Hey stupid, its the economy, stupid.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...bush-poll_x.htm

Maybe he should make those tax cuts a bit larger.

Paul O'Neill, recently dumped from his Treasury post, came out against the new round of tax cuts....

And Dumbya would surely be riding as high as "Poppy" was if he could only provoke Saddam into invading something--some country--Iraq maybe?--so that he'd have more a pretext for speeding up the war to early February as opposed to the March date that's been bandied about.

The inspectors haven't found anything, our European allies are pressing for caution, our Middle Eastern friends are balking...but they'll all change when we provide them with the "secret" information that in addition to harboring Osama bin Laden and a range of other wicked terrorist people, Saddam has detailed plans for seizing control of North Korea's nuclear arsenal and launching the two nukes that nation has, as well as its own massive arsenal of WEAPONSOFMASSDESTRUCTION at Washington, from Pyongyang...Tony Blair's juicy dossier on these plans will surely back us up!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Paul O'Neill, recently dumped from his Treasury post, came out against the new round of tax cuts....

---

So? This is irrelevant, since O'Neill was specifically fired for being on the opposite side of what the Bush Administration wants.

When will people realize that tax cuts INCREASE revenue, promote job growth, which in turns expands the economy?!?

I am sooooooo sick of the broken record of "oh, these tax cuts only help the wealthy, blah, blah, blah." Well, who the hell PAYS most of the taxes???

Personally, I say scrap the 46,000 pages of the tax code and reform the whole damn process altogether!


Here is something written almost a year ago. Makes one wonder just what Congress is afraid of when reforming the U.S. tax code is discussed...

By : Deroy Murdock

RUSSIA'S FLAT TAX REFORM

Russia switched to a 13 percent flat tax and tax revenues increased.

From DALLAS MORNING NEWS

This year Americans will pay accountants and attorneys $140 billion to do their taxes and help them navigate the 46,000-page U.S. Tax Code. Too bad, observers say, this isn't Russia.

Since January 1, 2001, Russians have enjoyed a 13 percent flat tax.

Even the OLD Russian system was simpler than ours, with three tax rates - 12, 20 and 30 percent.

The U.S. has six -- 6, 10, 15, 27, 30, 35 and 38.6 percent, the last of which takes hold at $307,500 for married couples filing jointly.

The majority of Russian taxpayers don't need to file forms. The 13 percent rate has exceeded expectations in terms of revenue, as real ruble revenue increased 28 percent

Three years ago, tax revenue equaled 9 to 10 percent of Russian gross domestic product.

By last November that had grown to 16 percent as result following the Laffer Curve: lower marginal tax rates produce higher revenues.

The new system has also greatly reduced the underground economy, where people were paid in goods rather than cash to facilitate tax evasion.

In other pro-market moves, President Vladimir Putin has signed legislation to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 24 percent. The Kremlin may also offer Russians privately invested social security accounts, much as President Bush wants for Americans.

As one observer has noted, V.I. Lenin, analyzing all this from his dacha in hell, must be stroking his beard in utter bewilderment.

Source: Deroy Murdock, "Even Russia Realized the Wisdom of a Flat
Tax," Dallas Morning News, March 4, 2002.

[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: MIB ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
And Dumbya would surely be riding as high as "Poppy" was if he could only provoke Saddam into invading something--some country--Iraq maybe?--so that he'd have more a pretext for speeding up the war to early February as opposed to the March date that's been bandied about.

---

Perhaps the humor that can undoubtedly be found in this post is over my head, but how would Saddam invade Iraq? Doesn't he rule the place anyway? Are you telling Saddam to (ahem)go "invade" himself? Now that would be funny . . .

Originally posted by MIB:
[quote] When will people realize that tax cuts INCREASE revenue, promote job growth, which in turns expands the economy?!?

