OH, how I wish this were true -- for the Congress as well! "What goes around, comes around"? NAH . . no such luck!
Subj: Fwd: Congress Votes to outsource Presidency
Congress Votes to Outsource Presidency
Washington, DC -- Congress today announced that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to India as of 1 April 2008. The move is being made in order to save the President's $500,000 yearly salary, and also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 7 years. It is anticipated that $231 billion can be saved to the end of the President's term. 'We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are huge,' stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). 'We cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay,' Reynolds noted.
Mr. Bush was informed by e-mail this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some t ime. Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will assume the office of President as of April 1, 2008. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, NY, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month, but no health coverage or other benefits. It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff.
Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night. 'Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center,' stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. 'I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President.'
A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem as Presi dent Bush had never been familiar with the issues either.
Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at all. 'We know these scripting tools work,' stated the spokesperson. 'President Bush has used them successfully for years, with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was talking about.'
Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two-week waiting period, he will be eligible for $140 a week unemployment for 26 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.
Mr. Bush has been provided with the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. Ac cordin g to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of any successful work experience during his lifetime. A greeter position at Wal-Mart was suggested due to Bush's extensive experience at shaking hands, as well as his special smile.
But, wouldn't it be even more efficient to rep^lace the presidency altogether with some well programmed computer system. This way, there would not even need to pay a salary, and we could hope for almost 24 hours a day up time.
Marseil's "well programmed computer" idea reminds me of the 1970 movie "Colossus: The Forbin Project."
The U.S. turns over the nuclear arsenal to a supercomputer called Colossus and Russians do the same thing by turning their nukes over to a computer called Guardian. The computers link up and take over the world.
Well while we're at it perhaps we should outsource Congress as well since they are none too efficient either.
In the beginning congressmen were farmers and other tradesmen who worked part time in Congress and got more done.
Chris, after that statement, my respect for you has gone way down. One should respect those in leadership over him, even though he may disagree with him.
In the minds of some? Like 80% of the American people? Last I heard his approval rating was something like 22%- about the lowest ever recorded for a president. But there is no point debating this because anyone who is still supporting Bush in light of what's happen the past 7 years is not going to be persuaded by anything I say.
Yes, and the approval ratying for the Congress is even less. Perhaps approval rating is steered by mass media generated hysteria.
Consider this:
In just one year: Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following: A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $ 3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock
and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both Democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates.
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.
If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie "The Sting" with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
Boy am I confused. We have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war
and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS. I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. URL's are included for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by stategovernments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times hat of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the southern border. Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States."
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid? If this doe sn't bother you, then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence (sanity?) in our policies and enforcement thereof.
Yes, people have been paying less taxes while Bush has been running the country and the war on borrowed money- mostly Chinese bonds. You don't think that bill is going to come due?? It will- and the interest will cost us far more than if we had good fiscal policy and a balanced budget as we did under Clinton. Ofcourse Bush will be out of office by then so what does he care.
Our current economic problems are a result of the falling dollar which has caused oil prices to soar- and what has caused the falling dollar- George Bush's high deficits! Blame Bush- not Congress. And as for Congress's low approval rating- this is largely because people are pissed that they haven't ended Bush's Iraq war as they promised.
I don't defend the cost of illegal immigration, but that doesn't justify squandering billions on Iraq. And by the way- what has Bush and a Republican congress for most of his term done about this illegal immigration? In any case the Iraq war was a mistake for more reasons than it's huge financial cost.
Let's set the record straight. Bush actually freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. The fact that he didn't properly prepare for the aftermath and naively believed that a nation that has never been a democracy since the dawn of civilization could be turned into one overnight does not make his intentions bad.
Nat, you are always talking about the "good old days." Yet most of these government programs that Democrats claim will "help" people didn't exist back when you think life was better.
It is not our job to determine what government Iraq has. There are dozens of dictatorships in the world- including China, N. Korea, Cuba, to name a few- are we suppose to go around to world overthrowing these too?
The vast majority of "people-help" programs we have today were begun in the '30s by FDR and the '60s by Johnson. There has not been much new since then.
Yes, this US-Iraq war overthrew a brutal dictator. One can only agree with this.
But the situation in Iraq is a lot worse now than it was before this war. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was kept at peace (under pressure of the secret police, army, etc....), religious were kept under control, there was no Al Qaeda presence in the country (who would set up a terrorist clandestine movement in a country where the government is spying on everyone?). Now, the country is in a cvivil war, the religious are in full power, the Shiites are at a permanent war with the Sunnites, etc....
This war has led to nothing good in Iraq, to a reinforcement of terrorism, to a huge cost for the US to the single profit of the military-industrial complex, to thousands of US victims, and tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) or Iraqi victims.
Brandon: "The fact that he didn't properly prepare for the aftermath and naively believed that a nation that has never been a democracy since the dawn of civilization could be turned into one overnight does not make his intentions bad."
