attacks, which were terrorism by any reasonable analysis. Republicans consistently ignore or forget those attacks... presumably because they seem to have involved right-wingers targeted Democrats. There have also been a great many hate crimes, some of which rise to the standard definition of terrorism, along with attacks like the Beltway sniper, which may or may not meet your definition of terrorism.

>A new direction from there means, what?

Well, considering on Bush's watch we had the worst terrorist attack in our history, and then al Qaeda also successfully carried out arguably the worst terrorist attacks in the history of Indonesia, the UK, and Spain, I'd say a new direction would be an era in which these major terrorist attacks weren't happening.

>Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark
>cave

We don't know where Bin Laden is living, do we? Despite Bush announcing we'd get him, dead or alive, we haven't, for well over five years now... and Bush has actually publicly stated that he doesn't much care. Meanwhile, we've distracted ourselves with a pointless war in Iraq. A new direction would be keeping our eye on the ball, hunting down the man responsible for 9/11, and bringing him to justice.

>Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of
>occasions, Iraq was
>to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism

Yes. Iraq, which had some of the fewest ties to international terrorism in the entire middle east, has, in fact, been transformed into the number one breeding ground of terrorists on Earth. Obviously, a new direction would be nice, as a sizeable majority of Americans would agree (including Bush, whose major policy initiative right now searches for a new direction in Iraq).

While we're on the subject of areas where a new direction would be nice, there's the utter collapse of FEMA as an effective agency, there's the weakness of the dollar, there's the record trade deficit, there's the increased poverty rate, there's the rising gap between rich and poor, there are record consumer bankrupcies, there's the rising murder rate, there's the frittering away of dramatic Clinton-era social improvements, there's the sub-par GDP growth rate, there's the record-awful job creation rate, there's the destruction of America's good name around the world, there's the torture of detainees, there's the indefinite imprisonment, without trial, of anyone the President feels like labeling an enemy combatant, there's the major foreign policy setbacks in Russia, North Korea, and Iran, there's the warrantless wiretapping of US persons, in direct contravention of US law, there's the lack of any progress in reining in illegal immigration, there's run-away global warming, there's the slippage of the US's leadership position on biotechnology, there's the healthcare crisis, there's the US's third-world numbers when it comes to education, infant mortality, and childhood immunizations, and there's the near-total stagnation of the US's efforts on high technology and space exploration.

[Rhino]

The President doesn't control the economy. No President does. He can influence it to some extent, but that influence is quite limited in the grand scheme of things. Plus, comparing 5 years to a 50 year history makes no sense at all. One could pick out just about any limited period to make it look bad that way.

There was never a surplus under Clinton. That was a projected surplus, and it was subject to lots of questionable bookeeping. It also came at the expense of gutting our national defense. The deficits since are also largely due to the war on terror. But it's a better point than the economy as a whole. A President has far more influence on the budget than on the economy. Bush hasn't been that great fiscally, but he's been far better than the alternative. Not exactly a glowing endorsement, but I'll take what I can get at this point.

Presidents do not control home prices. Period.

Terrorist attacks on our soil was a reference to foreign based attacks, not domestic.

Bush was responsible for 9/11? Oh, puh-leeze!!! And the subsequent comments are not about "since then" and 'on US soil', hence they do not apply.

Who says we aren't looking for Bin Laden? Give me a break.

FEMA didn't collapse as an effective agency. It never was that effective. Katrina just pointed that out.

As for the rest of the already discredited dem talking points, Give me another break.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I see that the Irishman knows nothing about economics, or history, for that matter. If he did, he couldn't post the nonsense that he just did - twice.

[Rhino]

Well, to be fair, he said that was the answer that he got on another forum, not that those were necessarily his answers.