|
|
Post by shin on Nov 3, 2004 14:17:35 GMT -5
Given Bush feels he's on a mission from God, this is clearly proof to him that he has a mandate. As if we didn't know he felt that already, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Nov 3, 2004 14:34:26 GMT -5
More tax cuts is a virtual certainty. Although at some point in the next two years, I’d guess, economic reality is going to come crashing in. RvW being overturned is highly likely. Probably in Bush’s second term but if not, the conservative judges he appoints will do it in the future. I think Iran is relatively safe from invasion (but not preemptive air strikes – though they’ll have their nukes regardless). If things get to the point where an invasion of Syria becomes an impending probability, then you’ll probably already have had a reinstatement of the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Nov 3, 2004 14:37:01 GMT -5
The god damn apocalypse.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Nov 3, 2004 15:36:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 3, 2004 17:50:03 GMT -5
He'll be sure to invade Syria first . . . Iran can defend themselves a helluva lot better. I figure Dubya's eye'n Damascus right about now, getting ready for his next move in the Big Real-Life Game of Risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 5, 2005 19:10:23 GMT -5
Too bad I didn't think to include "Social Security is dismantled", perhaps I was giving Bush too much credit. I guess there really is no good thing this guy won't attempt to destroy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 5, 2005 19:33:48 GMT -5
Iraq's civil war seems pretty certain to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 12, 2005 11:40:26 GMT -5
Iraq erupts in civil war is leading the pack!
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 12, 2005 12:00:10 GMT -5
Iran being invaded comes in a somewhat distant second. We don't have the troops to fund the neocons' sexual fantasies anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Aug 12, 2005 12:16:05 GMT -5
What happened to "more tax cuts for the rich"-? That's an obvious candidate for likelihood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Aug 25, 2005 15:09:29 GMT -5
IMHO more tax cuts for the rich (and the attendant deficit increase) is the only thing here that is certain to happen. Iraq breaking out in civil war is still a real possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2005 15:15:10 GMT -5
The last set of tax cuts led to increased revenue for the government. So why automatically link tax cuts to a deficit increase? Most deficit increases I'm aware of come from too much spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 25, 2005 19:11:26 GMT -5
Chrisfan has stated the obvious again. It's been proven time and time again that tax cuts mean increased revenue for the government. The problem comes from too much spending. And there ya have my biggest problem with this administration (and Congess).
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Aug 25, 2005 19:43:25 GMT -5
Common sense would suggest that increased revenue from taxes would offset high government expenditures. Certainly you cannot have both tax cuts and high expenditures, as this administration is wont to do.
Interestingly enough, the assertion that "The last set of tax cuts led to increased revenue for the government" is political spinning at best. There are plenty of economists, both liberal and conservative (most notably Bruce Bartlett) who have argued that the federal deficit was exacerbated by the tax cuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2005 20:13:27 GMT -5
I'm sorry Ken, but the math makes absolutely no sense there. Since the tax cuts went into effect, the government's revenue has gone UP. Now, Strat is right - if bush didn't spend the government's money like Jeb's wife on an unclaimed shopping trip to Paris, deficits would notreally be an issue. But someone is goingto have to explain to me how the tax cuts are playing into the equation. They're generating MORE money for the government. If I ambalancing my budget, and I get a raise, then I have less debt. Why is the same not true of the government?
|
|
