What does Bush believe?

Erwin

I do not know, do you?

Viga

He thinks Saddam killed the Mandelas. He believes that.

cosmicenema

I wouldn't know. I wax.

HMTKSteve

Bush believes in trickle down economics.
Bush believed that Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with.
Bush believes that Iran is fomenting trouble in the Middle East because it wants to become a world power.
Bush believes that Dick Cheney is a member of the fourth branch of government (and not accountable to anyone).
Bush believes that Democrats would gladly accept defeat in the War on Terror if it gets them enough votes to win elections.
Bush believes that far left wing groups (moveon dot org) have taken over the Democrat party.
Bush believes that Ted Kennedy keeps stealing his Eggo Waffles from the Presidential ready room.
Bush believes that we went into Iraq for reasons other than WMDs.

cosmicenema

Bush believes that Ted Kennedy keeps stealing his Eggo Waffles from the Presidential ready room.

Haha. I'm afraid I'm going to need some citations on this one.

Apreche

It doesn't matter what he believes, it only matter what he does. As far as I've seen, what he does is help to ruin his own country and others.

Ron Paul is a great example of this philosophy. On paper he believes in many of the same ideals that I do. However, what he is going to do is attempt to enact a gold standard, as well as other crazy policies, that I do not agree with.

When choosing politicians, I ignore their ideologies. I only judge them by their actions.

Erwin

It is kind of hard to do that since "when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all " (Godfellas, Futurama)

AtheriShadow

Bush believes 100% whole-heartedly in God.

Provided, of course, that by "God" you mean "money".

kage_rod

He doesn't believe in same-sex marriage. If I was in the US, I'd be in a rage, personally... But I live in Canada, so it's alright for me; but I think that if I ever moved to the United States, and there was no such thing as same-sex marriage, I'd probably wouldn't stay, or I'd at least attempt to get it changed. I'm sorry, civil unions are -not- the same as marriages in my eyes.

Stupid thing is is that I want to eventually live in the United States for at least a brief period of my life.

HungryJoe

Bush believes in trickle down economics.

Then he's wrong. Trickle down doesn't work. Here is another article about how trickle down doesn't work and here is yet another.

Bush believed that Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11. If you ask me, what he really believed was that he could get his hands on some oil.

Bush believes that Iran is fomenting trouble in the Middle East because it wants to become a world power.

Wait a minute. Iran is the one fomenting trouble in the Middle East? I guess the U.S. is just minding it's own business, huh?

Bush believes that Democrats would gladly accept defeat in the War on Terror if it gets them enough votes to win elections.

Explain please, just what "defeat in the War on Terror" is supposed to mean? In fact, please explain what "victory in the War on Terror" means. It's kind of a moving target.

Bush believes that far left wing groups (moveon dot org) have taken over the Democrat party.

So what? Who gives a damn what he thinks about the Democratic Party? What about the far right wackos in the Republic Party?

Bush believes that we went into Iraq for reasons other than WMDs.

Well, this is what he said at the time:

Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.

Source

What Bush really believes is that there are enough people who are so ideologically twisted that they can't bring themselves to question a sitting president, no matter how stupid, twisted, or downright evil his policies may be.

HMTKSteve

Well, this is what he said at the time:

Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.

Source

You mean he said regime change (accomplished) and not find the WMDs??? Damn Joe you just found a Bush quote that clears him of not accomplishing the mission in regards to Iraq!!!

PS: Joe I think you are taking this thread to seriously.

HungryJoe

You mean he said regime change (accomplished) and not find the WMDs??? Damn Joe you just found a Bush quote that clears him of not accomplishing the mission in regards to Iraq!!!

Once again children, a demonstration of why you should stay in school. Reading for comprehension is important. It should be learned in grammar school. Apparently, they don't teach it in the Army.

Oftentimes, a person who doesn't acquire the skills of reading for comprehension in grammar school may rectify the omission by attending college and earning a degree. If a person fails to do even that, their poor reading comprehension may make them look foolish when they post on message boards.

Jason

Then he'swrong.Trickle downdoesn't work.Hereis another article about how trickle down doesn't work andhereis yet another.

