The Reelection of Bush,No Problem!!

[bear]

We're in trouble!!!!!

We're in trouble!!!!!

Our dollar is a piece of mismanaged shit. (pardon the expression)

Who in their right mind........believes that we do not have price inflation.......as govt. numbers suggest (CPI) Damn..my house near doubled in price in the last 10 years....so have local taxes,rents many services (daycare) etc

Interest rates are low and will probably go lower.....as they did in Japan till they hit 0

Why?.......otherwise depression....consumer strength of recent years was fueled more by consumer debt than any tax cuts and it still is.....
Your house value goes up cuz people can borrow more for less with the same job as rates decline. ALL HOMEOWNERS IN THE USA
have refinanced once, twice etc. to 1. LOWER PAYMENTS 2. Buy a car, redo the kitchen,pay tuitions etc...............Debt is what fuels our our consumers................ WE DON"T SAVE
to spend ............WE BORROW and create HUGE consumer and corporate debt. Interest rates MUST stay low for now.
Whats the new ceiling on the National Debt now..7.5 TRILLION ??? You figger it out.....whats a grain of sand worth?

Tax Cuts...........Are you F....ing kidding.......Take care of your own BUSH........Sorry...but if I paid my dues AND If I'm 75 to 80 years old and need meds to the tune of 7hundred + per month on a fixed income. (Hell, thats more than a lotta old timers EVER MADE in a month) .....and I'm trying to keep up with local and state tax increases.........etc etc...........to whom do I turn ?

Well, there are lots of them out there..........COME UP WITH SPENDING that takes care of our own.......what did we offer Turkey to use their air space 5Bill.........How many prescriptions would that fill.........ahhhh bulshit ...its just debt.

We 've got some problems here.... just ramblin:shrug:

bear

 

[Equity Trader]

Good to see many responses and my ta

Good to see many responses and my ta

First of all,he will never kiss Frances's a-s-s..France has bit off more than they can chew..France wants to be a polor player against America and this is only because they have become a second rate nation and would like their domance back..Fance will never achieve the dominace they once held thats history and the sooner they realize this the better off their followers will understand..France knows very well they have to play according to USA agenda and for them to strike on their own is only to their demise...USA will never allow the UN or any other country dictate their foreign policy and France is doing exactly or trying to set the UN governing body to oversee member countries and this is only because of their veto and permanent seating..The UN is a lap dog for the league of nations and has absolutely shown from the past that their contribution outside of humanatrian aid has become obsolete and a bureaucracy that dosen't fit with the times and only is their to fatten their accounts..

The national deficit is really not a concern and if you look in historic terms it really isn't that great in today's dollars..As far as SS,that money pool has been raided since the day 1935 when it was enacted,has always been poached.SS is a venue that has been exploited and is now as it has always been, a I.O.U..That lock box nonsense was a political jargon that sounded good but nothing more than sheer BS.

The tax cut is simply that, a tax cut..You pay taxes you get a cut and for folks that make under this radar screen (25k or there abouts) already don't pay taxes....What needs to take place is the readjustment of SS,but this will cause many other problems since now/today it takes 40 people for one benefit when not to long ago it took less than half of this...

California is all #### up and rightfully so, since every office holder is a Democrat,doesn't that tell you something.Go to all the states that are liberal or Democat majority in their congressional and they are the highest in taxes from every angle..To name a few ,Mass Conn, Ny,MD, Calif,we can go on.So you see if the liberals get their chance,this country will be like France and other European countries and become totally Socialistic,which incidentally is the end result for Democrats..

Stop that crap,Bush wasn't a failure and the Army/republican guard in Iraq was the envie of the Middle East..We know the rest of that story..But if you need an education,it was our military prowness and planning that disrupted or practically disintegrated their communication and left them without the chain of command leadership..Remember when we went in it was the Republican guard that was their force and it turned out not to be so..

The Halliburton crap is just that.....There are only 4-5 companies in the world that have the capability to handle oil field fires in a very short time line and to have the opening bid the way the government normally has would still have these fires burning..Just another typical Democratic issue without warrant..

Afaghanastan is not in shambles and we got rid of the despoted Taliban..To consider that results haven't been made in that country is like looking in your kids bedroom after you tell him to clean it up..There is still a mess...Corners of Afaghanastan,yes has problems,like the hoods in LA and other big cities controled by thugs and in Afaghanastan's case,tribal leaders and rough terrain,but it will come about and it certainly is alot better now...

Iraq will come considerably faster since most of the populace is educated and the infrastructure has been in place..


To eradicate a controlled society run by tyrannts,first you have to get rid of the top tier and in Iraq's case which isn't easy since Saddam ran that country on fear for 30 years does take time,but it will come sooner than let's say a Afaghanastan that still has mud huts as the main dwellings and no infrastructure and tribal leaders and mullas that make you think in ways that are totally contrary to scriptures..

