Planetarion Forums - bushis officially, a complete and total muppet

roadrunner_0 · 6 Feb 2006, 23:58

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4686684.stm

so, increased military spending and decreased social spending, can the man get any madder? has he lost the plot completely? why is even his own party backing him over this?

personally, i think he really should be thrown out of office for sheer incompetence, i genuinely cant think why anyone would want to be led by this man...

skaxkid · 7 Feb 2006, 00:45

Who says all of us do?

furball · 7 Feb 2006, 01:22

No-one did say that we all wanted to be led by Bush. rr asked why anyone would want to be led by him.

Madina · 7 Feb 2006, 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

rr asked why anyone would want to be led by him.

For cheap petrol

Kurashima · 7 Feb 2006, 01:39

Hes a muppet

However his family, his friends, his contributors, all have their businesses in the military sector, so why wouldnt he be increasing spending there.

Screw the poor? Heck, theyll vote for him anyway as long as hes godfearing (publicly) and strongly right wing christian.

s|k · 7 Feb 2006, 03:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

i think he really should be thrown out of office for sheer incompetence, i genuinely cant think why anyone would want to be led by this man...

democracy lol

Veedeejem! · 7 Feb 2006, 04:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Screw the poor? Heck, theyll vote for him anyway as long as hes godfearing (publicly) and strongly right wing christian.

As long as you drag god into everything, you're a good politician and get lots of votes in the us

Seems like every 4 years the americans vote a new president/pope

Tactitus · 7 Feb 2006, 07:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

so, increased military spending and decreased social spending, can the man get any madder?

Why is that mad, particularily during wartime?

And social spending isn't really decreasing. The "big cuts" in healthcare are primarily a slight reduction in the rate of growth in Medicare from an 8.1% rate of growth to a 7.7% rate of growth (which is still more than twice the rate of growth of the overall economy and larger than the proposed increase in the defense budget fwiw). Only in the beltway (and the media) could this be called a cut.

Quote:

has he lost the plot completely? why is even his own party backing him over this?

It's an election year, so they might well end up cutting nothing--except taxes. :/

roadrunner_0 · 7 Feb 2006, 10:47

looking at the graphs in that BBC article (link somewhere on the right hand side) your economy isnt doing too well, and surely only a rabid lunatic would consider yet more tax cuts?

Ste · 7 Feb 2006, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Why is that mad, particularily during wartime?

wartime.
heh.
how convenient.

wu_trax · 7 Feb 2006, 11:58

I just dont care anymore. After all, they elected that nutjob.

Dante Hicks · 7 Feb 2006, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu_trax

I just dont care anymore. After all, they elected that nutjob.

The United States population will soon hit 300 million. Bush received 62m votes. It seems slightly unfair to imply they all voted for him, when it's closer to a fifth of the total population.

wu_trax · 7 Feb 2006, 13:23

that,s how democracy works...
Didn't he actually get more votes than the other guy last time?

Kurashima · 7 Feb 2006, 13:25

One amusing statistic im always seeing is

"American Muslims have one of the highest demographics for voting in the US"

I think theres maybe a problem with the US democratic system then, since their voice appears to mean absoloutely sod all.

Dante Hicks · 7 Feb 2006, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu_trax

Didn't he actually get more votes than the other guy last time?

Yes, but that still doesn't mean "they" (collective for the US people) all voted for him.

midge5 · 7 Feb 2006, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

looking at the graphs in that BBC article (link somewhere on the right hand side) your economy isnt doing too well, and surely only a rabid lunatic would consider yet more tax cuts?

Why? That seems the best time for them.

roadrunner_0 · 7 Feb 2006, 17:10

because his country is running so far in the red that its unreal? becuase most big business in america already gets away with paying little to no real taxes (cant find the book i read this in ATM, will try and have a good look for it later as i'm pretty sure that im going to get challenged on this

) because all of his tax breaks seem to be helping the rich?

demiGOD · 7 Feb 2006, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

[so, increased military spending and decreased social spending...