---

MIB, where do you get this from? There has never been a time when tax cuts increased government revenue - that whole idea is based on the concept of the "Laffer curve" that supposedly showed how people don't work because their marginal tax rates are too high. Unfortunately, what Mr. Laffer didn't figure in (and we should all beware of economic theories that were drawn on cocktail napkins, as this one was) was that most people don't control how much they work - it is full-time or not for most of us.

Even if one were to buy the idea that cutting taxes for those who are wealthiest, and for businesses, eventually increases revenue (because of economic growth), that does not mean that tax cuts are a "stimulus" to the economy. Growth in the economy in 5 years does not put food on the table for the hundreds of tourism workers who have been out of work in DC since 9/11.

Incidentally, the last great growth in tax revenues, as well as the beginning of the last economic boom, came after a tax increase in 1993.

What I think is funny is when conservative tax-cutting Republicans act as though anyone else in the world wouldn't absolutely love to have their taxes cut and take home more money. I mean, how absolutely retarded, for lack of a more appropriate term. Obviously and of course we would all love to have lower taxes, more money, houses on the moon, etc. However, sometimes it is in the better interest of the overall economy for people to pay taxes to finance the government and not just lower taxes as a feel good measure that would come back to haunt the economy a few years hence. I do agree however with the Republicans who want to cut spending, of course now that includes most Democrats as well, but you can't do one without the other and with the economy as it is now, we can't even do one with the other.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Perhaps the humor that can undoubtedly be found in this post is over my head, but how would Saddam invade Iraq? Doesn't he rule the place anyway? Are you telling Saddam to (ahem)go "invade" himself? Now that would be funny . . .

---

You shouldn't stay away so long. Tell Hillary Clinton you have other friends you want to play with and she'll get the picture. It's called IRONY. Yes, Saddam is already in Iraq, so the idea that he'd invade his own dominated country as a pretext for Dumbya to launch HIS and the oil companies' war...oh, forget it.

[quote]Originally posted by MIB:

When will people realize that tax cuts INCREASE revenue, promote job growth, which in turns expands the economy?!?

RUSSIA'S FLAT TAX REFORM

Russia switched to a 13 percent flat tax and tax revenues increased.

---

Obviously YOU are joking about Russia, right? Russia has SEVERE problems raising revenues, and has one of the WORST tax collection rates in the Western world.

You can parrot the administration's lines all you want about what "tax cuts" will do, but the marginal income tax rates are lower than they were in 1960, in 1970, in 1980, and 1990. Bush's stupid plan, a sop to the very small number of people who earn dividends--as opposed to the large number of people who own mutual funds, which are not taxed--isn't going to do a damned thing to improve the economy in the short term, and may not work in the long term, though I think he's banking on a stock market improvement around 2004, when he's up for re-election. No, I do not like paying taxes. Yes, I would like my taxes cut. Yes, the rich--SOME OF THEM--and some of the corporations pay a large proportion of the taxes--yet by the same standpoint people in the middle and working classes, who are the majority of the citizens in this country and whose shopping and buying power fuels this economy, are hit hard by taxes as a percentage of their income. So yes, I think middle-class and working-class people should always be part of the equation, yet they were left out of Bush's most recent stupid economic plan.

And his popularity is sinking as a result of that, his diplomatic flat-footedness, and this whimsy he has for a war in Iraq.

[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Just a couple of quick points. One -- it is the proportional impact (not the absolute value) that is most important with taxes. Frankly speaking, if you are making $10 million a year, you can afford to cough up $3.6 in taxes. If you are making $20k, it is much harder to come up with the $2k or so. And, of course, with all of the tax codes written over the years, the majority of helper clauses that allow for deductions reduce wealthier people's burden disproportionately more. So, the actual impact of income taxes is much heavier on the middle and lower class categories.

Second -- as I have stated before, if you take some intro-econ classes you learn that tax cuts do not have the "trickle-down" principles mentioned earlier. Quite frankly, the money saved is usually not spent on additional goods and services. It does not lead to greater investment. It does not lead to greater jobs. The entire Ronald Reagan presidency was based on this whole theory. He had nearly a decade to work with it, and it never produced any of the results expected. Tax cuts do not lead to all the wonderful things people say.