PAUL KRUGMAN and the New York Times is full of far left skewed and at times totally misleading articles...If you cut and paste,be fair and balanced,so far they have shown nothing but false and misleading articles and have also been wrong on the Iragi situation..The gray lady is rolling around in her grave on what the Times recently has shown..

The individual States problem stemed from their lack of buget restraints and over spent...Bush is not the fault of this economy..The economy always goes through a 10 year cycle and the dip was needed,now the rebound is underway and that is a fact.


Have a good day...
ET


Waydago Internet marketing Systems http://www.waydago.com

 

[bjfinste]

"The tax cut is simply that, a tax cut"

That's where you are wrong. All of you guys that put that idiot piece of shit in office don't seem to remember that Bush said the tax cut is to stimulate the economy. TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. I don't care how far or unfair it is to cut taxes from certain groups or not, if you want to "stimulate" the economy, you have the give more money to people who will spend it.

Over and over and over, I'd heard argument about how if you pay more taxes, then your tax breaks should be more. Well boo fuking hoo. The tax break, at least according to the moron that is president, was done for the purpose of bringing this country out of its economic woes. Creating the biggest breaks for the rich doesn't do that. Period. Regan's trickle-down economics proved that. If he wants to do that, he should just say what he's actually doing, instead of lying like he is (I mean come on, Clinton is considered the antichrist by republicans for lying about a blow job... what effects the country more??). He wants the rich to have bigger tax breaks. Right or wrong, whatever, I'm not here to debate that.

But don't give me a line of bullshit that he is trying to better the economy. If he was, the tax breaks would go to people who would ACTUALLY SPEND THE MONEY!!

I can see the other side, believe it or not, in almost all issues. But when ET tries to defend Bush's position on Halliburton, he loses all credibility with me. Come on!!!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Stevie it might have answered your questions but not mine but was headed in right direction anyway.
this was only area in total that addressed question.

"Strange as it maybe. He got us started on the cycle of lower the interest rates. With a tax increase of all things. This to help get government a surplus. Something not heard of in last 40 some years. And some how his program that gave those manufacturing outfits big breaks from Uncle Sam"

How did tax increase get us started on lower interest rates and if that is true I guess Bush tax cuts are responsible for lowest rates of all. Smoke and mirrors on both as neither had squat to do with interest rates.

What program was it that gave manufacturing breaks?

Surplus was addressed in dot.com tax revenue which I have yet to figure how he was responsible for it.So I am where I stood before.
What I am looking for is undisputed "fact" the "he" was responsible for.
some examples of undisputed facts.
Got on TV and lied to America while shaking his finger at us.
Lied under oath
Was impeached
Discredited the U.S. a made us laughing stock of the world.
Pardoned known criminals and terrorist.
Let them drag our soilders through streets in Somolia,set them on fire with no recourse.
and I could go on.

Is there a physcologist in this forum? I would like an explaination of what kind of person would make this fellow their hero.

Bear you hit the nail on the head.CREDIT! It makes no difference how much money the gov gave a particular class of people because they would just exceed their spending and go into higher debt. Those credit repair commercials make me want tp puke.If the beadbeats wouldn't spend more than they earn there would be no prob. If they obolished all credit cards and went strickly to debit cards this shit would cease or at least limit total credit to max of $1000 on all cards for these deadbeats.

and on unemployment-seriously if one is willing to work,who can't find a job. Congress woman from Cal was on cnn couple months back bitching about unemployment and the following week was on about how we need the immigrants in here to fill all the vacant jobs. --and many of these figures come from people laid off who refuse to go back to work because ofmonetary issue.
Example from my days with Chrysler Corp. When laid off you drew unemployment and sub pay from Chrysler to make up to 90% of your previous take home.Who in there right mind is going to look for work when they can draw more money by not working.

 

[StevieD]

Clintons a hero? :shrug:

 

[djv]

