MtnBiker
Senior Member
Which national parks are being clear cut, strip mined and drilled in?
Bush Accomplishments
- Thread starter spillmind
- Start date
Hobbit
Senior Member
It's illegal to strip mine, clear cut, or drill in a national park. In fact, it's illegal to mine or cut at all in a national park. What you're thinking of is national forests. Those were planned with logging, mining, and drilling in mind. Federal regulations require you follow a certian pattern and stay within certain guildlines. This ensures that the forest will regrow before anyone is allowed to log it again.
Yeah, the same guy's who is being indicted for purgury because he has made contradictory statements under oath. Sure, Clarke was good at his job and, in retrospect, Clinton and Bush both should have listened to him about bin Laden, but hindsight's 20/20, and they both had other advisors pointing them in other directions, along with many other things to worry about. Now, he's just jumping on the "bash Bush and sell a book" bandwagon. He's a weasel.
I guess voting for Kerry is the safter vote. No matter what issue you're talking about or which side of it you're on, it's a guarantee that Kerry is with you on that issue. Hey, it's like getting two viewpoints for the price of one! What a deal! Also remember that according to his estimates on how many jobs have been lost every year, we now have a negative number of jobs in American (do the math. According to Kerry, enough jobs have been lost every year that the number of jobs lost would now be greater than the work force)
Ok, my dad's a CPA and I talk quite often with one of his good friends, a college professor with a Ph.D. in economics, so here's the benifit of tax cuts 101:
In a failing economy, the problem is that not enough money is being spent. The way to fix this is to put money in the hands of the people. They spend some and save some. What is spent is put in the hands of more people, who will spend some and save some, etc., causing an exponential effect on the economy, and every time money changes hands, it is taxed. This is basic Keynsian economics and is the philosophy followed by FDR (Keynes was in his cabinet). During the Great Depression, FDR created several government organizations designed to give jobs to the unemployed, or at least get them some money so they wouldn't starve. Well, most of these measures take a long time to enact and are only good for extreme recessions (the one we have now is nothing compared to the Depression, during which the unemployment rate rose to 33%), and the rest were declared unconstitutional in the late 30s, so that's out. Bush needed a quick way to put money back in the hands of the people, so he cut taxes. In the short run, that's less money for the federal government, but in the long run, it stimulates the economy without causing an inflation increase. The tax cut was a good idea and it's working. Many new businesses are starting up across the country, and due to the way the info is collected, these don't have much of an impact on the official unemployment rate, as most of the businesses polled are large corporations.
Yeah, the same guy's who is being indicted for purgury because he has made contradictory statements under oath. Sure, Clarke was good at his job and, in retrospect, Clinton and Bush both should have listened to him about bin Laden, but hindsight's 20/20, and they both had other advisors pointing them in other directions, along with many other things to worry about. Now, he's just jumping on the "bash Bush and sell a book" bandwagon. He's a weasel.
I guess voting for Kerry is the safter vote. No matter what issue you're talking about or which side of it you're on, it's a guarantee that Kerry is with you on that issue. Hey, it's like getting two viewpoints for the price of one! What a deal! Also remember that according to his estimates on how many jobs have been lost every year, we now have a negative number of jobs in American (do the math. According to Kerry, enough jobs have been lost every year that the number of jobs lost would now be greater than the work force)
Ok, my dad's a CPA and I talk quite often with one of his good friends, a college professor with a Ph.D. in economics, so here's the benifit of tax cuts 101:
In a failing economy, the problem is that not enough money is being spent. The way to fix this is to put money in the hands of the people. They spend some and save some. What is spent is put in the hands of more people, who will spend some and save some, etc., causing an exponential effect on the economy, and every time money changes hands, it is taxed. This is basic Keynsian economics and is the philosophy followed by FDR (Keynes was in his cabinet). During the Great Depression, FDR created several government organizations designed to give jobs to the unemployed, or at least get them some money so they wouldn't starve. Well, most of these measures take a long time to enact and are only good for extreme recessions (the one we have now is nothing compared to the Depression, during which the unemployment rate rose to 33%), and the rest were declared unconstitutional in the late 30s, so that's out. Bush needed a quick way to put money back in the hands of the people, so he cut taxes. In the short run, that's less money for the federal government, but in the long run, it stimulates the economy without causing an inflation increase. The tax cut was a good idea and it's working. Many new businesses are starting up across the country, and due to the way the info is collected, these don't have much of an impact on the official unemployment rate, as most of the businesses polled are large corporations.
MtnBiker
Senior Member
Well said Hobbit, and for a refresher.
- Moderator
- #24
Also on the logging. We need more logging because since the environmentalist policies protecting forests, there have been more wildfires because the trees arent being logged.
We have the largest amounts of forest in North America since Colombus came, why should we concerned with more people employed with logging companies?
We have the largest amounts of forest in North America since Colombus came, why should we concerned with more people employed with logging companies?
Originally posted by spillmind
it's been three + years. it's about time we start holding this tax slasher accountable for some of it!
That's amusing. You actually say, "Tax slasher", like it's a bad thing!
You have inadvertantly stumbled upon one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives:
Conservatives understand that it ain't the government's money!!
Originally posted by spillmind
Oookay, why don't you check your "facts" on Bush again and compare them to Gop_jeff's list and explain again how Bush comes out as worst ever.
Do you have a problem paying less in taxes? Under Kerry jobs would really take a hit as he will raise taxes on the one and only group that has the ability to create jobs in this country. Do your really expect them to take a hit to their profits and hire new employees and the same time. Take an econ course bud.
- Moderator
- #27
I do agree with him. We should hold Bush accountable for slashing our taxes. And we will by reelecting him! a clear sign to politicians that anyone who cuts taxes is well liked.
A
Awbrodeur
Guest
Anyone can look at the accomplishments you have stated about bush and find a way in which to twist them in order to provide validity. This discussion you have going has become a game of who can take a point and turn it into their favor better...........this is fun.
C
cloobi_dubis
Guest
now, that's just silly. I'm sure you probably have "proof"(if you're trying to be credible) but just think about it for two seconds, and you'll realize you were a dumbass for believing everything you hear.
Which brings up another point. This might not apply to you, Avatar, I don't remember what you've posted on this subject. So many of you complain about the "liberal bias" in media, so I assume that you don't take the news they present seriously, but then if you do find a source of conservatively biased news(or maybe you see it as without bias) many of you take it to be infalable. What's the deal?
and by the way, I'm not trying to start yet another "is there a liberal bias in mainstream media" debate. really
MtnBiker
Senior Member
What do you believe cloobi, how much forrest do we(north america) have as compared to say 100 years ago?
- Moderator
- #33
Cant deal with the facts so you resort to the name calling? Typical lib. Why do you think weve been having tons of forest fires in the west the past decade or so? its because we've been prevented from cutting down trees so there is more fuel for the fires. Anyone who reads the news at all during the summer can put two and two together.
This Clarke book is a great example of the liberal media bias. Most of the media is completely ignoring the fact that he is contradicting what he said a few years ago, It doesnt go along with their attack of the President.
Not much a debate when all you have to do is turn on the TV or read News article headlines to realize there is a strong liberal bias.
DKSuddeth
Senior Member
those careless hikers and campers are just innocent bystanders leaving their smoking fire pits, right? Lets not forget lightning strikes either.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
GOP senator says he 'won't apologize' after telling fired federal worker he 'deserved it'- Started by IM2
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Here you see Democrats acting childish and abusive.- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 4
