I Love My Country - I Hate My President

“Bush has made the world less safe, IMO.”

“Only the History books will tell, but by then......”

“Stikman, Bush is also leader of the Republican party and could have got ratification through congress should he have chosen to.

It was Bush that rejected Kyoto before it ever went before congress.”

“Become a citizen and then pop off.”

“IQ's working overtime there I see savage, looks like it may get paid for it now.”

“It's like being "savaged" by a dead sheep.”

“ynami I would think that if the Kyoto treaty was such a hot commodity, more nations would have ratified it, and it would have been brought before congress in the 2 years between being signed and Bush getting elected. His rejection of it dind't do anything other than void Clinton's signature, basically, since it hadn't been ratified. So his action was merely symbolic, as I stated before.”

“ok, technically I agree with part of that, but it being "symbolic" doesn't make the decision not to persue Kyoto any less significant.”

“Okay, we disagree on whether or not it was an empty action. But, let's assume the ratification process takes a little while. 54 countries that signed it have yet to ratify it after five years. That would lead me to believe they have the same opinion of it as the United States.”

“hhhm, I tend to agree with you that it was flawed, I think they're waiting on Russia's ratification to bring it into force though.
Despite the fact it was flawed, I think there should have been some attempt to either improve it or replace it with something else.
America's withdrawl from progressing with Kyoto has also led to a number of the other holdouts. No-one said it wouldn't cost anything, and a number of countries, including America, protested that cost would be too great. With the richest country and biggest polluter pulling out it's difficult to persuade poorer countries that they need to do something about pollution.

I also seem to remember Bush saying he would present some alternatives to Kyoto. I've yet to see anything significant, though I could be wrong. In terms of pollution he seems to be determined to free up corporations from existing restraints.”

“I seem to recall the Bush Admin pulling out of follow-on talks to Kyoto as one of their first actions after being sworn in (then they announced they were going to disengage from Arab/Israeli peace initiatives).

They have since paid lip service to the possibility of global climate change, while working diligently to relax air quality standards. I think that's called 'playing both sides of the street'.”

“I think that's called 'playing both sides of the street'."
Tilt
01:13:27 PM
09/10/03

Yeah, or politics, lol.”

“I don't trust any of 'em, <G> --- but I think we probably would've been better off if McCain had been in the White House on 9-11.”

“I love ressurecting these threads. If you haven't bothered to read Michael Moore's op-ed in the USA Today, here you go:

The GOP doesn't reflect America”

“Mikey Moore is funny.

He complains about tax cuts to the rich, but do you see him giving back any of his millions to feed the poor, insure the under-insured or clean waterways?

No, instead he applauds the publicity of McCain slamming him, saying it will help sell more tickets.

Good show. Quite the entertainer. Andrew Dice Clay created a character that people loved to hate, and he made millions. Mike is doing exactly the same thing.”

“Wouldn't that be the point though? A rich man saying the government should take his money and use it responsibly rather than tax the middle class and use it abusively. It seems like you feel Michael Moore should take the responsibility for running the country while the government does what again?”

“He complains about tax cuts to the rich, but do you see him giving back any of his millions to feed the poor, insure the under-insured or clean waterways?

No, instead he applauds the publicity of McCain slamming him, saying it will help sell more tickets. (meaning he is laughing all the way to the bank, enjoying the tax cuts in a very personal manner)

What I am saying is Mikey should put his money where his mouth is if he were serious about social change, which he isn't. He is an entertainer with a disastrous factual history by who makes his riches by selling entertainment, nothing more.

Government has shown that it doesn't take money and use it responsibly. Governement and responsibility are complete opposite terms.”

“Once again, you assume that it is solely his responsibility because he has spoken out. Yes, we live in a capitilist society and he is rich. So what? Every hard working person in this country dreams of that. I don't know a single person that would put themselves out for public scrutiny the way he does in his films. Try watching one and you might understand that he is doing something. His voice is a very powerful tool and the Republicans are afraid of it. I can't ask for more than that.”

“Again, Mikey is an entertainer using it to get rich, not to affect change.

If things were to change his way, he'd be under-employeed and he doesn't want that. Much like Rush would be thrilled if Kerry were elected...

Same thing, entertainers. Nothing more or less.”