When it comes to our elected folks that like to as you say lie. We can find them in every party. No need to go there. In fact we maybe getting the bigest sham of all times right now. We better plant some WMD in Iraq soon before we look like liears again. And with over 162 GI's now dead. Another yesterday. That would be very sad. Bills BJ killed no one.
Yes MR Bill had a nice run. Was it all luck. Not when it continued for 7 years. Yes small business were given incentives to expand. Yes it happened 2nd year of his 1st term as part of a program to put 100000 new policeman on the streets of America to help keep them safer. That did work because crime rates did drop. I cant tell you the name of the package. Heck my memory is not that tight with out going down to the Library.
Bill was there and much good happened. He won relection for some reason. I know many like to pick on the Clintons. For sure those from the right. I would to if I was 0 & 3 against them as the republicans are.
Staying Idependent has helped me be what I think was on the right side many times. Yes I voted for him. Yes I voted for Bush 41 and 43. Gore no way could I see him. Now I wonder some days. The only real mistakes I made was Nixon and second term Of Reagan. We find out that old boy was loseing it fast and his wife was trying to run this country with tea leafs. That over spending of Reagan gave us huge deficit. Bush 41 had to fight with that his 4 years and could not over come it. It was his down fall with the Economy in bad shape also. Like it or not. People vote with there pocket books. If folks dont think there pocket books are doing well. If we find out Iraq was a bunch of half truths. Then yes Bush is very beatable. Like I said he's got 18 months to show us more then gun fire. Im just going to make him earn my vote a little harder then most. Because of 9/11 and a 21 day battle with Iraq. I should say he did a great job. Not just yet. Terrorest seem to still be striking out at us. They must still be planning to. We raise the national alert level every other 30 days because of such chatter. Im staying tough on him. To many are giveing free pases.
We have over tryed to sell all is getting better. When we get the highest unemplyoment since 51/52 down. We show we can get a long without invading a differant county every 8 months. These would be good steps. You mention troops being dragged in the streets of Somoila. Was a sorry ass site. Bills watch it goes on his books as bad. I know are military is trained better then that but they got snookered good. Like WMD in Iraq so far were snookerd again. Over 160 GI's dead. Thats on Bush's watch. We dont look so good at this point. I have to agree Afghinstan is a mess at this time war loards are back in control of half that country. This is all new outlets saying this even Fox. We were going to get Bin and stop all terroest. Well we dont have him. And bombings are still happening. How many sites last month. Three I believe. We know Suadi is where money trail went for 9/11. We know that is where the men came from. So we invade Iraq. But of course we had to free the people. You and I both know that story line is BS.
So yes Mr Bill I thank him for my early retierment. Mr Bush needs to pick it up a some to get my vote a second time. I hope he does. That would mean by pocket book likes him. Would not mean I agree with much of his other policies. But then I did not agree with all of Bill's eithers. And As many past Presidents new. If your going to get some on the side. Get out of town.

 

[Turfgrass]

Senator Charles Grassley will introduce a bill calling for the new $400 child tax credit to be extended to families who earn between $10,000 and $26,000. He and other politicians will make noises about "extending the tax cut to poor working families." That's now what they are doing. This will not be a tax cut bill. It will not be a bill to extend tax credits. It's not a tax cut, and it's not a tax credit because these people don't pay federal income taxes. That's why they weren't included in the tax cut bill in the first place. Tax cuts are for people who pay taxes. Tax credits are for people who actually owe taxes.

Let's be clear on this bill. Yes, it will pass. Yes, it will cost a bunch of money. No -- it's not a tax cut. IT'S A WELFARE BILL. It's a bill that calls for the government to use its exclusive franchise on the use of force to seize money from people who actually EARN it, and then give that money to people who did NOT earn it, and who would have no legal claim to it whatsoever without the aid and assistance of a looting and plundering government.

 

[Equity Trader]

Whether we find WMD or not is a non-issue

Whether we find WMD or not is a non-issue

Yes, that was one of the reasons why we went into Iraq and in 1998 when the inspectors left they also left with the notion that Saddam did have WMD from the report after the 1991 war..These weapons were never destroyed from that 1998 exit and appears from all indications they are still there..When you say we haven't found Osuma and Saddam,hell we couldn't even find the Unibomber and the most recent the Atlanta bomber and this is in our own country..Geez if you don't want to be found,chances are it will become very difficult to find you until a mistake is made and eventually this happens and you are caught...Over there, finding somebody is extremely difficult because of the backing and unfamiliar terrain and just plain loyalty to these different factions..Putting a price on someones head may work here,but there the millions reward is more of an attention grabber than the possible actual result that may come from such a reward..Those people don't understand a million since many have never really made more than 100 bucks a year and is just beyond their comprehension..

Many liberals would've just have sat back and did nothing until we would be confronted a year or two down the road when Saddam has a nuke or actual WMD that is launchable and then the equation becomes irreveresable and then he (Saddam) would hold the trump card..What a mess that would be.. There is little doubt that this was Saddam's main goal to control the ever turbulent Middle East and keep it in turmoil....Clinton had his chance at Osuma and didn't take it and now we know that part of history...I believe even Al Gore would've have excuted a similar outcome towards Saddam...When 9/11 struck here at home,liberals were really not that quick for military action,and felt a pow-pow was in order to talk to the Taliban.Can you imagine talking to a regime that's only purpose is to destroy the west.

Take a look at North Korea...Clinton went into the North and gave them billions if they would discountinue their manufacture of Nukes and stop the testing...This didn't work and we were blackmailed intoa falsehood that now has become a major issue and presents severe South Asian problems..This would've happen in the same situation with Iraq and now Iran is a problem and should be taken care of at the most urgency...

