|Bush - you gotta laugh....||muncher|
Mar 12, 2002 7:54 AM
|> This is a poem made up entirely of actual quotes from George W. Bush.
> The quotes have been arranged only for aesthetic purposes, by
> Washington Post writer Richard Thompson. MAKE THE PIE HIGHER by George
> W. Bush
> I think we all agree, the past is over.
> This is still a dangerous world.
> It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses.
> Rarely is the question asked Is our children learning?
> Will the highways of the internet become more few?
> How many hands have I shaked?
> They misunderestimate me.
> I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
> I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
> Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
> Put food on your family!
> Knock down the tollbooth!
> Vulcanize Society!
> Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
|re: Bush - you gotta laugh....||MJ|
Mar 12, 2002 8:42 AM
|has anybody seen that new Michael Moore book on Dubya?
when the right take offence at someone - they beat their chests and bleat their 'traditional' (do what we say not what we do) values and are very stern
the left however, make you laugh
Michale Moore - Bill Hicks - etc.
I guess the notable (and worthy) exception on the right is PJ O'Rourke
|re: Bush - you gotta laugh....||BikeViking|
Mar 12, 2002 11:33 AM
|I guess I need to read this Socialist's book to see what he has put out for consumption. I saw him on the O'Reilly Factor and he is a dyed in the wool Socialist. And proud of it to boot. Why do people like him have this need to take money from the wealthy and give it to the "poor" even though MANY of wealthy people had to work really hard to get all that money? Class warfare at its finest and I despise it.
I prefer to have guys like him keep HIS hands off of my money. Holding elected office does not give a person the "right" to do as they please with other peoples money.
|re: Bush - you gotta laugh....||MJ|
Mar 13, 2002 1:51 AM
|you really should read his book(s) - but before you do that you should rent his film 'Roger and Me' - while you may disagree you will laugh until your sides hurt - also make sure you get hold of any of Bill Hicks CD's - same scenario but a bit of a rougher edge
it constantly amazes me that guys like you (air force right?) i.e. not at the top of the economic ladder/regular guys/workers - side with big industry over the labour force and the 'poor'
why are you defending the wealthy? and why shouldn't the wealthy need to make a fair contribution to supporting the state and those less fortunate? why should the wealthy benefit from NAFTA and the worker end up unemployed? why should the wealthy be entitled to tax breaks that the average guy can't take advantage of? why should tax breaks go to industry and not to the worker?
before you criticise things like socialism you may want to investigate further - anyways, I'm pretty sure that he's a democratic socialist - like most of Europe and the US as well - it's just the US isn't as vocal about it
if you want to talk about socialism look at Mark Reisner's book 'Cadillac Desert' - a history of water policy in the American west - what you're told about the free market isn't what happens in practice - it's a sham and you think it's the free market
what's the difference between welfare for farmers who farm uneconomical crops and single, unemployed, inner city mothers? = nothing - but one is far more palatable to the right
|I did see Roger & Me,||TJeanloz|
Mar 13, 2002 6:20 AM
|A friend of mine convinced me to watch 'Roger & Me' and, honestly, I was really embarassed for Micheal Moore the whole time. The film was disgraceful for him. He spends most of it filming himself being disruptive all over town, from GM headquarters to the GM shareholders' meeting. There is a place for dissent, and instead of using it and actually doing something, he pulls some hijinx and wonders why he isn't getting anywhere.
It's a big tirade complaining about how GM gave these workers good jobs and them took them away- as if the illiterate people of Flint had some 'right' to make high wages on the assembly line. Their problem was that they had no diferentiating skills, and their labor could easily be moved overseas where it was cheaper to do their easy job. The people of Flint were stupid enough to believe that their gravey train was never going to end. And then they got mad when it did.
What a lot of people on the left don't seem to accept is simple economics- they look at the science of economics the same way that creationists look at evolution- and don't believe the models that have been developed over 50 years by some of the greatest analytical minds.
You criticize NAFTA- guess what, more new jobs were created in the United States in the 5 years following NAFTA than ever before.
You criticize the wealthy, when the top 5% of taxpayers pay the VAST majority of taxes in this country. The middle class and poor pay a pittance compared to what is spent on them per capita.
Why should the wealthy get a tax break first? They pay most of the taxes, and it turns out, that following every tax cut to the wealthyiest bracket (excluding the Reagan tax cut of '83), tax reciepts from that bracket rose. The tax rate is a disincentive for the wealthy to earn money- if you cut the rate, they will increase their earnings more than the % of tax lost.
