It's a sad commentary when you refer to last year as the good old days, Dubya. Don't get me wrong though, the whole clip is actually pretty hilarious. I've always maintained that G-Dub would be fun to take to the bar - you know he'd get a couple drinks in him and start having a hell of a good time. Whether he should run the country, well, that's a different conversation.
Either way, it doesn't matchup with this one. Speaking as a fellow white guy, Karl, (and one who can dance a lot better than you can), please never do this again. Stick to screwing up the country...at least you're good at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
screwing up the country? The entire country, you say. What exactly is wrong with it? The economy not good enough for ya?
I mean, you want someone who did a better job screwing up an entire country, lemme refer you to the administration of one James Earl Carter.
But I suppose hyperbole is an effective communicative device. It keeps the analysis at bay. No sense letting good sense enter one's judgment.
It's true. I am always one to get involved in hyperbole. I hate when things get overstated like spending a half-trillion dollars on the war, which could go to keeping jobs at home, relief for Social Security, or education. Or set a timetable for getting out of the war. Or raise the minimum wage (though, to the Republicans' credit, they have added tax cuts for small businesses as part of the bill, hopefully it gets passed some time this year).
Or I could focus on other issues. $3 gas, the fact that the "booming" economy has created a housing downturn, that there's more disparity between the income of the high-level executives and the average work than there's ever been since the days of Herbert Hoover.
Or I could talk about how Bush has relaxed environmental standards so much that mayors of several hundred cities have joined together in agreement to adopt the standards of the Kyoto Protocol.
Or I could focus on the fact that there's more vitriol towards the United States than there's been at any point in the post-war era, that most citizens are skeptical of the government looking out for their best interests, and people are genuinely concerned about what nation is in our sights next.
But I don't want to overstate things.
I fear I'd have to go a little long on a comment that tried to react to each one of the statements you make. I will say to start that many of these statements belie a very limited understanding of the workings of the economy. And the comment on the vitriol is a little silly, given the comment you made that started the whole thing.
A few observations:
1: Complaining about $3 gas flies in the face of any concern about the environment. Adopting the Kyoto Protocol, which experts agree will result in overall warming protection of about .07 degrees celcius, and which has been signed by the Executive but not ratified by the Senate) would place significant costs on the American economy without a shred of environmental protection. You'll get your $3 and $4 gas, following your advice. Has there really been any appreciable effect of any relaxing of standards? If the result you can cite is a bunch of mayors signing a paper, well, I concede the point. If Bush hadn't been so lax, they wouldn't have wasted the paper.
2: Raising the minimum wage kills employment. We see it in small business, but macroeconomically, a minimum wage hike without comprehensive illegal immigration prevention merely exascerbates the plight of the working poor. Citizens have to play by the rules; illegals are free to sell their labor at lower rates. It's a handout without help--you'd be better off strengthening the earned income tax credit. All it does is raise prices on products across the board.
3: Housing downturn? Housing prices are falling currently, for sure, due to market conditions and quite a bit of advantage-taking by profiteers. That's the nature of any market--values go up, they go down. If real estate always appreciated, it wouldn't be an investment; it'd be a savings bond. Over time, the real estate market remains an attractive investment.
4: Income disparity is the reddest of herrings. What does it prove? What bad effects does disparity have? Is it per se bad? Why? And can you show that Bush had anything to do with it? Tax Cuts? See the AMT.
5: How would you "relieve" social security? Bush had a plan, Democrats balked and lied. What can you do?
Eh. I could do more, but I'll stop.
But I can't stop without saying that setting a timetable is idiotic. It's irresponsible--we might as well concede defeat and leave today.
Post a Comment