Now, what would be nice is a uniform tax code that applies to everyone in a proportionately equal way. It would be nice to see everyone benefit from a simplified and unified tax regulation. More than likely a pipe dream. Why do we all think the Senators who are writing these codes do not overhaul them? If the wealthiest people and corporations felt they were getting stiffed, the codes would be rewritten. They are not, because they suit those people in influential positions.

[quote] Frankly speaking, if you are making $10 million a year, you can afford to cough up $3.6 in taxes. If you are making $20k, it is much harder to come up with the $2k or so.

---

yes, the man making 10 million/year can afford to pay 3.6 millio in taxes and still live on the remaining 6.4 million.

however, the real question is not "can he survive on his after-tax income remainder?"
the real question is "Is it just or fair to expect someone to pay a greater share for taxes just because he makes more?"

sign me up for the flat tax

According to CNN today. Shrubs' ratings went from 63-58% in a week. Not to hard to figure out why.

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
According to CNN today. Shrubs' ratings went from 63-58% in a week. Not to hard to figure out why.

---

Yeah, I guess the Niners' loss lowered us all a notch or two.

[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Originally posted by MIB:


MIB, where do you get this from? There has never been a time when tax cuts increased government revenue.

---

Oh? Then perhaps you are not aware of how JFK's--a Democrat's--lowering of the top tax rate of 90% to 70% (clearly a boon to the rich) caused treasury revenues to skyrocket. When Reagan cut the taxes even more in the early 80's, revenues also increased.

It is not just a Republican who realizes that it is a paradoxical truth that when taxes are cut, revenues increase.

Let's take an interesting look at a tax that--thank God--expired 12-31-02, the so-called luxury tax (aimed at the rich and their toys--boats, expensive cars, jewelry, etc.).

Pushed through by Ted Kennedy and other Democrats and supported by that flip-flopping idiot Bush 41, this tax was heralded as raising over $32 million a year (a paltry sum), when, in fact, it brought in about half that. Worse, it caused the collapse of the boat-building industry in the northeast, wiping out thousands of jobs (source: ABC News) and decimating an already fragile economy there.

Yup. Tax increases. That'll work--not.

Gimme the flat tax any day of the week--or why not consider a national sales tax (whatever that percentage would be could be discussed) on everything, with a lower one on food and medicine?

I'd gladly pay 15% or more for an item if I was given 15% or more in take-home pay.

[quote]Originally posted by MIB:
When will people realize that tax cuts INCREASE revenue, promote job growth, which in turns expands the economy?!?

---

Thats a good one, very funny!! Lets see, Dumbya had a major tax cut a couple of years ago, we went from huge surpluses to huge deficits, the unemployment rate is at an 8 year high. Im not sure what your definition of "expand" is.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


You shouldn't stay away so long. Tell Hillary Clinton you have other friends you want to play with and she'll get the picture.

---

I don't get this either.

[quote]Originally posted by MIB:
It is not just a Republican who realizes that it is a paradoxical truth that when taxes are cut, revenues increase.

---

This argument is pure bullshit. Check out conservative economist Bruce Bartlett - his column runs in the Washington Times, among others.

"A good example of this is the myth that the budget deficits of the 1980s resulted from a trick -- some would even call it a lie -- played by Ronald Reagan and a group of supply-side economists. Supposedly, they sold Congress and the American people a bill of goods by saying that the 1981 tax cut would lose no revenue. Based on something called the 'Laffer Curve,' they are said to have asserted -- on the basis of no logical or empirical evidence -- that there would be such an outpouring of work, investment and economic growth that higher revenues would be collected at lower tax rates.

This whole story is, of course, complete nonsense. No one in a position of authority ever said any such thing. And even if they had, how can one possibly believe that a skeptical Congress and a liberal news media would allow anyone to get away with it?