Why should tax breaks go to industry and not the worker? The worker is going to buy a new Nintendo with his $300 tax cut- or pay down debt (which I think was the most popular way to spend the rebate). These don't help the economy. Industry is going to shift their production schedules and hire more people to produce more goods. This helps the economy, and ultimately, the workers.
Any other economics questions?
|I did see Roger & Me,||MJ|
Mar 13, 2002 7:10 AM
|did you watch the same film I did - cause I, and most film critics as it happens, thought the film was great - very entertaining stuff
what about 'Downsize This'
it must be difficult to see normal people from the lofty economic tower you have built for youreself
what kind of jobs have been created in the wake of NAFTA?
not everyone is going to be able to meet the exacting standards of a non-manual labour job - so what do the stupid people, as you so endearlingly refer to them, do? they claim welfare
I think the other point is that GM made their wedge off of the backs of those very same 'illiterate' folk then turned around and screwed them
I love the trickle down economics lesson - but it's exceedingly unfasionable these days - what exactly do the non-wealthy get disproportionately in return for their taxes?
is industry going to move their tax savings into more production or into offshore bank accounts a la Enron
is it a good thing that jobs and industry move overseas?
what's wrong with buying a Nintendo or paying down debt - people's debts helping the economy sounds like an economoy that I, as a non-wealthy guy, don't want to participate in thank you very much - that means that I'm getting screwed while big business is doing great
again your arguments, like BV's support the wealthy - your towing the line that's been spewed out by the Republicans for decades
look around the world (Europe for a start) and see what sensible taxation provides in infrastructure elsewhere...
|I did see Roger & Me,||TJeanloz|
Mar 13, 2002 7:33 AM
|Whether it's an entertaining film or not is a decision for the critics, and I'm willing to say it was pretty funny watching Micheal Moore making an ass out of himself. Whether the premise of the film was accurate, or even reasonable, is a decision for economists- and we think it was pretty ridiculous.
I haven't gotten to see "Downsize This" as I don't have much spare time, seeing how I work 100 hours a week to be among the idle rich. I can still see normal people from my lofty tower- I only work on the 9th floor.
What kind of jobs have been created by NAFTA? It's hard to attribute directly, but mostly service jobs. What is indisputable though, is that unemployment (even in the middle of this recession) is worryingsomely (that's definitely not a word) low. Much lower than in your vaunted European models. But I suppose you would prefer to be unemployed and taken care of by the rich people than actually have to work...
I don't remember presenting a 'trickle down' model. Just a simple, and correct, assesment of where we have traditionally stood on the Laffer curve. I have a great graphic on it that I'll try to upload- it's really astonishing to see tax reciepts rise after every tax cut (except '83).
Yes, it is a good thing that jobs and industry moves overseas. As economists say, it makes everybody better off. We will have no shortage of jobs for unskilled labor, every economy needs them, but it is a question of equity- why should the woman who empties my trash every night be paid the same as me?
On the European argument, I, as a Swiss citizen, am quite familiar with the socially progressive movements. As an economist, I worry about the future well-being of many European people, as their system discourages excellence, and encourages mediocraty- because the government will take care of you.
|I did see Roger & Me,||MJ|
Mar 13, 2002 7:55 AM
|you're talking about the welfare class and making rash generalisation about Europe - most people are simply not happy to let the government take care of them - excellence abounds - we just don't feel the best way to excel is to work 100 hours a week!
people are happy to pay higher taxes if they receive something worthwhile in return - (healthcare; transportation; etc.)
'Downsize This' is a book and makes a bit more of an 'academic' approach (as academic as MM is likely to get) - an idle rich economist shoud be able to burn through it at lunch
the woman who empties your garbage should not be paid more than you - nobody's saying that - but because someone is unskilled should not damn them to a life of poverty or welfare - wherever they live, be it Detroit, Mombassa or Basel
service jobs - is that what a healthy economy is built on? is that what people should aspire to? or is that what the wealthy are keen on supporting?
I don't think European unemployment is the issue it was a decade ago - anyways - I'd rather live in a place where the unemployed have access to a reasonable infrastructure than a system that offers minimum wage jobs without benefits and no infrastructure - which system helps the most people?
100 hours a week?!? - when do you ride your bike?
|Lunch is for the weak...||TJeanloz|
Mar 13, 2002 8:13 AM
|I would burn through a book at lunch if I were able to have that kind of time for lunch. Typically, I can't make it through MM's books because I find that his most basic premise is often too flawed to be economically salvageable. But I'll run over to Borders (or better, my local independent bookseller) and pick up a copy for train reading.
Service jobs may well be what a healthy economy is built on-hell, I have a service job. It doesn't really matter whether you produce a durable good or a quantifiable service, and a service may actually be better for the unskilled sector. The idea of the existence of a 'welfare' class disgusts me.
The core of the matter, that the left finds hard to believe, is that the rich really don't want a segment of the world to be impoverished. They seem to think that the rich get some sick pleasure out of knowing that there are poor people. As an idle rich economist, I really do believe that what I'm doing is making the world better. It's the handout vs. handup argument- I don't think a governmental handout will help, but I do everything possible to create new jobs and economic expansion.
Despite my work schedule, I ride the rollers every night for an hour, and get a real bike ride in on Sunday mornings.
|Lunch is for the weak...||MJ|
Mar 13, 2002 8:32 AM
|that's a pretty broad definition of what a 'service job' is - I think the more traditional approach is to consider that the woman who empties your trash bin is in a service job - you are a professional
the idea of a welfare class disgusts many - I think that they, the welfare class, are a popular group to attack - after all they are uneducated, genrally unhealthy and generally can't defend themselves - and most of them are minorities to boot (it all dovetails nicely) - but do not attract significant resources or number anything worth considering
but casting such aspersions deflects from where the real beneficiaries of taxes - maybe we should term big business who take advantage of tax breaks the 'welfare class' - they get more than the single moms
I don't think the rich give a toss about anything other than their latest financial report - that's the point - they're in this for them and we, normal, non-wealthy guys are letting them get away with it because we have been brainwashed to believe it's in our interest
handout v handup shouldn't mean do what we say not what we do - we'll take big business handouts but you the common worker are going to lose your job when we relocate to Indonesia
do you really work 100 hours a week? - that's truly criminal
give 'Downsize This' a go you'll enjoy it (whether you're laughing at or with him)
while you're ate it have a look at Mark Resiner's 'Cadillac Desert' for a discussion of big business/farmer subsidies... another great train book
|On business tax breaks...||TJeanloz|
Mar 13, 2002 8:59 AM
|It's a technicality of economic thought- and one that's ridiculed by the left, but businesses don't pay any taxes. A tax, at its most basic level, is a reduction in utility, or enjoyment. But a business isn't really a thing- it doesn't have any feelings of utility in the first place.
Business taxes, therefore, get paid by one of two groups: the consumer, or the shareholders. Because the shareholders have some say in how the business is operated, customers will invariably pay the businesses tax. Where this is most apparent is in ciggarettes; every time the government raises taxes (or fines the company) it is directly reflected in the cost. Consumers foot the bill for business taxes, so taxing them or giving them a tax break doesn't really effect the overall GDP equation.
|Better read is "Rivethead" by Ben Hamper||ColnagoFE|
Mar 13, 2002 12:43 PM
|It's the story written by one of Mike Moore's freinds (Ben Hamper) who had a brief cameo in Roger and Me. He supposedly went nuts after working (and partying) on the Ford assembly line for too long. If only half of the shennanigans that he mentions went on in the Ford factory then no wonder so many cars are lemons and Ford decided to go overseas for labor. Good read though. Makes you thankful not to have to work such a mindless job for a living.|
|Better read is "Rivethead" by Ben Hamper||MJ|
Mar 14, 2002 1:52 AM
|yeah - I'll check it out - thanks for the reccomendation|
|Hey, presidenting is HARD!||js5280|
Mar 12, 2002 8:49 AM
|LOL, that is a funny collection of quotes. Tongue tied Bush or silver-tongued Clinton are equally worthless/dangerous in my book though. At the very least we can laugh at Bush-isms for 4 years instead of humiliated by the parade of Clinton situational ethic gaffs. . .
Vote Libertarian! http://www.lp.org
|Could be worse, you could have Cretien for a leader...||OutWest|
Mar 12, 2002 4:39 PM
|...and if you take one E out of his name, well I'm sure you get my drift. At least he doesn't openly betray Canada like Mulroney did.|
|Could be worse, you could have Cretien for a leader...||empacher6seat|
Apr 21, 2002 4:46 PM
|At least he can count to 13, unlike some other country's leader...|| |