A Year Ago

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
I love year end retrospectives. When New Year's Day approaches, along with those over reported resolutions, it's always good to take a look back at the previous year. Paul Krugman does, mainly from a Bush perspective, in the NY Times today.

So much has changed for Bush in only one short year. But he can still rely on that quarter or so of the American people who will continue to offer their unqualified support because they will always refuse to recognize the facts no matter how miserably Bush continues to fail them -- and us all.


December 30, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist

Heck of a Job, Bushie

By PAUL KRUGMAN

A year ago, everyone expected President Bush to get his way on Social Security. Pundits warned Democrats that they were making a big political mistake by opposing plans to divert payroll taxes into private accounts.

A year ago, everyone thought Congress would make Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent, in spite of projections showing that doing so would lead to budget deficits as far as the eye can see. But Congress hasn't acted, and most of the cuts are still scheduled to expire by the end of 2010.

A year ago, Mr. Bush made many Americans feel safe, because they believed that he would be decisive and effective in an emergency. But Mr. Bush was apparently oblivious to the first major domestic emergency since 9/11. According to Newsweek, aides to Mr. Bush finally decided, days after Hurricane Katrina struck, that they had to show him a DVD of TV newscasts to get him to appreciate the seriousness of the situation.

A year ago, before "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" became a national punch line, the rising tide of cronyism in government agencies and the rapid replacement of competent professionals with unqualified political appointees attracted hardly any national attention.

A year ago, hardly anyone outside Washington had heard of Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay's position as House majority leader seemed unassailable.

A year ago, Dick Cheney, who repeatedly cited discredited evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and promised that invading Americans would be welcomed as liberators - although he hadn't yet declared that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes" - was widely admired for his "gravitas."

A year ago, Howard Dean - who was among the very few prominent figures to question Colin Powell's prewar presentation to the United Nations, and who warned, while hawks were still celebrating the fall of Baghdad, that the occupation of Iraq would be much more difficult than the initial invasion - was considered flaky and unsound.

A year ago, it was clear that before the Iraq war, the administration suppressed information suggesting that Iraq was not, in fact, trying to build nuclear weapons. Yet few people in Washington or in the news media were willing to say that the nation was deliberately misled into war until polls showed that most Americans already believed it.

A year ago, the Washington establishment treated Ayad Allawi as if he were Nelson Mandela. Mr. Allawi's triumphant tour of Washington, back in September 2004, provided a crucial boost to the Bush-Cheney campaign. So did his claim that the insurgents were "desperate." But Mr. Allawi turned out to be another Ahmad Chalabi, a hero of Washington conference rooms and cocktail parties who had few supporters where it mattered, in Iraq.

A year ago, when everyone respectable agreed that we must "stay the course," only a handful of war critics suggested that the U.S. presence in Iraq might be making the violence worse, not better. It would have been hard to imagine the top U.S. commander in Iraq saying, as Gen. George Casey recently did, that a smaller foreign force is better "because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation."

A year ago, Mr. Bush hadn't yet openly reneged on Scott McClellan's 2003 pledge that "if anyone in this administration was involved" in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, that person "would no longer be in this administration." Of course, some suspect that Mr. Bush has always known who was involved.

A year ago, we didn't know that Mr. Bush was lying, or at least being deceptive, when he said at an April 2004 event promoting the Patriot Act that "a wiretap requires a court order. ...When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

A year ago, most Americans thought Mr. Bush was honest.

A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it's O.K. if you're a Republican.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
A year ago, Paul Krugman was still a political hackjob.

Says Ntdz as he tunes into Rush Limbaugh while reading Ann Coulter's latest piece of brilliance.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

That about sums up the state of affairs in DC.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: ntdz
A year ago, Paul Krugman was still a political hackjob.

Says Ntdz as he tunes into Rush Limbaugh while reading Ann Coulter's latest piece of brilliance.

I've never listened to a hour of Rush in my life and haven't read a page of one of Ann Coulter's diatribes. Nice try though, really.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: ntdz
A year ago, Paul Krugman was still a political hackjob.

Says Ntdz as he tunes into Rush Limbaugh while reading Ann Coulter's latest piece of brilliance.

I've never listened to a hour of Rush in my life and haven't read a page of one of Ann Coulter's diatribes. Nice try though, really.

You have still managed to earn yourself a place among the twenty five percent though.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: ntdz
A year ago, Paul Krugman was still a political hackjob.

Says Ntdz as he tunes into Rush Limbaugh while reading Ann Coulter's latest piece of brilliance.

I've never listened to a hour of Rush in my life and haven't read a page of one of Ann Coulter's diatribes. Nice try though, really.

You have still managed to earn yourself a place among the twenty five percent though.

And the 25% is what?
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Ntdz can have his opinion of Krugman, lets discuss the contents and not mud sling.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: ntdz
A year ago, Paul Krugman was still a political hackjob.

Says Ntdz as he tunes into Rush Limbaugh while reading Ann Coulter's latest piece of brilliance.

I've never listened to a hour of Rush in my life and haven't read a page of one of Ann Coulter's diatribes. Nice try though, really.

You have still managed to earn yourself a place among the twenty five percent though.

And the 25% is what?

Which only goes to show that you don't even bother reading before you offer your usual diatribe.

You just saw "Krugman" and "NY Times" and posted the usual "political hack" attack because anyone who disagrees with or points out the mess Bush has made of America must be a political hack, right?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
Ntdz can have his opinion of Krugman, lets discuss the contents and not mud sling.

OK, first bit of content...

A year ago, everyone expected President Bush to get his way on Social Security. Pundits warned Democrats that they were making a big political mistake by opposing plans to divert payroll taxes into private accounts.