The truth is that every official estimate made by the Reagan Administration, published in the budget and elsewhere, showed large revenue losses associated with the 1981 tax cut."

Originally posted by MIB:
[quote]Oh? Then perhaps you are not aware of how JFK's--a Democrat's--lowering of the top tax rate of 90% to 70% (clearly a boon to the rich) caused treasury revenues to skyrocket. When Reagan cut the taxes even more in the early 80's, revenues also increased.

---

To echo conor500 - the Reagan tax cuts did not increase revenue - that is why we ended up with the biggest budget deficits, and a tripling of the national debt, during the Reagan/Bush 1 presidencies. As for the JFK lowering of taxes - if the increase in revenue is true - that was a likely a whole different story. When marginal tax rates hit 90%, it very well could hurt tax collection, because anyone getting near that tax rate has a huge incentive to use tax shelters,etc. to hide income and avoid large taxes.

However, our tax rates aren't anywhere near 90% anymore, and the slight lowering of tax rates proposed by Bush 2 could not have anywhere near the impact of JFK's tax reduction.

Also, many posters on this board have argued against that the current tax system isn't "fair" to the rich, because they pay a larger amount in taxes. Aside from the problem that all taxes are "unfair" to everyone, but a necessary evil, one can argue that the rich have a lot more riding on the stability and success of this country than do regular people. After all, if the country were invaded, the poor would still be poor, and likely would not see much of an impact on their lives. The rich, however, would have their lives up-ended. Those with more at stake should pay more to protect that.

Using a more realistic example - we all benefit from public education. Not only do most people get their education through the government, but our economy does better if the work force is educated. But who benefits the most from that educational system? The companies who hire the workers, and the folks who make money off those companies. Without the training and educational costs that would exist without the public educational system, the companies have lower expenses. More importantly, they have a pool of workers who are more likely to see innovations and other ways to increase revenue than would un-educated or very narrowly educated (e.g., on the job training only) workers. Again, they get more out of the system, and should put more in.

I love that the Democrats are so happy that Bush's approval rating is "only" 58%. Here are some other numbers from this same poll:

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about:

A. Works well with both parties to get things done in Washington: Applies, 64; Doesn’t apply, 31; No opinion, 5

B. Cares about the needs of people like you:
Applies, 56; Doesn’t apply, 41; No opinion 3

C. Is a strong and decisive leader: Applies, 76;
Doesn’t apply, 23; No opinion 1

D. Can manage the government effectively: Applies, 67; Doesn’t apply, 31; No opinion, 2

E. Is honest and trustworthy: Applies, 70; Doesn’t apply, 27; No opinion, 3

F. Shares your values: Applies, 54; Doesn’t apply, 43; No opinion, 3

G. Inspires confidence: Applies, 65; Doesn’t apply, 34; No opinion, 1

H. Has a vision for the country’s future: Applies, 68; Doesn’t apply, 29; No opinion 3

I. Is willing to make hard decisions: Applies, 83;
Doesn’t apply, 15; No opinion, 2

J. Brought dignity back to the White House: Applies, 67; Doesn’t apply, 30; No opinion, 3

Also, let's not forget that people making up to $80,000 pay Federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare taxes, as well as state and local income taxes, on the entire income, subject to certain deductions.

People making more than $80,000 only pay up to this level, so that they actually are getting a break on Social Security, though their tax rate is higher.

Why, if Bush is so concerned with taxes, is he not cutting the AMT tax? Because he knows that while he can reduce taxes on dividends, which will affect only a razor-thin share of American investors, and eliminate the estate tax, which will again be a payoff to the top 1% (and not all the damned farmers he spuriously claims), the AMT will kick in and slam tax-payers making anywhere from $75,000-$400,000, which means the middle and upper middle classes will bear the burden of his beignets to the superrich.