Now we have Bush going to the Middle East and meeting with the new puppet PM of the Palestinian's...Now the outcome is really quite dubious since Arafat is still controlling the shots and until that guy is out of the picture only then will a positive resolve come about...But,here again we have certain factons that will never allow peace of any sort and how do you handle this situaution,only time will tell....Fighting terrorism,where there isn't a conventional method in dealing with such a force,but is a matter of going after countries that harbor these types and actually with force overthrow them..This is a game of the hunters on the hunt going after the hunted and a time frame to bring these criminals down is ludicrous and premature...This fight will last for the next 20-30 years and until we change the ideology of the next generation of the Muslin/Islam philosophy and it's a parallel ideology..The one side being extreme fundamentalists that read the Koran in a light of distruction and Western ways are totally taboo and the other side which basicly states that suicide is against the scriptures and random martydom is not at all written..

Bush took a very unpopular situation and from the outcome has put many of the countries that aligned themselves with Iraq are now thinking twice about maintaining the same course..This had to happen and I gave Bush credit whether WMD is found or not,but they will find them...

He made these outlawed countries tow the line and the outcome contrary to what some may think, will be the betterment for human existance on this planet..

Have a good day

ET

Waydago Internet Marketing System http://www.waydago.com

 

[buddy]

(Copied from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)



Is Dubya Damien Thorn?

Tuesday, June 03, 2003

Apparently, it isn't just Democrats who think George W. Bush is the Antichrist.

A minority of religious conservatives are taking a second look at the 43rd president of the United States to gauge where the man who recently conquered Babylon fits into their parochial view of biblical prophecy.

Such talk, oddly enough, is limited to only a few extremist sites on the Internet. After all, as governor of Texas, George Bush proclaimed June 10 "Jesus Day" three years ago. That's a whole lot of pandering for the votes of the righteous. It's hard to believe that a politician so devoted to parading his religion before men would reveal himself to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, right?

That's why the most fire-breathing preachers on AM radio will think twice before endangering their tax-exempt status by denouncing the current president of the United States as the Beast of End Times prophecy -- even if the shoe fits.

So it's up to a few disgruntled preachers and a handful of increasingly alarmed millenarian zealots to offer an alternative explanation for the remarkable political success of George W. Bush. By every conventional barometer, the president should be dead in the water politically by now.

Any other leader presiding over such a high unemployment rate, a series of wars in Islamic countries, stagnating economic indicators and a ballooning federal deficit spurred on by injudicious tax cuts would find his popularity in the low single digits.

Having said this, it still takes a supernatural act of imagination to envision a scenario in which one of the Democrats in the field of declared candidates can beat Bush next year. Given a contest between, say, Rev. Al Sharpton and the Son of Perdition for our precious electoral votes, it doesn't take a prophet to guess the outcome -- Sharpton: 0; The Antichrist: 666.

So it was amusing -- and a little frightening -- to watch the president strutting around St. Petersburg and Evian over the weekend as if he were the king of the world. The only man with a bigger smile than Bush at the G8 Summit was Tony "The False Prophet" Blair, a golden-tongued devil who has put his powers of erudition at his ally's service.

If someone had cued the spooky music from "The Omen" during the exchanges of insincere smiles and perfunctory handshakes, the world would've known immediately what the deal was.

There, in the heart of what Donald Rumsfeld contemptuously refers to as "Old Europe," Bush and Blair exerted Damien-like power over the political leaders of Europe and Japan. I half expected a crazed Gregory Peck to leap out of the wings, ceremonial daggers held high, to plunge into the heart of the Beast.

But alas, the force of Bush's amiable personality forced French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to pursue banal chitchat, lest more divisions between the allies emerge. At that moment, Bush happily consolidated his control over the entire world.

In theological circles where the Book of Revelation is considered, at best, a prequel to the enormously popular "Left Behind" series, it is widely believed that the Antichrist will be a Jewish male. It's amazing that Jews are at the center of every paranoid fantasy that's ever been hatched. Even as the world is ending they can't catch a break.

The Antichrist's various attributes are believed to include glibness, a European intellectual pedigree and an aversion to all religions in which he isn't worshipped as God Almighty.

Now, this may be a bit of a stretch for those emotionally invested in the 19th-century heresy concocted by John Nelson Darby, which serves as the basis for this apocalyptic theology, but what if the so-called Antichrist turns out to be a malaprop-spouting Methodist from Texas? What a diabolical twist that would be, huh?

Coincidences aside, George Bush doesn't have the necessities to be the kind of Antichrist we deserve. Still, "Antichrist" is a tag that nicely fits several members of his inner circle (paging Karl Rove and John Ashcroft). In any case, quibbling over the identity of the Beast will be the least of our problems if the administration succeeds in stripping us of our civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Norman can be reached at tnorman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1631.