The increasing trend of social funding will be of a smaller rate than before and it's a very small decrease that it's almost not going to be felt by these organizations being funded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madina

For cheap petrol

I have no idea what you're talking about. Our fuel prices or rediculously expensive.

Dante Hicks · 7 Feb 2006, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by demiGOD

I have no idea what you're talking about. Our fuel prices or rediculously expensive.

Speaking in relative to other developed countries (e.g. Japan and Western Europe), that isn't really true unless things have changed a lot recently.

demiGOD · 7 Feb 2006, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Speaking in relative to other developed countries (e.g. Japan and Western Europe), that isn't really true unless things have changed a lot recently.

Hmm, how much is a liter or a gallon of 87 octane fuel in Britain?

Dante Hicks · 7 Feb 2006, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by demiGOD

Hmm, how much is a liter or a gallon of 87 octane fuel in Britain?

I'm not familiar with that term, but looking at Wiki I presume that's roughly the same as our regular unleaded so I guess it'd be about $1.60 per litre. I'm not a driver so I'm not really sure though.

Tactitus · 7 Feb 2006, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

looking at the graphs in that BBC article (link somewhere on the right hand side) your economy isnt doing too well, and surely only a rabid lunatic would consider yet more tax cuts?

Tax revenues grew by 14% last year (due to economic growth). In spite of tax cuts, tax revenues are still growing faster than the economy. Unfortunately, federal spending is growing even faster. We don't have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem. :/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The United States population will soon hit 300 million. Bush received 62m votes. It seems slightly unfair to imply they all voted for him, when it's closer to a fifth of the total population.

No more unfair than to imply that 300m can vote when a third of them are ineligible to do so (primarily due to age or citizenship requirements). I think it's a bit odd to look at the total population (unless you're advocating voting rights for toddlers and non-citizens) especially when you can make essentially the same point using 'a third of all eligible voters'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

One amusing statistic im always seeing is

"American Muslims have one of the highest demographics for voting in the US"

I think theres maybe a problem with the US democratic system then, since their voice appears to mean absoloutely sod all.

Muslims account for about 1% of the US population. Even with 100% voter turnout I don't see how anyone can expect that to translate into all that much political influence. In any case, I think it's a mistake to assume that all Muslims have the same political viewpoint. That certainly isn't the case with Jews or Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Speaking in relative to other developed countries (e.g. Japan and Western Europe), that isn't really true unless things have changed a lot recently.

We pay the same market rates as they do. If fuel prices are cheaper here it's mostly because we don't tax it as much.

Dante Hicks · 7 Feb 2006, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

No more unfair than to imply that 300m can vote when a third of them are ineligible to do so

I wasn't trying to imply anything about voting. wu_trax's sentiment was, roughly put : "I don't care about the Americans because they voted for Bush". That's not really a fair way of putting things. America is not special in this regard, the majority of people living in the UK didn't vote for our current government for example.

Quote:

I think it's a bit odd to look at the total population (unless you're advocating voting rights for toddlers and non-citizens) especially when you can make essentially the same point using 'a third of all eligible voters'.

I'm not interested in voters, I'm interested in the consequences to the people who live in the US (and beyond). Whether they voted (or if they're eligible to vote or whatnot) does not really affect if they appear on my moral balance sheet.

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Feb 2006, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not familiar with that term, but looking at Wiki I presume that's roughly the same as our regular unleaded so I guess it'd be about $1.60 per litre. I'm not a driver so I'm not really sure though.

That's about right. About four times as much as the US.

QazokRouge5 · 7 Feb 2006, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The United States population will soon hit 300 million. Bush received 62m votes. It seems slightly unfair to imply they all voted for him, when it's closer to a fifth of the total population.

True, but of that 300m only (I'm pulling a reasonable number out of my ass) 50% of them are ABLE to vote, and then there are still several who DON'T vote.