Also, to MIB he dismissed Paul O'Neill's criticism, let's not forget that O'Neill is a multimillionaire and was a very successful former business executive, who has never been accused of the sorts of financial shenanigans that have tarred the careers of Bush AND Cheney. O'Neill would stand to benefit handsomely from Bush's bad policies, but even he had the good sense to say that they were not a good idea and not what he would have done. Instead, he's gone, and now Bush has pliant people in who will do Rove's bidding.

Also, quite a large number of corporations, like Enron, for example, which was bilking investors, pay almost NO taxes, AND got a huge payoff from Bush with his outrageous 2000 tax plan. I guess that's okay, even though it didn't do a damned thing to improve the economy, which has steadily weakened since he took office.

President Bush's numbers have gone down in nearly every category. Here are some more numbers from the same poll - not quite as rosy as William would have us believe:

-47% disapprove of President Bush's handling of the economy (48% approve - a statistical tie)

-44% disapprove of his health care policy (41% approve)

-48% believe President Bush is "out of touch with problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives"

-56% believe that, in general, President Bush favors the rich over the lower and middle classes

-while one-third say they will "definitely vote for" President Bush in 2004, an equal number say they will "definitely vote against" him, and another third is undecided. Hardly a runaway.

I wouldn't "have you believe" anything - I don't give a rat's ass what any of you guys believe. I only post on here to quench my on virtually endless thirst for argument, and even that I do less frequently than before. That said, we can pick and choose whatever numbers we want out of this poll, but the fact is the current picture for Bush is not at all bleak. If I were getting ready to run for reelection, I would be happy to start off with these numbers.

[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Originally posted by MIB:


To echo conor500 - the Reagan tax cuts did not increase revenue.

---

Point of fact: Yes they did. Treasury revenues more than doubled within the 3 years following Reagan's tax cuts in the early 80's. (Source: ABC News)

How lovely to have William's charming nature back on the board to join us and our rat's asses. Seems like if I didn't care about what anyone on here thought and seemed to have a great distaste for everyone, I wouldn't bother to be on here, but that's just me. I can also disagree with someone and not lambaste them, but to each his own. You go Andy Rooney sound-a-like! And happy 84th birthday!

I can only speak for myself, but even with talking with friends who, like me, aren't keen on Bush, I think we all support him as our president. I certainly do. I didn't vote for him, but I sure stand behind him as the leader of this country. I would sort of like to think that we all do that, but that doesn't mean that we can't dissent from some of his policies. It also doesn't mean that we have some sinister glee when he is unpopular or says stupid things or has a face like a monkey. I'd prefer he did a great job up until the next election.

[quote]Originally posted by mattkorey:
I can only speak for myself, but even with talking with friends who, like me, aren't keen on Bush, I think we all support him as our president. I certainly do. I didn't vote for him, but I sure stand behind him as the leader of this country.

---

I agree with you, MattKorey, to a certain extent. This sounds great. Even most Democrats/liberals, being basically kind and caring and decent people ( ), do have a certain amount of respect for the President and support him simply because of his office.

However, President Clinton certainly never had that luxury. Republicans, along with the media in many cases, vilified him for 8 years straight, and did not hesitate to rip into his wife and his daughter either. There was no respect for the President or the Presidency whatsoever, and don't try to tell me that was Bill Clinton's fault. It was the fault of rabid, mean-spirited Republicans who wished nothing but harm for the President.

(And yes, I am exaggerating here, but only a bit.)

I think you are totally correct with how Clinton was treated. But being principled adults, I think we should support Bush because it is the right thing to do and not be childish and not support him and be vicious because they were vicious to Clinton. That's just grade school.

But, that said, if he were to do something insane, I wouldn't just go along with it, but then I wouldn't have gone along with Clinton were he to have done something insane either, and he was my favorite of all time.

I just mean to bestow the basic respect on the office that it is entitled to, regardless of the office holder. And hope that the other party would do the same when your guy wins.