“I like what Democrat Senator Zell Miller says about Kerry's tax philosophy.


'In a preview of his keynote speech, Miller described Kerry as a senator who "thinks that if you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will vote for you."'”

“Who's voting for Kerry? I'm still under the impression he's strapped for votes and trying to weasel Ralph Nader off every ballot he can. The surprise will be when Nader's supporters just don't vote if he's not on the ticket.”

“God Bless you michael moore !! You tell us the truth, They cannot(obviously) stand that. People who live in denial want us all to live there with them, but America would never had been born if that was the case. Everyone who bought a ticket to the flick did so *voluntarily*
(look that one up in the dictionary), as opposed to us having to give Bush our tax dollars(but not for much longer). There is of course, a big difference between the two. Concentrate boys
and you might 'get it'.

And as for McCain's remarks about the movie, afterwards, he admitted, he has not even seen it. But then, we all know
"w' didnt actually read all those text books in college either. Empty suits.

Personally, I cant wait for Moore's flick on Regan, the biggest empty suit of them all.

Bring on the Truth. And watch them whine, and lie, and run for the cracks
from whence they came.”

“gramey - Unfortunatly, your lind words will be twisted to be hateful bs by the right. Understand that anything that is said against them, is an attack. They do not want freedom of speech, as it gets in their way.


Interesting ditty on NPR tonight. They reported that the Christain Collation as proudly stated that byt their count, a little more than half of the people at the convention is either part of their collation, or is a past member. I thought of Mutt and his distaste for the Christian radicals he puts down, yet he himself supports a party that is half of what he hates. I found this very interesting.

They also disscussed how the party *hardcore* right is a little pissed at the fact that the moderates are getting so much face time, peddling issues (like pro-choice) that run counter to he party platform. This too is interesting.

This all smacks of a white-wash event to try and make the Pres look good. I find it very interesting that the Repubs call Kerry a flip-flopper, yet we haven't been able to get a straight answer outta those guys for a while. Was it WMD, no, now it's "because he's evil".

What a load. You talk bad about the pres, you're a hater.....they talk bad about Kerry, and they are just being truthful. Again, what a load. I feel bad and pity those who fall for this window dressing. It's a sad statement of our country.”

“He complains about tax cuts to the rich, but do you see him giving back any of his millions to feed the poor, insure the under-insured or clean waterways?

Even better.”

“LOL! How can you hate a guy who want's to help kick GW's a**!”

“August 26, 2004

It Takes Real Courage to Desert Your Post and Then Attack a Wounded Vet

Dear Mr. Bush,

I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.

First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a purple heart, you'd better be hit by a bullet -- with your name on it!

Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a purple heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks -- we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam -- but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.

And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him -- he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.

What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's poll numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).

Some people have said "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat -- in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam -- and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year -- at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.

The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22, 1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.

Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention -- which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.

But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.

That you never got a purple heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you. Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!

So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:

ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river -- fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."

ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."

Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" -- or were they just trying to get their faces on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks his or her life for this country. It's the least that person deserves.

Yours,

Michael Moore”

“"Again, Mikey is an entertainer using it to get rich, not to affect change."

ww
07:00:01 PM
09/01/04

As far as I know, Mr. Moore has consistently made movies (documetaries) that have pointed out the ills of a certain part of society. Someone of his directorial noteriety (Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine) normally take big ticket directorial gigs after being the buzz, yet Mike didn't, and made a movie about his passions. Yeah, he's making money off of what he loves to do....expose the truth, so what? He's been doing the same thing for years, and not making money or as much, yet still has done it, which proves to me, it's about what he loves, the truth, and the money is secondary.

I know, I'm a Union Rep., and know (and have been offered) that I can make more money that what I make now, doing something else. Guess what? I love busting the nose of a pompus manager while getting paid for it. My job satisfaction comes from loving what I do and knowing it makes a difference in people's lives. The money will come, and if it doesn't, no big deal.

Mr. Moore may have a different profession, but we both are on the same career goals page, and money is secondary.”

“Republicans will never understand the previous post.”