 

[Equity Trader]

The problem of the religous rightous isn't

The problem of the religous rightous isn't

So much the problem of the right as it is the problem for the left...The religous rightous have an agenda all of it's own..If a candidate from the right advocates to the gay community or other far leaning controversal subjects they will be viewed as too moderate,which the far right views this as intolerable and most will just do what is politicaly correct...This is a stemmic problem that has always faced the Republicans,so they just do or without acknowledgement and hopes it will just go away....Now on the left,their panduring has always been to the black and hispanic community and thinks this is their constitutency...The most recent remarks coming from some on the left that Condee Rice and Colin Powel are nothing more than token figures to the Republican side..Probably is one reason that the judicial process on Estrawda is being held up by Democrats,not wanting to give the Republicans a win in bringing or lack of a better word an edge in the Hispanic community..Let's not forget that Bush has in the family already Hispanic heritage and deserves just the same credit for wanting the constitutency the Democrats feel is their own..

Both parties pander and it may not be right,but it is the relevance of political manuvering and it is the peoples judgement that should qualify the best outcome for their future and not that either party has a given right to such ownership...Democrats have always advocated class warfare,whether this is correct or not isn't really an issue,but the mere fact that when confronted to many blacks about affirmative action,most educated blacks would rather not associate themselves with this,so Democrats have targeted the less affluent blacks to give credence to this cause,which incidentally is out dated

Where the heck is Jessie....


Waydago Internet Marketing System http://www.waydago.com

 

[auspice]

Bush's Tax Cuts
A Form of National Insanity
By ROBERT FREEMAN

Insanity, said Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. By this measure, the latest Bush tax cuts qualify as certifiably insane.

Where have we seen this deranged fiscal strategy before? Remember Ronald Reagan and Supply Side Economics? In the early 1980s, Reagan promised the nation that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, the economy would grow so much the federal budget would be balanced "within three years, maybe even two."

Sober people were skeptical-and rightly so. Reagan's Republican opponent for the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a "Trojan horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich. Stockman was quickly dismissed.

The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal budget was catastrophic.

Jimmy Carter's last budget deficit was $77 billion. Reagan's first deficit was $128 billion. His second deficit exploded to $208 billion. By the time the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George H.W. Bush was running an annual deficit of $290 billion per year.

Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $994 billion. When Bush left office, it had reached $4.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment quadrupled it in the next 12 years.

Is there anything to compare this to? When Bill Clinton took office he intentionally reversed the Supply Side formula, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing them on the lowest wage earners. Supply Side true believers predicted the arrival of the Apocalypse. Bob Dole said the stock market would collapse. Newt Gingrich said the world would fall into another Great Depression.

What actually happened?

Between 1992 and 2000, the U.S. economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years.

Real interest rates fell by over 40% producing the greatest housing boom ever. Overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations. Most impressively, Clinton reversed the mammoth deficits of the Supply Side years, turning them into surpluses. He used these surpluses to begin paying down the national debt.

By virtually every meaningful measure-employment, growth, inflation, interest rates, investment, deficits and debt-the economy performed better once the Supply Side experiment was terminated and replaced with a more honest economic policy where we actually pay our bills as we go.

This might all be ancient history if the spectre of Supply Side economics had not reared its ugly head again once Bush II took office. In selling his $1.6 trillion tax cut-half of which went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans-Bush promised in 2001 that it would produce 800,000 new jobs. In fact, the economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since Bush took office, again, the worst economic performance since the Great Depression.

The effects of Bush's tax cut on the deficit and debt are exactly what we would expect having seen Reagan's results-only worse. Bush inherited from Clinton a fiscal surplus of $127 billion. In his first year he turned that into a deficit of $158 billion. In this, his second year, he will run a deficit of over $400 billion-a swing to the worse of over $600 billion in only two years.

Now Bush has sold us on still another megadose of this same Supply Side voodoo. Two thirds of his new $350 billion tax cut will go to the top 10% of income earners. Bush's Congressional ally, Tom DeLay, promises more such cuts for every year Bush is in office.

The long term effects of these policies are profoundly damaging. When Bush took office, the government's ten year surplus was forecast to total $5.6 trillion. This was critical to building fiscal soundness as the Baby Boomers begin to retire.

Now, the ten year forecast projects a cumulative deficit of $1.1 trillion, a net loss of $6.7 trillion in only two years. With the exception of World Wars, this is the greatest, most rapid destruction of public wealth in the history of the world.

This is $6.7 trillion that is not available to pay for an entire generation's retirement as we promised. It cannot rebuild the nation's schools or retrain the technologically unemployed. It cannot shore up a foundering Medicare system or provide insurance to the more than 40 million Americans without it. The interest costs of funding this debt will soon approach half a trillion dollars a year and will retard investment and, therefore, economic growth for decades to come.

All this torrent of debt does-and we shouldn't underestimate the prodigious potency of this feat-is line the pockets of Bush's already gorged campaign contributors.

