Dubya's Resume

The bigger part of this is lying under oath and getting found out, as happened to Slick Willy.

 

Bung,

I'm curious when you would think is a good time to cut taxes? I have come to realize that the Democrats in congress are very inventive when it comes to reasons not to cut taxes. It's something different everytime, but predictably they always come out on the side of not cutting and if possible raising taxes.

The most amusing complaint is feigned concern for the deficit. This from pol's who have never met a big spending program they didn't like and considered "an essential investment" or some such nonsense.

Perhaps the most ridiculous analysis is the "tax increases help the economy" line popularized by Clinton. The idea is that tax increases cut the deficit and cutting the deficit lowers rates and lower rates help the economy. And they make fun of Republicans for so-called trickle down economics.

The fact is there is no empirical evidence to support any link in this chain of illogic. Yes, rates went down after the enormous Clinton tax increase and deficits vanished. And the sun rose right after the rooster crowed. Rates went down in the 80's after taxes were cut and deficits were on the increase. There is no direct connection. Clinton got lucky and inherited a strong economy. He should also thank Al Gore for inventing the internet. That helped a lot.

The fact is the deficits are small compared to the economy. It would be better if we didn't have them, for sure, but they are a consequence of spending too much, not people being taxed too little. The best way to handle the deficit is to grow the economy, and the best way to grow the economy is to cut taxes.

 

I just remark that people carefully avoid history facts : they prefer discuss opinions since you can say anything you want with mere subjective opinions. And after that they dare critic the politicians : How can someone critics them when he is behaving like them ? Are the dumb politicians that are elected just the mirror of a majority of dumb people do you wonder ?

 

Interesting, "critic" must rhyme with chic?

 

How can you trust any politician? Their entire existence is fueled by perpetual rape of the American public.

 

I loved this one from Bush's resume:

"Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market."

In one item, the writer manages to blame Bush for the mania market and 9/11 - and also gives the facts a hefty nudge. It's similar to the repeated use of the term "bankrupt" - as in, "bankrupted the US treasury" - likewise betraying either willful or abject ignorance of economics and history.

It's hard for me to believe that any of you, as traders - even the most implacably anti-Bush of you - really believes that the bear market is really all, or even very significantly, Bush's fault. If you do, you probably find it easy to believe that the Bush Administration should have solved the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda in the several months it had prior to 9/11 - and even though the Clinton Administration couldn't do so in several years. No doubt, you also believe that the economy in the '90s turned on a dime the day Clinton was sworn in - or maybe the day that Congress passed his first budget.

Read with any understanding, the resume as a whole actually makes a powerful case for Bush - who came into office with little foreign policy experience, under highly controversial and contentious circumstances, and in face of a collapsing stock market and recessionary economy, and then had to meet the worst attack on American territory at least since Pearl Harbor. Since that time, he's led a highly effective response, at least in the judgment of the vast majority of Americans, despite massive opposition.

Of course, to Bush-haters, the record is "attacked and took over two countries." It's every Republican's fondest wish that the Democratic presidential candidate takes a message like that one to the electorate next year, and that he or she places himself firmly on the side of French diplomacy and the rights of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein to have carried on as they liked, entirely unmolested. If Bush is really lucky, the Democrat will join this foreign policy message to an emphasis on raising taxes in a slow-growth economic environment - and maybe the candidate or surrogates can throw in the kind of personal attacks and invective that they would have strongly protested when used against the Clintons.

Presidents and presidential candidates are hostages to fate, and a lot could happen over the next year and a half that could make Bush appear either highly vulnerable or virtually unbeatable - even against a Democrat who, unlike the current group as far as I can tell, possessed a popular, practical, and progressive vision. Right now, Bush 43 looks more like Reagan than Bush 41. Unless and until that changes, he will continue to drive Democrats crazy, continue to receive excessively insulting and completely irrelevant criticism from hacks and wanna-be hacks, and continue to gain in the estimation of most Americans - on the way to a landslide re-election.

 

But who vote for them ? The people. Now this is quotes from Samuel Chase and James Madison during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 (sorry it's french translation that I have so that I will give my own bad translation in english) that shows that since the beginning Republic didn't intend to be representative of mass people will so it is just a mere illusion to believe in that :

Samuel Chase : "Seuls quelques marchands, et encore les plus riches et les plus
ambitieux, auront la possibilité d’être élus. La distance entre le peuple et ses
représentants sera si grande qu’il n’y a aucune probabilité qu’un planteur, un
fermier ou un artisan soit élu." (convention de Philadelphie, 1787).

Samuel Chase: "Only a few merchants, and only among the richest, will be able to be elected. The distance between the people and their representants will be so huge that there is no risk that a farmer can be elected."

James Madison, qui a eu une grande influence dans la rédaction de la
constitution américaine: " Les républiques modernes (…) n’accordent absolument
aucun rôle au peuple en corps (…) La représentation permet d’épurer et d’élargir
l’esprit public en le faisant passer par un corps choisi de citoyens"

James Madison: "Modern Republic dosen't give any role to the mass people (...) their representation allows to purify and broaden public spirit by filtering through a chosen group of people"

 

Yeah, Abe Lincoln was a regular Bill Gates in his day.

 

one fascinating aspect of the current group is their use of a kind of reverse-psychology mixed with a play on optimism -- they not only play into stereotypes, but play into them so forcefully and completely that people are shocked into disbelief.

e.g.: create an ultra-high tech data mining "total information awareness" branch of the defense department to spy on and cross-reference every transaction in the US - then the coups de grace - use all the most tired, overused symbols in its emblem: pyramids, eyes, rays of light. it's ridiculous - the effect is that people used to secrecy can't believe they would actually be so obvious, so absurd - it can't be real!

a staff dominated by ex-oil executives launching wars on middle-eastern oil regimes. half a trillion-dollar plan to liberate Iraq as the states declare unprecedented budgetary crises. or devout religious fundamentalists holding gospel sessions, covering nude statues, and quoting psalms in speeches -- it's so over the top, so extreme, that people go out of their way to find reasons to believe that it simply can't be as it appears. it's brilliant.