Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Miscellaneous 111

1) I'm still not entirely sure what Newt Gingrich did to "earn" that 1.6 million from Freddie Mac. The historian explanation certainly didn't make sense and his subsequent attempts at justification have been even more convoluted. But even if he actually did do something, don't you think that he should give the money back? a) The taxpayers had to bail those miserable sons of bitches out and b) Mr. Gingrich in fact DID lobby for them. An honest person would no doubt give the money back.............2) Mr. Obama is trying to initiate some type of Visa reform. He wants to make it easier for people from emerging markets such as India, Brazil, and China to be able to come to America as tourists. To which, I say, bravo. I mean, seriously, can you even begin to imagine the voltage that this would provide to the economy, millions of people coming to vacation here; the hotel industry, the restaurant and cafe industry, local artisans, the car rental industry, convenience stores, gas stations, etc., etc.. I'm telling you here, folks, if Mr. Obama can succeed on this one, it won't simply help the U.S. economy. It'll help him, too.............3) I've conceded on many occasions that Bush was a bad President. His two unnecessary wars (I was in favor of the Afghan conflict until it became an occupation/propping up of Karzai) and reckless deficits are two things in particular that harmed the country. But I do think that there's one thing in which he's gotten a bad rap for; a common held notion that he ONLY did things which benefited the wealthy. Yes, he did cut taxes and the top two percent benefited handsomely. But, so, too, did the middle-class. Of the 370 billion that the tax-cuts cost the treasury, more than 80% of it went to the middle-class (yes, it's a larger population but 80% is 80%). And it wasn't just with tax-cuts that he helped the non-wealthy. Discretionary domestic spending also skyrocketed under Bush. For example, H.U.D. spending skyrocketed under Bush, transportation spending skyrocketed under Bush, educational spending skyrocketed under Bush, and H.H.S. spending (most of which goes to the poor and disadvantaged) really skyrocked under Bush. To say that the fellow only cared about the well-to-do really and truly doesn't seem to be the case.

14 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

I suspect that the 1.6 million bought access to the right people.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

The fellow [bush] only cared about the well-to-do. Kanye West was right when he said, "George bush doesn't care about black people"... except, instead of "black people" he should have said "poor people".

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Gingrich needs to shamed on this one, Jerry. No question.............All that I can tell you, wd is to look at the HHS spending under Mr. Bush. It tripled!! The man basically tried to please every constituent (not to mention, police the world) and we're currently paying the price for it.

dmarks said...

Kanye West was being a racist liar.

As for WD's claim, the facts contradict it:

As Will said
"Discretionary domestic spending" .....H.U.D....H.H.S. spending (most of which goes to the poor and disadvantaged) really skyrocked under Bush."

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Kanye West was being a racist liar.

dmarks calling a black person racist. No surprise there.

dmarks: As for WD's claim [that bush did not care about the poor], the facts contradict it...

So spending was increased for ONE program that benefited the poor. Must have been a payoff to contractors (the ones who built the low income housing) or something. This one increase hardly proves me wrong. I'm sure spending was decreased for other programs that benefited the poor.

Regarding the cold hard facts, I'll leave that to dmarks to research. He's the one who's claiming I'm wrong.

dmarks said...

WD: "dmarks calling a black person racist. No surprise there."

There is a huge surprise. I only describe someone as racist based on actual evidence of racial statements/views. I do not base it on their skin color. Your statement is a sort of accusation of racism against me; as if I automatically claim black people are racist. Nothing is further from the truth, and like most of your claims about me, you will find no evidence to your support your claim

"Regarding the cold hard facts, I'll leave that to dmarks to research. He's the one who's claiming I'm wrong."

You have no idea what you are talking about. Social spending increased under Bush across the board

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"Must have been a payoff to contractors (the ones who built the low income housing) or something."......Pure, unadulterated, uncorroborated slander. You have ZERO evidence and still you throw it out there. Do you have any shame at all, wd?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: Do you have any shame at all, wd?

IMO it is Will Hart who has no shame. He is the one authoring post after post about how crooked Obama is. All based on a incredibly biased book straight from the Conservative spin machine.

dmarks: Social spending increased under Bush across the board.

"Social spending" includes social security and Medicare. That goes up every year because [1] Baby boomers are retiring, [2] inflation. I specifically said "programs that benefited the poor". If you took a look at those programs (and just those programs), I'd bet they were cut.

I know for a fact that bush proposed such cuts in his budgets... a Google search returns that info easily.

dmarks: ...as if I automatically claim black people are racist.

I never said you did it "automatically".

dmarks: Nothing is further from the truth, and like most of your claims about me, you will find no evidence to your support your claim.

Actually, my observation is spot on. As for the "evidence"... your claim that affirmative action is "racist". It's actually anti-racist.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: HUD & HHS spending (most of which goes to the poor and disadvantaged) really skyrocked under Bush.

When? By how much? In comparison to what (how much he cut it initially)?

Op Ed News says, "...homelessness and poverty in the U.S. has grown by more than 35 percent since the end of 2000. Cities like Phoenix, Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago reported increases of around 50 percent between January 2001 and July 2003. Homeless shelters are overcrowded; in 2002, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that 30 percent of all requests for shelter went unmet".

"Those trends particularly increased in the first six months of 2003, as Bush's cruel budget cuts and tax increases for the poor took greater effect. ... The lack of affordable housing leads the list of causes, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless".

Your info doesn't comport with what the info I've found says.

dmarks said...

WD said: "your claim that affirmative action is "racist". It's actually anti-racist."

I checked the dictionary definition of racism. Affirmative action policies which treat people differently depending on their skin color (some do, but not all) meet the definition.

Such as the University of Michigan policy we discussed earlier.

It is not "anti-racist" to participate in racial discrimination/racism by treating people differently for their skin color (punishing or rewarding people not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin).

Forgive me for knowing what these terms actually mean.

dmarks said...

Again, I believe in treating all people fairly, and without regard to skin color. That is the only type of policy that can be described as anti-racist. If you are discriminating against people based on skin color, you are being pro-racist.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It wasn't just social spending that skyrocketed under Bush, wd. Nondefense discretionary spending also skyrocketed under the man. And that does NOT include SS and Medicare....It does, however, include education, transportation, HUD, and HHS spending. AND the numbers provided by the government are adjusted for inflation (nice try at that particular red herring). The facts are the facts, wd, but, yeah, go ahead and spin, slander, make things up out of literal whole cloth, etc..

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And Bush inherited a recession. It's like, what, you blame Bush from day one for everything that happened under his tenure but Obama you give a 3 year grace period? What kind of a slippery little partisan are you?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Nondefense discretionary spending went up 25.3% during Bush's first term - ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION! I mean, I know that the facts don't mean a whole hell of a lot to you on this particular issue but, dude, get your head out of your asshole.