Rarely in public affairs do we have the luxury of such starkly clear, empirically proven, historically sound contrasts. If Bush's tax cuts do not represent a fiscal process wildly out of control it is hard to imagine what does. And sadly, per Einstein's insanity dictum, we've seen it all before.

Bush wants people to believe these losses are due to a recession he inherited from Bill Clinton. But the economy has grown for seven of the last eight quarters Bush has been in office, hardly a recessionary environment. In truth, the losses owe to a reckless economic philosophy, the failings of which have been conclusively, and now repeatedly, demonstrated.

We need to wake up from our patriotism-besotted, war-induced stupor. Losses and debts of this magnitude threaten our nation's well being far more than do fictive weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a two bit, third world thug. Destroying our fiscal patrimony at the very moment we need it most-when history shows we should know better-is nothing short of national insanity.

Robert Freeman writes about economics, technology and education from Palo Alto, CA. He can be reached at: robertfreeman10@yahoo.com

 

[djv]

Auspice thks. Now I don't have to go to the library and look all this up. I might add the low interst rates were mention by a few of our friend on the right. I agree even lower then Clintons. So why 6% unemplyoment. Why is stock market not way up there. It's still way off it's high's. Sooner or later someone has to pay for the dept. Bush has thrown his friends a nice party. Now lets hope they all run out and let it trickle down.
N Korea keeps getting mentioned and the bad job Clinton did with it. He did ok. They lied as always. Funny thing is Bush is doing same as Clinton did. There talkng behind the doors and getting ready to give food and oil for no nukes. That's what Clinton did in good faith. I guess when Bush does it. We will say there he got-em. Remember Both Bush and Clinton have to rely on our intelligence community to see we get right info out of N korea. I mean I can't believe anyone here really believes he's going to war with N Korea. We wont just lose 166 men there. I dont like N korea and for that matter Suadi Ville. We gave the Suadis a free pass. That was a shame.

 

[ferdville]

"California is all #### up and rightfully so, since every office holder is a Democrat,doesn't that tell you something.Go to all the states that are liberal or Democat majority in their congressional and they are the highest in taxes from every angle..To name a few ,Mass Conn, Ny,MD, Calif,we can go on.So you see if the liberals get their chance,this country will be like France and other European countries and become totally Socialistic,which incidentally is the end result for Democrats."

I can't speak for any place other than California. EVERY major office holder is a Democrat and the state is falling apart. Gov. Davis makes deal after deal with special interest groups (prison guards, police, fire fighters, etc.) that will literally bankrupt this state if not altered. Lawmakers are concerned about getting junk food out of schools and banning SUV's, even though the majority of them drive same or similar vehicles - all exenses paid by the taxpayers. We have the language police in the Northern part of the state passing laws so that we can't call Frosty the Snowman by that name any more - have to call "it" Frosty the Snowperson. Revisionist history is running amock in the school system.

 

[auspice]

Fiction and the Tax Cut
Bush gets his gimmicky tax cut while a $400 child credit for millions of low-wage families is eliminated. Are his critics suffering from outrage exhaustion?


NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


May 30 ? Under the glittering chandeliers of the East Room of the White House, President Bush signed into law the most wealth-oriented tax bill in history.


THE INTERESTS OF the invited guests, mostly prosperous looking men in dark blue suits, were well-represented when congressional leaders put the finishing touches on the bill, preserving Bush?s dividend tax cut while a $400 child credit for millions of low-wage families was eliminated.
It was one of those nuggets that exposes the truth. Bush?s tax cut was never about economic stimulus, or the rebate would have been directed toward the people who will spend it, not the rich who just get richer. Senate and House conferees brushed away the crumbs slated for those making barely more than minimum wage in order to maintain the fiction that the bill comes in under the Senate?s $350 billion cap. In a bill already loaded with gimmicks, couldn?t they have found one more phony accounting device to preserve the one tax break that makes economic and social sense?


When I put that question to a Republican staffer, he said there was no one in the room who cared, not the principals, not the staff, and they didn?t need Democrat Blanche Lincoln?s vote anymore. She was the lawmaker who pressed the Senate to expand the child credit to include more low-income parents. Almost half the taxpayers in Lincoln?s home state of Arkansas report taxable incomes of less than $20,000. Under the bill?s formula, families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 will not benefit. The GOP staffer went on to say he didn?t know whether his party was moved more by hubris or money, but he did know the people who just got screwed weren?t at the president?s dinner last week when Bush raised $22 million for Republican campaigns.
Bush?s critics inside and outside his party are suffering from outrage exhaustion. How much can Bush get away with before the public and the media hold him accountable? If this shameful provision is not repealed, 11.9 million children, or one of every six children under 17 ,will be shortchanged according to The Center on Budget and Priorities, an admittedly liberal group, but whose facts are not disputed. Keep an eye on the media and whether the networks pick up the story, first reported in Thursday?s New York Times. If the Times story resonates, Karl Rove and his tag team of compassionate conservatives will do damage control, pledging perhaps to correct the omission with another tax bill in the fall, which they will see as an opportunity to push through still more cuts for upper-income voters.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are upset about the administration?s arrogance. They?re tired of getting the brush-off when they ask what happened to the weapons of mass destruction allegedly in Iraq and where?s the administration?s plan for the war?s aftermath? Negative sentiment is growing as Congress comes to grips with the length of time (years, not months) and money (billions) and manpower (hundreds of thousands) it will take to rebuild Iraq. Just as Bush dissembled on the cost of the war, refusing to put a price tag on it until the bombs were falling, he hasn?t come clean with Congress or the American people about the war?s aftermath, or how it will squeeze domestic programs.