I only post on here to quench my on virtually endless thirst for argument, and even that I do less frequently than before. And I'm NOT 84, for what it's worth. I'm 88.

[ January 29, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

You guys really need to get over your Clinton obsession. You really need to move on.

[ January 29, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

MIB, do you have a link where ABC news posts this information (on revenues increasing). I ask because I was an economics major during the 80's and we studied the Reagan tax cuts pretty extensively. Basically, Reagan got Congress to cut taxes, but Congress refused to cut spending and therefore the budget deficit skyrocketed.

That aside - has anyone considered that if the country is really going to war, we don't need an economic stimulus. A good old-fashioned war tends to increase government spending, which is the old-fashioned Keynsian method of stimulating the economy (and is what Reagan basically did).

Spending was cut on a lot of domestic programs in the Reagan era, but defense spending skyrocketed. That, added to the tax cuts for the rich, led to the deficits.

As for a good old-fashioned war stimulating the economy, we don't fight old-fashioned wars any more. Example: Persian Gulf war. That didn't exactly stimulate anything.

[quote] You guys really need to get over your Clinton obsession.

---

Thank you, Sigmund. But I believe the term you’re looking for is "penis envy."

[quote] Persian Gulf war. That didn't exactly stimulate anything.

---

Except CNN ratings.

[quote]Originally posted by MIB:


Point of fact: Yes they did. Treasury revenues more than doubled within the 3 years following Reagan's tax cuts in the early 80's. (Source: ABC News)

---

Well, I checked the stats for each three year period in Reagan's presidency, and the best revenue increase was about 29%. For comparison, the best revenue increase for a three year period during Clinton's presidency was about 28%. During Clinton's last year and Bush II's first year revenues decreased, but outlays increased, hence the deficit again.

As for paying taxes, I really don't mind paying them. But as long as long time Senators and Representatives keep on piling the pork on the budget, I feel that we are taxed too much.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


I only post on here to quench my on virtually endless thirst for argument, and even that I do less frequently than before. And I'm NOT 84, for what it's worth. I'm 88.

---

He's lying - he told me he was 89.

I would love to be able to compare revenue changes in both administrations with the inflation level at the same time. I don't know if the 29% Reagan increase were inflation-adjusted or not - if it wasn't adjusted and was from the earlier part of his presidency, the high inflation rates of the early 80's would wipe out a lot of that increase. Clinton's revenue increase, on the other hand, came during a period of very low inflation, so more of the increase would have been "real" (sometimes I am just too much an Economist).

[ January 29, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

CPT_Doom, you're never too much of an economist. It's good to read your comments on this topic because you speak with reason and authority.

The President's poll numbers aren't dreadful, and they're higher than the last President's were at this comparable point, but the political and sociopolitical landscapes around us look much bleaker than they did in 1994.

The crisis with North Korea is deeply troubling to me. Bush's approach does not appear to be working, and as with his economic pronouncements this summer, every time he opens his mouth the situation worsens.

[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Hi CPT Doom. Good point with respect to inflation. The 29% increase, though, occurred near the end of Reagan's presidency.

[ January 29, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Latest - getting lower.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/861124.asp

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
Latest - getting lower.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/861124.asp

---

Can you say "Poppy"?

I'm beginning to see more and more anti-war stickers on cars around LA. And the protests are beginning to kick up. L'il Georgie is fighting a war on two fronts.

"Out with Hussein and in with tax breaks for heavy investors (i.e. the wealthy)."

Here's a recipe for disaster;

* Add no oil from Venezuela ( which represents 15% of US imports ). Let pump prices exceed $2 a gallon just in time for Summer vacations!

* Add uniform international ire by launching a war on Iraq before the weapons inspectors give up. Then offend Muslims around the world with an off-color remark.

* Let the unemployment rate continue to hang around 6%. Deny that it exists.

* Give massive tax break to the largest stock holders! Avoid laughing while recanting Reaganomics, trickle down theory, etc.

