Reply With Quote
The economy-fueling tax cuts were his baby. I'm guessing, yeah, he paid some attention in Economics 101.
And I guess you're thinking that those things are directly linked to the fact that Bush has a Harvard MBA?
The economy-fueling tax cuts were his baby. I'm guessing, yeah, he paid some attention in Economics 101.
If risible that anybody would think that dubya paid ANY attention to anything in Yale and Harvard, above all something as difficult as economics. His subsequent total failures as a businessman confirmed his real world, practical incompetence.
dubya was a legacy student at Yale, NOT accepted on the merits of HS academic excellence, and Harvard Business doesn't usually take C students, either. dubya's family name got him into and through both schools.
dubya didn't learn how to speak English in Yale and Harvard, and he certainly knows all about economics.
cutting taxes for the super-rich was ONLY one of two reasons the Repugs wanted to be elected. the decision to cut taxes was made by the Repugs, not by dubya. He's just a dumb puppet for the real power behind the throne.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that: (1) anyone with an MBA would have taken introductory economics as an undergraduate, which means that the Harvard MBA is irrelevant; and (2) that Yale doesn't offer a course called Economics 101. I'd be certain that the President's academic transcript includes grades for courses in both microeconomics and macroeconomics, but I'm skeptical that what he may or may not have learned in those courses has had any impact on the decisions that his economics advisors tell him he's made.
Arbusto, Harken, the Texas Rangers, not exactly economic or legacy empires.
NY Times editorial: Bush hit "creepy low" distorting Kerry's words in Swiftboat replay Updated at 11:50 PM
Editorial
The Great Divider
Published: November 2, 2006
NY TimesAs President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he’s settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can’t defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.
In Mr. Bush’s world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in yesterday’s Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Mr. Bush’s world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.
In Mr. Bush’s world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don’t. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don’t support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.
Mr. Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win. But he hit a particularly creepy low when he decided to distort a lame joke lamely delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry warned college students that the punishment for not learning your lessons was to “get stuck in Iraq.” In context, it was obviously an attempt to disparage Mr. Bush’s intelligence. That’s impolitic and impolite, but it’s not as bad as Mr. Bush’s response. Knowing full well what Mr. Kerry meant, the president and his team cried out that the senator was disparaging the troops. It was a depressing replay of the way the Bush campaign Swift-boated Americans in 2004 into believing that Mr. Kerry, who went to war, was a coward and Mr. Bush, who stayed home, was a hero....When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don’t, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading.
Lovely how local wing-nut Jack Racarrdi tried to link this wing-nut smear against Kerry with his past remarks about the Vietnam war before the Winter soldiers group which had no punitive or authoritive capacity. Kerry would have made a weak President, but he would have had a better cabinet, starting with VP and Sec. of Def.
Olbermann get's it again!
Olbermann’s Special Comment : There is no line this President has not crossed — nor will not cross — to keep one political party, in power.
dubya-world means never having to grow past adolescence.
dubya is a true sicko. He tests reality inside his solipsistic bubble and he fails.
His handlers and puppet-meisters have been pulling his strings so long he has lost his never-solid touch with reality. He's certifiably psychopathic.
Some right wing hack went down the road to the landfill and picked up a rock, looked under and roused John O'Neill to comment on this on a show I caught yesterday.
Excuse me for glossing over the intricacies of higher education -- my "Economics 101" quip was merely to suggest that the President's Harvard MBA and undergrad work at Yale probably had some economics thrown in and that the President may have informed his opinions on economic theory from this instruction -- as well as he contacts in business, etc...
Oh well, why don't we just elect advisors then?
No offense, but we already did. Twice.
Really, which ones were on the ballot you used?
Those who act through the proxy of the now-sitting President, I presume.
Unless your contention is that the now-sitting President whiled away his spare time as governor putting his Harvard MBA to work in developing his independent thoughts on national economic policy, just in case he ever considered a run for the presidency.