Of course it does. It brings light onto the real motivations of this war: siphon off present and future US taxpayers money into the pockets of the friends of people in power. Neither Bush nor his administration ever care from bringing peace or democracy to Iraqis.
Like starting an unnecessary war and suspending Habeus Corpus? This clown is the worst president of all time,
I cannot believe Mr run around naked and gay marriage bobby would support a party that wants him straight or dead!
Yes, I'm very disappointed in President Bush especially with some of his domestic policies and his administration's total failure in handling the Katrina disaster.
But just because Bush turned out not to be the greatest president doesn't mean that we should embrace liberal policies. Liberals haven't had a good idea in 60 years and have been complete failures anytime they are put in charge of the economy or foreign affairs.
There is nothing new about Obama's idea of change. Tax and spend liberalism doesn't work and his foreign policy sounds like the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter, who was perhaps the worst president of all time. Obama's ideas are only new to those who don't remember or don't understand the past.
Bush gave us two great Supreme Court justices. That alone still makes me glad I voted for him in 2004. I also think his foreign policy in the long term has a chance of being redeemed by historians.
Oh I don't know about that- we have had good economies and bad economies under both Democrat and Republican presidents. The economy was good in the 1960s under Democrats Kennedy and Johnson, then a recession under Nixon in early '70s and also in early '80s under Reagan. And the economy was booming in the '90s under Clinton and is now in recession under Bush.
I'll give you Kennedy. He was the last Democrat I approved of.
The recession that Nixon faced was due to LBJ's Vietnam War. The old you can't have both guns and butter for very long.
Reagan turned the economy completely around from Carter's idiocy, but it took a few years hence the early 80s recession.
Clinton was smart enough not to screw up the economic bubble that he lucked out on, but it was because of the internet and tech stocks and not anything Clinton did.
Raising taxes during a recession would be a HUGE mistake and that is what Obama is proposing.
Clinton gave us the first balanced budget in many many years and was actually paying off the national debt for the first time in decades. Had this trend continued it would have saved us billions in interest. Instead Bush cuts taxes at the same time he starts a war- blowing the deficit sky high- which is responsible for the falling dollar- rising oil prices and now the recession we are in. A textbook example of how to screw things up. And the really bad thing is I thing this is a permanent screw-up because foreign countries now have so little confidence in the dollar that they are shifting away from it as the international currency which is a major blow to the US's prestige and influence now and in the future.
True. 20 years ago, I used to change my Francs to Dollars to travel to many places. Now, I travel with Euros that are accepted with pleasure everywhere.
Raising taxes is absolutely the worst thing that anyone could do in a recession. Lowering taxes is one of the best things that can be done.
Incidently, the President can do very little to help or hurt the economy. The Federal Reserve and the media have more to do with the economy than the President or the Congress. If the chairman of the FederalReserve, sneezes, the economy reacts. If the media says the economy is poor, the stock market drops, and foreign investers pull pout of the US. The main reason Clinton was able to "balance the budget" (which incidently he did not do -- check actual federal expenditures against tax revenue), it was pure dumb luck. The stock market rose on the back of hi-tech stocks and junk investments and because the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates. The lowering of the interest rates saves billions on the interest on the federal debt -- and this had the side effect of making government securities much less attractive to foreign investors. This is one of the reasons for the decine in value of the US dollar that we see today.
If you study economics with an open mind, this is perfectly obvious. Unfortunately many economics schools teach with great prejudice against conservative politicians. They tend to blame Bush for everything. (Hey maybe he's the reason my clothes dryer crapped out -- so I'd have to buy a new one. <GRIN> )
He had the balls to do the right thing with the war on terrorism. If Clinton had done the right thing with the embasy bombings, the terror strike on one of our destroyers, the bombing of the Marine barracks ibn Beiruit, and the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the terrorist bullies would not have the strength they had when the bombed the WTC the second time. Terrorists and bullies do not understand negotiation -- they only understand striking back in forcve. This has been shown countless times in our country's history, and has been shown countless times in our schools (with bullies). Yet peace-mongers never seem to learn that. Bush was smart enough and had the balls to strike back.
Regarding tax-and-spend libral government. Where do you think the government gets the money that is supposed to "help people"? Off the backs of the very people it is helping. That's where. As a rule, the government will institute programs with high overhead and less money will come back to the people than is tyaken in by taxes. And for those of you who think the money comes from "the rich" -- everyone earning more than $75K a year is "rich" according to the IRS tax tables and Hillary and O'Bama. I for one do not need my taxes raised any more than they already are. As it stands now, I have to work 5 months of each year just to pay my tax burden.
Yes, I do support Bush and those like him that want to limit the size of the government and who are not afraid to use force when force is necessary. Sure mistakes were made by some in Katrina, sure lots of money was given away to Katrina "victims" that just scammed the government. Sure the war in Iraq has lasted longer than anyone had hoped for. But at least Bush had the balls to do something rather than just sit around and form committees to talk about things like Clinton did.
