Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Adventure is worthwhile - Aesop

A Simple Plan
by Lee

Irony, thy name is George W. Bush.

Weakened by the unpopular Iraq war, President George W. Bush accused Democrats of lacking a plan to win it on Monday as he opened a weeklong drive to try to keep Republicans in control of the U.S. Congress.

“The Democratic goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq,” Bush told a rousing rally in a gymnasium at Georgia Southern University.

Okay, in general terms he’s right here.  For the most part Democrats don’t care about winning or security, they care about pacifying their big money donors who want the US out of Iraq immediately.  However…

“If you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don’t have one. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, yet they don’t have a plan for victory,” he said.

That’s right, folks.  The man whose administration has fought one of the most incompetently planned and executed wars in American history is accusing the opposition of not having a plan.  So, I guess the choice is between the party with no plan and the party with a plan which doesn’t work.

Giant douche and turd sandwich.

Posted by Lee on 10/30/06 at 02:21 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 10/30/06 at 03:53 PM from United States

Now, now. We all know Kerry had a plan that was better than Bushies but he took his plan and went home when he lost, even though it was better and maybe could have saved his fellow soldiers lives that he respects so much.

Ya, pathetic. I’m going to vote for every NON incumbent, fuck em’.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 04:25 PM from United States

I’m going for the giant douche.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 04:37 PM from United States

What exactly is Bush’s plan?  I thought it was “stay the course,” but apparently I was misinformed. It seems more likely to be the case that there’s no plan and it isn’t working. A true tour de farce.

The best conceivable outcome that’s even remotely possible now is that Iraq will end up a single, united country under the control of a strongman, perhaps named Maddas Niessuh, who will hold Iran at bay and kick al Qaeda out of the country. Bush will have accomplished exactly nothing, except that several thousand Americans and several hundred thousand Iraqis will be dead and we’ll be another half-trillion dollars in debt. All other possibilities, including the ones that are actually likely to happen, are worse.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 04:40 PM from United States

I’m with Seattle on this one.

Posted by Nethicus on 10/30/06 at 04:45 PM from United States

The problem with having no plan is that when you are confronted with someone who has a bad plan, you have no way of offering a better alternative, so you are stuck with the bad plan.

What’s worse?  Having 4-6 years to think of a better plan, and drawing a blank.

What’s worse than that?  Thining that “tax cuts for the rich” still resonates with the populace.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 04:59 PM from United States

Bush’s New Plan = doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time…

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 04:59 PM from United States

What’s worse?  Having 4-6 years to think of a better plan, and drawing a blank.

You guys seem to be really proud that Bush has managed to create a problem that no one can find a solution to.  It’s not that hard; LBJ could have sent all of our troops in Europe into the USSR in an attempt to overthrow Brezhnev on the last day of his presidency.  Then Nixon would have had a problem.
Posted by on 10/30/06 at 05:04 PM from United States

Considering that “the rich” are the ones paying most of the taxes, and the highest tax rate, I’ve always wondered exactly who else was going to get a tax cut if not them.

Seriously, my taxes are more that a lot of people make in a year - are we going to give the poor who don’t pay any taxes a cut?  Doesn’t make any damned sense.  Or are we just going to tax only the rich?  We’ve already seen how that idea works - nobody has any damned jobs in the end.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 05:49 PM from United States

You guys seem to be really proud that Bush has managed to create a problem that no one can find a solution to.

Democrats haven’t had even the inkling of a coherent plan since 9/11. They voted in favor of letting Bush get us into this mess, and NOW you want to give them a pass?

The Demcratic Plan = PUNT!

Bush has fucked this GWOT all up, but for bobbles to claim the dems are innocent by-standers is disingenuous to say the least.

The best conceivable outcome that’s even remotely possible now is that Iraq will end up a single, united country under the control of a strongman, perhaps named Maddas Niessuh, who will hold Iran at bay and kick al Qaeda out of the country. Bush will have accomplished exactly nothing, except that several thousand Americans and several hundred thousand Iraqis will be dead and we’ll be another half-trillion dollars in debt.

Works for me!

It’s not like Iraqi people wouldn’t have died had Saddam stayed in power.  No harm - no foul!

It seems to me that these people NEED a strongman to rule them with an Iron fist anyway. These people don’t have the desire to look beyond their own individual short term gains to see the what the benefits of a free society will hold for thier children, let alone try to fight to make it a reality.

And Bush’s biggest shortfall was not being realistic, or perhaps being overly optomistic, about this useless group of n’er do wells.

Bush’s Plan sucked! The failure of Iraqi’s to step up to the plate for themselves, both under Saddam and now, suck’s even more...IMHO!

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 06:02 PM from United Kingdom

Seriously, my taxes are more that a lot of people make in a year - are we going to give the poor who don’t pay any taxes a cut?  Doesn’t make any damned sense.  Or are we just going to tax only the rich?  We’ve already seen how that idea works - nobody has any damned jobs in the end.