You're apparently contending the President's economic position is irrelevant to what his administration pursues in the way of policy.
After all, even if it is his advisors who develop the policy, isn't it he who chose them in the first place and could that be because their economic philosophy was consistent with his?
Just guessing.
I'm fairly certain that you've articulated Karl Rove's conclusions about the link between the chosen advisors and his manchurian candidate with the Harvard MBA.
I really didn't think you were that much of a nutjob FWD. Manchurian Candidate? Nevermind...forget we ever started this conversation. The Men In Black will be along any minute to erase your memory.
Sure. Exaggeration, after all, is a rhetorical form that has no utility in a political forum.I really didn't think you were that much of a nutjob FWD. Manchurian Candidate? Nevermind...forget we ever started this conversation. The Men In Black will be along any minute to erase your memory.
Well, last I checked, it was the President who chose Karl Rove to be his aide and not the other way around.
That damn Bush and Rove, they are so dumb they keep us out of office. How
dumb can anyone be, keeping dimm-o-craps out of office.
Oh, don't talk about unemployment rate, it doesn't count that it is the lowest in
history. Just a fluke.
Yeah, a whole lot like Carter, President for one term and a world peace keeper
the rest of his life, between building houses and making chairs.
"it was the President who chose Karl Rove"
a self-incriminating act if there ever was one.
dubya is NOT running the Exec branch. he's a puppet on the strings of the people who feed him info, make recommendations on actions, staffing, etc, and humor dubya (and YV) that dubya is The Man.
They are all laughing into their coffee as they yank dubya's strings.
Hmmmmmm, so you have 4.4% unemployment, but somehow over 50% of the population are going to qualify for "some kind of benefits" and live off the state? You honestly believe that the majority of people will choose to live on govt benefits, BELOW THE POVERTY LINE, rather than trying to improve their lives through employment? C'mon, pull your head out of your arse.
Oh, and if it has to do with "taxing the rich" as you say, why is the wealth gap rising at an unprecedented rate? All the stats show that the richest 10% (and especially 1% for that matter) keep getting richer, while the bottom 40% get poorer. Actually, the greater tax burden is falling on the middle class, and THAT is what you should be objecting to. After all, the rich can afford to pay tax more than the middle class can!
Your paranoid delusions are really showing with statements like these, Yoni.
As for your President's Harvard MBA... hahahahahahahaha
For one thing, business is a lot different from economics (although an MBA does include some economics). However, I suspect that George may have had a little help with his qualification.
, I'll take on GW in a debate on economic theory, and I'd trust scott from this forum more with running a country than monkey-man.
ALso, wouldn't you rather have a guy with a PhD in economics running your country? I'd take Jed Bartlett over any of the last 8 US presidents!
QUOTE=RuffnReadyOzStyle]Hmmmmmm, so you have 4.4% unemployment, but somehow over 50% of the population are going to qualify for "some kind of benefits" and live off the state? You honestly believe that the majority of people will choose to live on govt benefits, BELOW THE POVERTY LINE, rather than trying to improve their lives through employment? C'mon, pull your head out of your arse.As for your President's Harvard MBA... hahahahahahahaha
For one thing, business is a lot different from economics (although an MBA does include some economics). However, I suspect that George may have had a little help with his qualification.
, I'll take on GW in a debate on economic theory, and I'd trust scott from this forum more with running a country than monkey-man.
ALso, wouldn't you rather have a guy with a PhD in economics running your country? I'd take Jed Bartlett over any of the last 8 US presidents!
Oh, and if it has to do with "taxing the rich" as you say, why is the wealth gap rising at an unprecedented rate? All the stats show that the richest 10% (and especially 1% for that matter) keep getting richer, while the bottom 40% get poorer. Actually, the greater tax burden is falling on the middle class, and THAT is what you should be objecting to. After all, the rich can afford to pay tax more than the middle class can!
Your paranoid delusions are really showing with statements like these, Yoni.[/QUOTE]
Give'n Mate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