Bush failed in his attempt to kill Social Security by using generational warfare because people saw his attempt for exactly what it was. While Bush was doing his best to put Grandma and Grandpa on a steady diet of dog food he was handing over billions in tax cuts to his cronies and contributors.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm missing the 25% thing too.

It was from my obligatory personal commentary.

But he can still rely on that quarter or so of the American people who will continue to offer their unqualified support because they will always refuse to recognize the facts no matter how miserably Bush continues to fail them -- and us all.

Which, BTW, was brought to mind from this thread.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Again Krugman finds a way to hit the nail squarely on the head in a way that most people can understand.

Imagine if the FAUX News crowd (as evidenced by ntdz's empty-headed threadcrap) actually opened their minds to something other than administration propaganda how much better off this country would be.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Again Krugman finds a way to hit the nail squarely on the head in a way that most people can understand.

Imagine if the FAUX News crowd (as evidenced by ntdz's empty-headed threadcrap) actually opened their minds to something other than administration propaganda how much better off this country would be.

Which is a great lead-in to the second bit of content...

A year ago, everyone thought Congress would make Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent, in spite of projections showing that doing so would lead to budget deficits as far as the eye can see. But Congress hasn't acted, and most of the cuts are still scheduled to expire by the end of 2010.

Had Bush's insane tax cuts for the rich been made permanent we'd be looking at deficits of such size for such an extended period that they would bankrupt the nation or end all government programs. Weakening America economically, destroying the morale of the people, adding millions more people to the poverty roles (one fo the few things Bush has been successful at,) and turning a once great nation into a third world backwater.

Not to mention the fact that Bush took power with a balanced budget, a decreasing national debt, and a surplus. It took him only months to turn all of that around.

Didn't the Gingrich crowd use the balanced budget argument as a weapon in their takeover of Congress?

Hypocrites.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: TGS
Operation Iraqi Liberation was never about oil though.

you are right! we HAVE to get those WMDs!!!

oh wait...
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: TGS
Operation Iraqi Liberation was never about oil though.

Maybe it was...but indirectly. It's amazing how unrest in the ME cause oil prices and profits to spike! :shocked:

What was it about then? WMD's? Buwhahahahahahahahah! :laugh:
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
I think the current president is probably the saddest person we have had in office in a long long time.

I would rank him right up there with Carter as far as presidents with 0 results are concerned.

I can't think of 1 damn good thing that I got from this administration or 1 good service. And I am not counting my 200 dollar check (tax cuts) as a 'good thing'

 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Again Krugman finds a way to hit the nail squarely on the head in a way that most people can understand.

Imagine if the FAUX News crowd (as evidenced by ntdz's empty-headed threadcrap) actually opened their minds to something other than administration propaganda how much better off this country would be.

I don't watch Foxnews, or read their website. My sources of news are news.bbc.co.uk, cnn.com, drudgereport.com, and news.google.com

Nice try at another generalization. Liberals here LOVE to make assumptions about people, don't they.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Sure you don't. Although, I must imagine the news at the BBC and from whatever other sources via Google are most often ignored by you. Your posts prove that.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure you don't. Although, I must imagine the news at the BBC and from whatever other sources via Google are most often ignored by you. Your posts prove that.

What, people aren't allowed to have different opinions than you? Everyone has to interpret every news event the in the exact same way? Come on, give me a break here...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure you don't. Although, I must imagine the news at the BBC and from whatever other sources via Google are most often ignored by you. Your posts prove that.
What, people aren't allowed to have different opinions than you? Everyone has to interpret every news event the in the exact same way? Come on, give me a break here...
That's just it, you don't interpret the news. You ignore anything that isn't pro-Bush. If you don't ignore it, you slam it, smear it, deface it, piss on it, sh*t on it, and try and break it in half. That's interpreting?
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure you don't. Although, I must imagine the news at the BBC and from whatever other sources via Google are most often ignored by you. Your posts prove that.
What, people aren't allowed to have different opinions than you? Everyone has to interpret every news event the in the exact same way? Come on, give me a break here...
That's just it, you don't interpret the news. You ignore anything that isn't pro-Bush. If you don't ignore it, you slam it, smear it, deface it, piss on it, sh*t on it, and try and break it in half. That's interpreting?

You have no idea do you...I don't ignore anti-Bush stuff at all, just because you say ****** like that doesn't mean it's true.

Besides, what do you think YOU do? You ignore anything positive going on in the country, which is evidenced by the countless economic threads you go into and try to discredit.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure you don't. Although, I must imagine the news at the BBC and from whatever other sources via Google are most often ignored by you. Your posts prove that.
What, people aren't allowed to have different opinions than you? Everyone has to interpret every news event the in the exact same way? Come on, give me a break here...
That's just it, you don't interpret the news. You ignore anything that isn't pro-Bush. If you don't ignore it, you slam it, smear it, deface it, piss on it, sh*t on it, and try and break it in half. That's interpreting?
You have no idea do you...I don't ignore anti-Bush stuff at all, just because you say ****** like that doesn't mean it's true.

Besides, what do you think YOU do? You ignore anything positive going on in the country, which is evidenced by the countless economic threads you go into and try to discredit.
More of your inaccuracies.

I don't try and discredit anything. I merely point out the reality of a situation whenever you and that fluffer, zendari, post the first bit of positive economic news. One report <> a robust economy.

And, that economic news is a prime example of how you ignore anything that doesn't put a positive spin on the economy. I've posted numerous articles from various publications (including that bi-partisan budget analysis) and you ignore them all and try to dismiss it by smearing me in the process.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |