And now a word from your pResident…

Filed in Uncategorized by on May 25, 2007

“We need to counter the shock wave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates.”

 D.C. 10/4/2001

Tags:

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:
    May 25, 2007 at 9:24 am

    And people say he is not smart.

  2. Rebecca says:
    May 25, 2007 at 9:27 am

    Well, maybe single-minded? Does it put money in his and Cheney’s pockets and screw over Merica in the process? Yup — it must be good!

  3. Chris says:
    May 25, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Yes. Wanting people to keep more of their money and pay less in taxes is JUST SO WRONG!!!

  4. donviti says:
    May 25, 2007 at 10:20 am

    did you read the quote chris and see the date?

    hellooooo

    the guy is saying we should cut taxes because the terrorists bombed us.

    geez the idea was for you to become enlightened over here. You can’t read into that statement and see the guy playing the fear card to cut taxes? Good god.

    I mean how bizarre can one get?

    Evildoers and cutting taxes? what kind of strawman is that?

    so after 9/11 the president is saying we need to think about tax rebates? are you kiddin me?

  5. Chris says:
    May 25, 2007 at 10:30 am

    “geez the idea was for you to become enlightened over here. ”

    Actually the idea was for me to enlighten. But I confess, I missed the date on the quote. Shouldn’t be hanging out here while at work anyway. Bad for productivity.

    But his statement was the right one. He knew that beyond the terrible human tragedy that had taking place, the event would also trigger an economic disaster which would have even farther reaching repercussions. The loss of so much life and property. Entire businesses being wiped out. The closing of the stock market for days. The tremendous shock that would hit the insurance industry, and all on the heels of the bursting tech bubble, meant America would be fighting the terrorists while extremely economically weak.

    He got those tax cuts through. The economy did not fall anywhere near where it should have, and eventually rallied and became the fast-growing economy in the history of the country. So, no, it does not seem bizarre to me. Seems like leadership.

  6. donviti says:
    May 25, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Chris,

    please spare me the tax cuts spurred the economy bs.

    I think I will believe a few economists over your opinion.

    but thanks for enlightening me 😉

  7. Chris says:
    May 25, 2007 at 10:46 am

    “I think I will believe a few economists over your opinion.”

    Interesting article. But that would imply that the Fed kept the rates low for no particular reason. I may not be a certified economist, but I remember enough for economics class to know that the Fed takes into consideration current spending levels a recession generating effects like taxes.

    Besides, it would also assume that the President had NO influence with the Fed. I am not buying that.

  8. jason330 says:
    May 25, 2007 at 10:46 am

    But his statement was the right one.

    Chris,

    I don’t harbor any hope that you will understand this but here it goes.

    When you “counter the shock wave of the evildoers” by doing dumb stuff like cutting taxes, or invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 – you also make it hard to “counter the shock wave of the evildoers” by doing effective things – like going after Osama Bin Ladin or building real energy security.

  9. Chris says:
    May 25, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Ok Jason. Let me use words that you can understand…maybe it will help. Geez, I have talked like and 8th grader since…well…6th grade (I was always ahead of the curve as apparently I am still).

    “..by doing dumb stuff like cutting taxes.”

    I still maintain that made the economy stronger. Always a DUMB thing to do when you are in a fight. But I know “Cutting taxes is Dumb” is one of the chief tenents of the left, so I should not criticize.

    “or invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11”

    Still not entirely proven. Saddam maintained a non-flying 737 for military training purposes…I wonder what you can train for on one of those.

    But assuming that we can prove that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We needed a place for a fight. We found one, right smack in the middle of all the countries that DO support terrorism (unless you think Syria and Iran are innocent too). We also got rid of a terrible dictator who even if he did not have WMD’s (which I still think ended up in Syria) certainly had the capability of making them. Heck, he had even used them in the past.

    We also got that physical battleground that we needed of the fight. But I guess you guys feel drawing all those terrorists out of a dozen different countries and putting them before our troops to be disposed of is a bad thing.

    “like going after Osama Bin Ladin”

    Something we are still doing, but he is hiding in Pakistan and unless you want us to invade that too, we have to rely on them.

    “…or building real energy security”
    Well, it seems to me we tried to dig for oil in Alaska and add wells in the Gulf and off the coast of California to lessen our dependence on foreign oil but environmentalists are against it. “If it ain’t green its mean.”. I understand the desire for alternative measures but the technology is only starting to come around and we needed time. So I place the dependence blame on the environmentalist shoulders.

  10. donviti says:
    May 25, 2007 at 11:03 am

    But assuming that we can prove that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

    no, you got it backwards, assuming you can prove that Iraq DID have something to do with 9/11. NOW stop doing that Chris.

  11. donviti says:
    May 25, 2007 at 11:06 am

    I still maintain that made the economy stronger

    But you have been proven wrong, so hang on to that all you want, but when Economists from Stanford, Berkely etc say it isn’t so, then maybe you should start to rethink things Chris.

    these aren’t talking points bro.

  12. donviti says:
    May 25, 2007 at 11:09 am

    I understand the desire for alternative measures but the technology is only starting to come around and we needed time. So I place the dependence blame on the environmentalist shoulders.

    man, where to start bro.

    Why don’t you blame it on the refiners. You are aware we have about 50% less of them then we did in the 70’s right?

    You can blame the environmentalists all you want Chris, but when the avg MPG of an American car is essentially the same as it was in the 80’s that isn’t the environmentalists fault.

    you said we needed time? we have had 30 years since Iran squeezed our balls…how much more time do you want?

  13. jason330 says:
    May 25, 2007 at 11:16 am

    Okay Chris that’s fine.

    Like I said. I didn’t think you were ready for the grown-up concepts.

    Have a nice day.

  14. Chris says:
    May 25, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    “Stanford, Berkely”

    Wow. I give info from those institutions about as much credibility as you give information from Liberty University. I guess Bierkenstocks make you amazingly smart?

  15. Chris says:
    May 25, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    “Why don’t you blame it on the refiners. You are aware we have about 50% less of them then we did in the 70’s right?”

    Painfully aware. And why is that? Just try to start a new refinary and see how much friggin red tape, and protests, and public outcry environmentalists would throw up. Because of all the costs of the redtape and environmental considerations, and positive publicity to counter the slander, it does not make it economically feasible to do.

    “you said we needed time? we have had 30 years since Iran squeezed our balls…how much more time do you want?”

    Apparently we need more because the alternative methods are still not all that economically feasbile (Woah..ducking the enviro arrows for that one).

    Solar panels are supposed to only take seven years to recoup costs, but one good hail storm and now you are up to another 7 years. Wind seems promising and I hope it works out, but we would have to fill the skyline with them to generate what we need.

    Nuclear is great…but it can’t exactly power your car, unless we went 100% electric. And those cars cost a lot.

    So lets keep working on the other forms, but in the meantime, lets drill the crap out of our own country. What is the harm, especially if you guys are so convinced we will not need oil in the future.

  16. donviti says:
    May 25, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    I forgot, liberal elite colleges too, the big conspiracy out to polute our childrens minds. Silly me.

    get off my planet.

  17. donviti says:
    May 25, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    seriously man? I’m done with you today, you are getting more and more ridiculous. It was cute in the beginning, but now have become a troll.

    I’m not trying to start a new refinery man, I was asking you about the ones that were SHUT DOWN dude. The ones that they didn’t want to repair because it was cheaper to let them be shut down. spare me, seriously.

  18. Chris says:
    May 25, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    “I forgot, liberal elite colleges too, the big conspiracy out to polute our childrens minds. Silly me.”

    Of so you can run down conservative institutions, but liberal ones are great. If you said Harvard or Yale…yeah they are left leaning but generally middle of the road. But Stanford and Berkley? If you think they are in any way shape or form true institutions dedicated to higher learning, you are WAY out of touch. I am not indicting all colleges and universities. Academia generally leans left but most can be relatively fair. But not Stanford and Berkley.

«
»