If 2003 contains these ingredients, L'il Georgie will get served on toast in 2004. Like father (one-termer), like son.

Latest poll numbers being bandied about show Shrubs' popularity going even lower this week. His handling of the economy numbers are getting worse by the day.

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows a major trend downward. His numbers are down in all categories. Almost 60% of respondents felt that the country was headed in the wrong direction. About 56% felt the economy was not being addressed appropriately. And on and on and on.

The comparison to the same poll questions asked six months ago indicate about a 30 point drop for the President in most categories. It is nice to see that people are paying attention.

Was there a bump after his hour of bloviating?

Here's a funny Slate.com piece by conservative Christopher Buckley on pResident shrubjunior.

Quoth he: "I have to say, I found myself yearning for a really Left Wing TV channel, a foil to Fox. What—let's call it the Red Channel—could have done with the delicious information that John Ashcroft was the absent Cabinet officer last night, somewhere in a "safe location" ("I'll bet," my lefty Wolf Blitzer would say) with the shadow government. There's plot enough for a Seven Days in May—in fact, I think I'll get started on it."

Correct me if I err, but isn't it only the Democrats on this board who parrot the polls?

What a coincidence - just like Team Billary!

Yes, indeed, you do err...the Republicans on the board "parrot the polls" all the time, but only when they need to and only when it's useful to deflect from what's really going on with their disastrously destructive President. And the best time to mention Bill Clinton or Hillary or any other little Bush-inspired nickname, at least for the Republicans, is when they need to steer attention away from Georgie's incompetence and, what will soon be fatal, stupidity.

So, yes, indeed, you do err, greatly, in fact...

Bryan -- very well said and true. He will end up like his Father after destroying the economy and un-doing all the progress of the Clinton years. And don't forget - they also use Bill and Hillary to squeeze all the bucks out of the right wingers at fund raisers. These wonderful "Christians" have no bounds for their hatred of the Clintons. When Republicans have "problems" they are "youthful indiscretions", remember -- awful double standard.

The NY Times had a graph this past week or so that showed GW Bush compared to prior presidents (since Truman or Eisenhower I think) and how they fared at their 2 yr mark. GWB's approval rating was higher than most of the past 4 or 5 presidents back to Johnson. ( I think GWHB was higher.) Yes his poll numbers are falling but at the 2 yr mark they beat Clinton, Carter & several other prez's. No one could sustain such high poll numbers indefinetely.

[quote]conor500:
[QUOTE]However, President Clinton certainly never had that luxury. Republicans, along with the media in many cases, vilified him for 8 years straight, and did not hesitate to rip into his wife and his daughter either. There was no respect for the President or the Presidency whatsoever,[/quote]I don't remember people ripping into Chelsea- although Hillary did get criticized a LOT but that was mainly for heading up the health care fiasco with no qualifications for the job. I think a lot of this conflict started when the Democrats tried to rip Reagan apart (and trashed his wife extensively.) I also remember the media being totally pro-Clinton in the Bush -Clinton race of '92. Maybe that is why the media seemed to turn on him after he was elected- although he got a fair shake till the Monica affair in my opinion. signed: a kindler gentler Republican

OK, BD, you've stated your conclusion, now back it up. Instead of having me prove a negative, which can't be done, I ask you to cite some instances where I or any of the other GOP-aligned posters on this board have cited polls in any form relating to his approval ratings since President Bush was sworn into office in January 2001.

Hint: "Republicans on this board 'parrot[ing] the polls' all the time" =/= "only when they need to." I wouldn't waste too much time on this research, and certainly don't let it ruin your weekend.

Didn't rip into Chelsea???? That's almost funny.

Didn't John McCain say something about Janet Reno being her father?

People were always making fun of her looks. She wasn't the most attractive girl but at least she hasn't been arrested for public intox and underage drinking like the Bush twins. I guess the apple in this case doesn't fall far from the tree.