The economic rationale for this tax cut is dubious, but its political impact is clear. It?s a cynical device to re-elect the president and put the country in hock. One Senate Republican dubs it ?The Rangers Relief Act,? after the newly created category of Bush donors who contribute at least $200,000 to his re-election. (The Pioneers used to be the high-rollers at $100,000 plus; now the Rangers, named after the baseball team Bush owned, are the heavy hitters.) ?The tax cut reimburses the donors before they?ve given,? says the Senate Republican, noting the added benefit of starving the government of resources to support the programs that Democrats typically champion, like Social Security and Medicare.
More than 2 million jobs have been lost since Bush became president, yet it feels in Washington as if we?re living in a second Gilded Age. Worries about income inequality or imbalance are treated like quaint notions from another era. A report touts a new casino opening in Atlantic City that will feature thousand-dollar coins for slot machines. The clientele it hopes to attract won?t be spending the milk money. Richer Americans send their children to private schools, so who cares if Bush?s much heralded ?No Child Left Behind? education bill is woefully underfunded. There is no counterbalance to the corporate priorities of the Bush administration and the shifting of the tax burden to lower-earning Americans in order to free up the capital of the rich. Still, it is a gamble for Bush. If the economy doesn?t recover sufficiently, can he blame it on the Democrats for not giving him everything he wanted?

? 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

 

[ferdville]

How do you give a tax cut to people who don't pay any taxes? Call it a rebate, gift, stimulus, whatever - the majority of people in that bracket would only pay taxes if they didn't know how to fill out a 1040ez. Don't fret though, a Republican has introduced a bill to pay the minimum wage earners their $400. It is expected to pass.

 

[auspice]

to ferdville

Good point. But unfortunately, mostly inaccurate.

Approximately 8 million families that DO pay income taxes were denied this credit by this latest legislation. That is why it effects every 6th child under 17. It's not for only the extremely poor as it effects households earning up to $26,000.

Quick question: do you only start paying taxes only on income over 26K ? Isn't your first 26K of income taxed? Same thing here. These people ARE taxpayers.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

You can spin it all you want but lets look at common sense that should end all these discussions in the future.Lets say hypothetically since the left and right can never agree we decide to form 2 seperate governments by splitting the U.S. down the middle with all the liberals on the left of mississippi and conservatives on the right.Each side sets its own rules and is funded by members of their party.
On the demogaphics of last election,which I will be happy to post link again(for the 3rd time) if anyone questions following data, we have these segments of population that voted in the majority (75% or better) of one side liberal and conservative.
Liberals over 75%: minoritys-people with "alternate lifestyles"-
people receiving gov aid of some form.
Conservatives over 75% small business owner-farmers-people in military-people with incomes in excess of $100,000.
Now you tell me which one of these split govs is going flourish and which will flounder. Which side is totally dependent of the other.
Let me see,how much excess tax revenue would there be on the right after being able to cut economic assistance programs to the bone.Could spend excess on military,veterans,farmers ect---and yes there would be plenty of work as the big business would do anything to get away from the liberals who detest them,so plenty of jobs,lots of food,far less crimes(violent crimes anyway),insurance preimums would go way down, business would flourish without the billions take from them and the stockholders from class acton lawsuits in last 5 years with the bar association being predominately liberal.Wow that means more jobs on the right for construction in building a wall similiar to great wall of china to keep the left from stampedeing to the right.


--and I'll let Auspice and any other volunteers explain how the left would survive over 6 months

 

[Turfgrass]

IDIOTIC LEFTIST RHETORIC

IDIOTIC LEFTIST RHETORIC

OK ? let?s start with this. This isn?t about the Bush tax cut. This is about class warfare. This is about seedy politicians setting one group of Americans against another group for political gain.

The Democrats had hoped to prevent Bush from getting his tax cut. They were afraid that it would actually lead to increased economic growth and declining Democrat hopes for the 2004 elections.