I think the idea is to give tax cuts to those making say $20k a year as the benefit to both them (and the economy) of reducing the tax by $1,000 for 1 million people earning $20k is higher than giving 1,000 rich guys a $1 million tax cut so they can buy boats 5 feet bigger than the ones they where going to buy.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/30/06 at 06:22 PM from United States

Seattle Outcast: You’re voting for Douchebag? What about his opponent, Senator Daterape? : )

BTW, Lee, what do you think of Duncan Hunter running for president?

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 06:26 PM from United States

I think the idea is to give tax cuts to those making say $20k a year as the benefit to both them (and the economy) of reducing the tax by $1,000 for 1 million people earning $20k is higher than giving 1,000 rich guys a $1 million tax cut so they can buy boats 5 feet bigger than the ones they where going to buy.

I think the point is that people making 20k per year are in effect paying NO tax at all! How can you give people a tax cut when they currently pay no tax at all?

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 06:42 PM from United States

I think the point is that people making 20k per year are in effect paying NO tax at all!

Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, excise tax, FICA tax, ...

It’s not like Iraqi people wouldn’t have died had Saddam stayed in power.  No harm - no foul!

I’d love to hear you say that to the families of any of the 2,800 American soldiers killed, or to any of the 30,000 wounded.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 06:43 PM from Canada

I think the idea is to give tax cuts to those making say $20k a year as the benefit to both them (and the economy) of reducing the tax by $1,000 for 1 million people earning $20k is higher than giving 1,000 rich guys a $1 million tax cut so they can buy boats 5 feet bigger than the ones they where going to buy.

I love how liberals think that the only thing rich people do with their money is spend it on material possessions.  News flash, they are rich because they invest their money well.  Investing money creates wealth so there are more $20K positions available for people. 

The first fallacy of wealth redistribution is that you need wealth before you can redistribute it.  The government doesn’t create wealth.  Any attempts that governments make to create wealth have been failures.  So liberal geniuses, how do your redistribute that which doesn’t exist?

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 06:57 PM from United Kingdom

News flash, they are rich because they invest their money well.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some rich people are rich because they are well paid for the job they do, some because the inherited money some because they make good investments. I would hazard that those that become rich through investment is a small fraction of the total number of rich people though - most people who are rich are rich because they have a well paid job, sure they may put some money in some stocks, pension funds or trackers but this is not what makes them rich.

What your actual point should have been is that there needs to be people to save to allow others to borrow. The thing is, you can have saving without rich people. Poor people also need to save, for retirement for example - that they are sometimes unable to is part of the point of reducing taxes on the low paid.

The first fallacy of wealth redistribution is that you need wealth before you can redistribute it.  The government doesn’t create wealth.  Any attempts that governments make to create wealth have been failures.  So liberal geniuses, how do your redistribute that which doesn’t exist?

No one was arguing for more wealth distribution, the argument was that if we decide to lower the tax burden it may make more sense to lower it on those that earn less. I guess you could argue that increases the distibution from rich to poor, but the argument was not about increasing taxes on the rich and giving more to the poor.

To be honest I don’t know exactly how your state/federal income taxes are graudated/formed so I can’t fully comment - I just know for example in the UK that income tax can be a lot even at low incomes. One of my main reasons for wanting the income tax threshold in the UK is it provides further encouragement to work and makes “work pay” for those on smaller incomes.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 06:59 PM from United States

I’d love to hear you say that to the families of any of the 2,800 American soldiers killed, or to any of the 30,000 wounded.

I wasn’t trying to address the issue of our own losses at all. Since I didn’t make those decisions I don’t think I will have to say that. Bush and our Legislators have to take accountability I think, don’t you? Are are you still looking for a alternate scape goat for the lack of any Dem. Ideas or solutions?

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 07:06 PM from United States

The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.)
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

And who earns what?

The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 07:07 PM from United States

Something about a turd sandwich just doesn’t sit well with me.  Think about it, its a sandwich.....

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 07:12 PM from United States

Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, excise tax, FICA tax, ...

Eliminate them all and go to a VAT or flat tax with an income threshold value of about 40k under which there is no tax, and 13% of ANY income over that. NO deductions!

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 07:22 PM from Australia

I love how liberals think that the only thing rich people do with their money is spend it on material possessions.

So what if they do? Spending on material possessions makes the economy go round! Every dollar you spend on a plasma TV makes someone else a dollar richer, because they’ve exchanged their time and property for your money. It amazes me that the unreconstructed socialist types never seem to get this.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 07:25 PM from United States

Six more murders, 27 rapes, 38 arsons, 180 robberies, and 360 instances of assault today

Where is it?

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 07:26 PM from United States

Every dollar you spend on a plasma TV makes someone else a dollar richer

The trouble is, he’s South Korean.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 07:32 PM from United States

Every dollar you spend on a plasma TV makes someone else a dollar richer

The trouble is, he’s South Korean.

So, Bob, tell us about the tv’s in your home.

And, if I buy that plasma at Sear’s, BestBuy, or circuit City, are you telling me that no American is going to make any money off of that purchase?

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 08:38 PM from Canada

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some rich people are rich because they are well paid for the job they do, some because the inherited money some because they make good investments. I would hazard that those that become rich through investment is a small fraction of the total number of rich people though - most people who are rich are rich because they have a well paid job, sure they may put some money in some stocks, pension funds or trackers but this is not what makes them rich.

If you ever get a chance, you should read The Millionaire Next Door.  It was a study of wealth in the US and they found that 80% of millionaires were first generation millionaires which means they made the money themselves.  People in high paying jobs were often the poorest because they were so far in debt they can’t be counted as wealthy. 
Wealth was considered to be people with net assets over 1 million dollars.  It wasn’t the people that invested in pension funds now and then that were millionaires.  It was people who lived modestly and below their means.

The secret to wealth is really simple.  Live below your means and invest.  A few good value funds would be all you need really, that and your own house.  Hell, with a house in most castes you are 10 – 25% of the way there.  To improve your odds:

Stay out of jail
Get a college education at least
Get married and stay married
Put off having kids till you are ready

Really, none of this is rocket science, so I have little pity for those who complain.

Whining and bitching because some rich guy got a tax cut and bought a larger boat is pointless and petty.  Invest your time in the suggestions I’ve laid out and leave the rich alone, one day you will be one of the rich too.

Posted by BKAY on 10/30/06 at 08:43 PM from United States

And, if I buy that plasma at Sear’s, BestBuy, or circuit City, are you telling me that no American is going to make any money off of that purchase?

Nope a south korean built it, shipped here including operating the freighter, loaded it into truck, personally, and then when he got it to the store, he was the salesman, too.

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 10/30/06 at 08:48 PM from United States

Nope a south korean built it, shipped here including operating the freighter, loaded it into truck, personally, and then when he got it to the store, he was the salesman, too.

It’s like that guy in Mumbai who took the order for, built, packaged, and delivered my computer. They call him “Dell”.

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 10/30/06 at 08:53 PM from United States

Some rich people are rich because they are well paid for the job they do, some because the inherited money some because they make good investments.

Here’s something you should no about money:

If you don’t invest it, you will not be rich.

Period.

No matter how much you are paid, if you spend it, you will be poor again with shocking speed. Ask basketball stars who wind up selling shoes when their money from endorsing them runs out and nobody cares who they are anymore except for their banks, who are deeply concerned about the loan payments they’re not making.

The same goes for people who inherit money: If they don’t make wise choices with it, guess what? It’s gone. And it’s all in the pockets of the people who built all the crap they wasted it on.

A relatively low income person can save for retirement and become wealthy in their life time. It happens with alarming regularity, right down to the janitor who died a few years ago and left a couple million bucks to the school he’d cleaned for decades.

Of course, if you feel that your family “needs” a car for everybody in it, a cell phone for each of your middle school children, and a big bedroom for every kid, you won’t be able to save. Too many people believe that to be true.

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 09:12 PM from United States

Six more murders, 27 rapes, 38 arsons, 180 robberies, and 360 instances of assault today

Where is this?

California 35mil people or Iraq 27mil people?

Answer = California

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 09:13 PM from Canada

Wow Aaron, it’s almost like you make sense or something.  You’d better stop that because it feels much better to blame the rich.

Posted by BKAY on 10/30/06 at 09:14 PM from United States

It’s like that guy in Mumbai who took the order for, built, packaged, and delivered my computer. They call him “Dell”.

Exactly!

Posted by on 10/30/06 at 11:45 PM from Australia

The trouble is, he’s South Korean.

Now who’s the racist? Or at least the nationalist, which isn’t that much different in my book. I’m all for globalisation, it means more wealth for everyone. If local workers can’t make TVs cheaply enough to compete with the South Koreans, than that shouldn’t be my problem as a consumer. Government interference in international trade is my number one hot-button issue. Here in Australia we have a 10% tariff on imported cars to protect one car factory in South Australia. It’s actually cheaper to ship a car’s worth of iron ore to Japan and have it return in the form of a Toyota than it is to ship the same ore to Adelaide and have it emerge as a Holden - at least until the government steps in and makes everything equally expensive.

Posted by on 10/31/06 at 09:49 AM from United States

You always forget about the 3rd way, Lee.  Hillary elected in 2008.  Your guns gone in 2013, when she is re-elected for a 2nd term in 2012.  Taliban puts all of us in burkas by 2014. 

It’s so simple!  They have a plan. They have a vision of a Muslim state.  They use torture because they know it works.  Eventually. 

Soon, you will all meet ali BenDover.  Get ready!

Next entry: What Would Reagan Do?

Previous entry: Locking Up the Duke

<< Back to main