I think you're right on most of your assertions, Joe, but I think decrying trickle-down economics is a straw man.

Honestly, do we believe either demand or supply side macroeconomic camps? I tend to view them as yin and yang, with shifts in political impetus grinding the two theories against each other.

In practice, I think they're both flawed models because real consumers act differently than theoretical economic consumers. Macroeconomic theory tends to say people will act completely rationally and always choose the best product or service, when in fact people are stupid and pick sud-value products and services. Macro.e. ignores individual deviation.

Kiey

Well the reason Trickle down (aka Reagenomics) doesn't work is because when you give the rich more money, they typically don't spend it, they usually save it. In which case it obviously doesn't trickle down to workers who build stuff.

Trickle down would work a lot better if they gave all the money to college age people, since they tend to spend almost 100% of their money, thus providing a much better trickle down effect, and if they save some of it you get a bit of a trickle up effect too.

HMTKSteve

Well the reason Trickle down (aka Reagenomics) doesn't work is because when you give the rich more money, they typically don't spend it, they usually save it. In which case it obviously doesn't trickle down to workers who build stuff.

Trickle down would work a lot better if they gave all the money to college age people, since they tend to spend almost 100% of their money, thus providing a much better trickle down effect, and if they save some of it you get a bit of a trickle up effect too.

The rich do not save money the way the poor do. They typically take that money and invest it in stocks and bonds.

The tax system should work on an inverted bell curve system. Give the people in the middle a free ride on taxes and make the rich and the poor pay the taxes. The further from the middle you are the more you pay in taxes.

Kiey

The poor don't save money, they have to spend it all just to survive. Mostly on food. And tax the poor more? What's the point of that? They have no money, and taxing what little they do have just makes them worse off. All that system does is create a bloated middle class.

HMTKSteve

I was begin sarcastic...

Taxes are often used as a punitive method of deterring certain forms of behavior. Don't want people to smoke? Raise taxes on smokes!

This is just taking that idea to an extreme.

HungryJoe

Taxes are often used as a punitive method of deterring certain forms of behavior. Don't want people to smoke? Raise taxes on smokes!

The tax system should work on an inverted bell curve system. Give the people in the middle a free ride on taxes and make the rich and the poor pay the taxes. The further from the middle you are the more you pay in taxes.

So - you want to deter people from being poor by making them pay more in taxes?

Jason

Do we have to get into this again? Investing money is better for the economy -- and poor people included -- than spending. When you invest, it creates more wealth. When you spend, it just keeps recycling the same resources. When "rich" people invest money, it doesn't just sit in the bank -- it generates revenue that allows for business expansion, which creates new jobs, which creates new worker wealth.

Think about it this way: You live in a city that has $100 million. You don't want them to spend all of that money, because it means the tax rate will have to be high to replenish that revenue next year. What you want the city to do is invest $30 million in long-term, high-yield accounts so that it continues to generate its own revenue without placing a burden on the taxpayer.

Or we can go back to the apple analogy: You have two apples. You can eat them both, and really enjoy the taste, or you can eat one and plant the other, and ensure that the apple tree that springs up keeps on giving you apples for the rest of your life. Hell, you can even plant the apple seeds from the tree and make more trees, and more trees, and more trees. Then you'll need to hire people to tend those trees, and harvest the apples. You can even sell the apples. Investing the first apple created more wealth and more jobs for everyone.

kage_rod

Unfortunately not everyone has that money.. and some people have parents who refuse to invest (for whatever reason, like me. ><). Personally, as soon as I turn 18, I want to start putting short-term investments in so I can have money when I leave to go to college... *shrugs*

Such a thing as investment is shrouded by a lot of mystery to some people, which also doesn't help.

Apreche

When you invest, it creates more wealth. When you spend, it just keeps recycling the same resources.

I didn't read the rest of your post, or this thread. I was just skimming through. I just want to point out that if you save money in your mattress, then yes, it just sits there. However, if you save money in a bank, the bank invests that money. That's how they are able to give you interest. So effectively, saving in a bank account is investing.