If Hillary is anything like her husband -- and if O'Bama is like anything he says he is like, I don't want either of them in control of anything.
I'm proud to say I voted for Bush the last two elections, and I'd gladly vote for him again if he could run.
Regarding so called approval ratings -- Lincoln was one of the best presidents we ever had. Some accused him of getting us into a war (incodently more Americans were killed in teh Civil War than in Iraq), and he had one of the lowest approval ratings according to the newspapers of the day. Fortunately there were enough thinking people who were not controlled by the media propaganda that he was elected.
"I'm proud to say I voted for Bush the last two elections, and I'd gladly vote for him again if he could run"
Wow, you might be the only person that feels that way LOL.
I noticed you did not address his views about gay people.
Oh BTW, the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack are behind bars. Where is Osama? HMMM
CBB: "Oh BTW, the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack are behind bars."
A few people who were accused and found guilty of actually commiting the crime were punished and later paroled and deported. The organization behind these few were never caught.
Well if we hadn't been sticking our noses in other people's business all these years and been spending that money on developing our own energy resources here at home we wouldn't have terrorists after us in the first place. How would the US feel if an Arab country was over here messing in our region? Yet we think we are entitled to go around bombing an Arab country and overthrowing its government. Were I an Arab over there seeing the US invading one of my Arab neighbors I would want to attack America too.
Iraq has just been an recruitment tool and training ground for a whole new generation of America-hating terrorists- millions of little Arab kids who just can't wait until they are old enough to go fight the "Great Satan".
At no time in history has the United States had so little respect and been hated by so many people all over the world as now- this is what your President has done for us.
Nat: "At no time in history has the United States had so little respect and been hated by so many people all over the world as now- this is what your President has done for us."
Very true.
At the same time, it seems that all the French are going to the US for vacation this summer because of the Euro vs. Dollar rate.
This is the very thing electing Obama can change. Electing Obama would be bringing the best proof to the world that in the US, one can get from a very low condition to the top position just because he is brilliant and smart. The would be the best incarnation of the self made man myth. In many other countries (including mine), if you're from a low class, there is lots of obstacles on your way towards social success. All the people in power here come from average to upper class backgrounds.
OK, my take: I think the Rublican's biggest mistake occurred after the November 1994 elections that won (for the first time in a helluva long time) Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Whatever you say about Bill Clinton, he is NOT a stupid man. He and the Democratic leadership witnessed the repudiation of the Liberal agenda by the electorate, and they sought to remake themselves in the public's eye. This tactic involved seeking to appropriate centrist positions voiced by Republicans and make it sound like those were Democrat positions all along. It might not have worked . . except that the foolish Republicans played along.
Remember the big laughs by the Dems at the "family values" appeals of Bush Sr's campaign? Remember the gays-openly-serving-in-the-miltary, and Hillary's assignment to bring about universal health care? Those initiatives were strongly rejected by the majority of Americans. The new strategy utilized appeals to caring for families . . led to "Don't ask, Don't Tell" . . and morphed to "never mind that insurance thingy". The prior Dem stance in support of welfare mothers was replaced by a "workfare" program that took a distinctly Republican flavor of "Its a hand up, not a hand out" and "Public assistance was never intended to breed a culture of dependence and entitlement."
Increasingly, the Dems sought to take more centrist positions . . including those championed by Repubs. But the really surprising and CRAZY thing is that the Repubs let them do it! To space themselves distinctly from Clinton and the Demoncrats, the Republicans moved farther to the right. This is how the Republicans came to be seen as cowtowing to the "religious right" (a term that always puzzled me . . . If one is Conservative and believes in God, does that make them a "right wing religious zealot"?)
The REpuboicans HAD the masjority voice of the people. All they had to do is stay with mainstream Conservative values and overtly address the Democratic movement to the center with "Hey, what took you so long? Finally decided to come to your senses and join us? Welcome, and its about time!" The sad reality is that the Republican leadership cooperated by vacating the central, popular positions they previously maintained and allowed the Dems to paint Conservatives as Demagogs, haters and adversaries of the common man and woman.
Thus is their demise.
(Fact is, regardless who wins the Presidency, neither major party is doing ANYTHING to really address the great problems faced by our United States . . . not any of the three surviving candidates . . nor either house of Congress).
CBB: "I cannot believe Mr run around naked and gay marriage bobby would support a party that wants him straight or dead!"
Yeah, I guess I really are a libertarian (notice no capital "L") at heart. I think the Republicans do stand for less government as compared to the Democrats, and thats what I really support. And <TONGUE IN CHEEK> I will die when my time comes, but I can never be str8. In the meanwhile I choose between the proverbial rock and a hard place and support what I believe will harm me the least.
Hugz
Bobby
PS: sorry I missed responding to this, Chris, for so long.