Well .. the tax cut passed, and the Democrats needed something else to stir up the masses. The decision was made to make a full class warfare assault on Republicans. Set up the rich as evil and the poor as victims. The leftists are basing their current class war onslaught on the fact that the Bush tax cut actually allowed people to keep more of the money that they earned, but it did not send enough checks to families who do not pay taxes.

Now it may seem perfectly understandable to most people that a tax cut means cutting the taxes that people actually pay taxes. But not Democrats. To a Democrat the definition of ?cutting taxes? is ?taking money from one income earner who pays taxes and giving that money to someone who does not pay taxes.? Strange --- but we are talking about politics here.

So ? the class warfare assault is on. Listen to the words of Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa Delauro ? a Democrat.

?What kind of perverse Robin Hoods steal secretly to rob from the poor to give to the rich??

Now, isn?t that amazing? Allowing a taxpayer to keep more money is to ?steal? from or to ?rob? the poor and ?give? to the rich. There really aren?t any words I can say here that could adequately illustrate just how absurd this statement is.

Then there?s New York Democrat Charles Rangel:

?The cruelest thing of all is that when they still found themselves three or four billion short and instead of shaving a little bit off of where the bulk of the money would go they saw fit not only to go after low income people, but the children of low income people.?

Oh yeah! Let?s paint these evil, greedy Republicans as attacking children.

At least one congressman has it right ? Tom DeLay from Texas:

"To me it's a little difficult to give tax relief to people that don't pay income tax. It's a spending program," Mr. DeLay

Brit Hume?s panel on Special Report got into this last night. They were discussing some new proposed legislation that would go ahead and give $400 checks for each child of a low income family that doesn?t pay income taxes. When Fred Barnes correctly referred to this as welfare the other panelists almost wet their pants. They just couldn?t believe that this man was referring to this as welfare? Well, what else is it? You take money away from the people who earned it, and you give it to people who did NOT earn it. It?s a straight cash grant. It?s welfare. If the left is going to be so anxious to redistribute income like this ? why not at least have the guts to call it what it is.

This, by the way, is what is objectionable to liberals, this is what they find so troublesome about Fox News Channel. Fox continues to remind viewers that the families the Democrats are continually referring to don?t pay any taxes.

 

[StevieD]

Turfgrass I agree with you that this is beginning to look like class warfare. Murdoch is trying to elimiante the middle class. But why do you make everything Left vs. right. Everything the left does is not right and everything the right does is is correct. Both sides look out for themselves. Just because Bush wants to cut taxes during a time he is running a deficet doesn't make it right. The figures have been laid out in front of you. No matter how Murdoch and his lapdogs paint it. This tax cut is suppose to stimulate the economy, or so they say, but it has been proven that tax cuts do not do that. The last one didn't. Actually the last two did not.
Everytime the Murdochs lapdogs argue, they know that their figures don't quite add up, so they try to shift direction and point to the left. Instead of doing that show me how by creating a deficet you hope to stimulate the economy.

 

[auspice]

AGAIN....and please pay attention: there were 8 million families that DO pay income taxes that had the income tax credit taken away with this last legislation. THEY DO PAY INCOME TAXES!! What is sooo damn hard to understand here? These are people that DO have jobs that DO pay income taxes.

You guys need some reading comprehension classes? Honestly, you guys need to turn the fox channel off and chill. It's good for nothing but stirring you up.

OK...here's one for you. Fox is always talking about the 'other' liberal TV stations. So I guess that's CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN right? OK, try to get your hands around this concept: if these other 'liberal' stations (as only fox calls them) had the same agenda that fox does, how long would it take them to destroy the right wing?

In other words, if NBC's Tom Brokaw came on practically every night and constantly reminded everyone about Regan and Bush sr.'s lies in the Ollie North fiasco and how the Republlcan party's favorite son Regan ran the country by tea leafs and a board game (can't spell weege board): how long would it take to completely destroy the right wing? They would be doing exactly what fox does with Clinton.

These 'left wing' tv stations could develop other talk shows that were left wing propaganda stations just like 90% of the fox talk broadcasts. They could give somebody that reads tea leafs their own half hour show (just like fox has Monica Lewinski).

How long do you think it would take these 'liberal' stations to completely destroy the right if they actually had an agenda? Not long huh? But why don't you right wing guys have anything to be scared of? We both know why. ETHICS: they have some. Tom Brokaw will not be broadcasting with some agenda of destroying either party. You know when you go to sleep tonight that Browkaw won't be talking down the Republican party tomorrow. He'll simply be broadcasting the news with no agenda. Isn't it sad that the same can't be said for fox?

Now will fox be trying to destroy the left tonight in any of their broadcasts ? ABSOLUTELY. It's their agenda. All awhile in their broadcast, talking down the 'liberal left' and Clinton or any other ideology that conflicts with their own. Fox has NO such ethics. They have an agenda. And it's working judging from your hatred of the working poor.