“Questions About Bush's Guard Service Unanswered




By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard / USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - At a time when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has come under fire from a group of retired naval officers who say he lied about his combat record in Vietnam, questions about President Bush's 1968-73 stint in the Texas Air National Guard remain unresolved: (Related item: Bush urges end to TV attack ads by outside groups)

Some of the documents about President Bush's military service documents still have not been made public.

• Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?

• What explains the apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama?

• Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a football game during his college years?

The White House has released hundreds of pages of records, but the files released so far haven't answered those questions. Since the documents were released in February, at least a half-dozen news organizations, including USA TODAY, have filed new requests for Bush's military records under the Freedom of Information Act.

In an e-mail to USA TODAY last week, presidential spokesman Dan Bartlett said: "The president has authorized the release of his records and we are complying with all requests. Some are taking longer than others, but all will be addressed."

Past military service and qualifications to be commander in chief have become a central theme in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Questions about Bush's record predate the current campaign. The apparent gap in his Guard service first surfaced before the 2000 election, when The Boston Globe reported that Texas Guard commanders were unable to account for Bush's whereabouts from May 1972 to April 1973.

Bush has not said what he did in the Guard during that period. Aside from a statement by a former Alabama Air Guard officer who said he saw Bush report for duty there in the fall of 1972, the only evidence he was at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama was a record of a dental exam on Jan. 6, 1973, at the base.

Bush said in a TV interview in February that he would make all his military records available. That month, the White House released more than 400 pages of Bush military records, including some duplicates, and said the documents were a complete catalog of his personnel files.

But some documents still have not been made public. The White House did not release Bush's medical records from his Guard files but allowed a group of reporters who cover the White House to review them for 20 minutes. They found nothing unusual. Kerry released some of his military records earlier this year. He has also declined to release his complete medical records but showed them to reporters as Bush did.

Since February, the White House has banned all Guard and military commanders outside the Pentagon from commenting on Bush's records or service. Requests for information must go to the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Act office.

The Pentagon last week responded to a 4-month-old request from USA TODAY for additional records from Bush's files by sending another copy of documents that were released by the White House in February. The documents do not address the unexplained year in Bush's Guard service or his decision to stop flying.

The Associated Press filed a lawsuit this summer requesting copies of Bush's military records stored in a Texas archive on microfilm. It sought information that might explain why Bush did not take his flight physical and whether he showed up for duty in Alabama in the fall of 1972, AP spokesman John Stokes said.”

“a.) drugs
b.) cowardice
c.) Hellfire, I had something better to do! (GWB & Dickhead Cheney)
d.) I can't recall, I was drinking and driving at the time.
e.) All of the above”

“Bush Prays, and Is Prayed for, Say Republicans
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
OTHER
Interactives:•2004 Convention PackageSTORIES
•Changing Times Reflected in 2004 GOP Platform•Hastert, Frist Play Bit Parts at Convention•Daschle Defends Bush Hug •Contract With America Overlooked at Convention•Cheney, Miller on Tap at RNC•Closed-Door Rally for Religious Conservatives•Democrats Courting Secular Voters
NEW YORK — President Bush (search) prays, he consults scripture; he even plans services on Air Force One when he isn't able to attend church on the ground.

So says a new documentary that points out that yes, Bush is a religious man, and many of his core supporters find that one of his most endearing traits.

"I think what they like about this man — and what seems to scare other people — is his faith," said David W. Balsiger, producer of "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House." (search) "For a large segment of the voting population — probably 60 million — faith plays a very large role," Balsiger continued. "They want to know that the man will make some decision through prayer, through spiritual counsel."

Polls seem to support that assertion. The Pew Forum on Religion and the People (search) polls have repeatedly found that a majority of Americans like their political leaders to talk about their faith, a statistic that the Republican Party has seized upon in the last year.

Another statistic they have seized upon is one that has found that the more frequently voters go to religious services, the more likely they are to vote Republican.


And though the Christian conservative (search) movement is hardly marching in full force on the Republican National Convention, Republicans of faith are easily found in New York this week, and make no bones about saying that Bush is one of them.

"I think our president is a Christ-centered, Godly man and he is a leader for times such as these," said Pearl Floyd, an African-American Christian, who serves as a county commissioner in Gastonia, N.C.

Floyd has had the pleasure of meeting the president on several occasions, she told FOXNews.com at the GOPAC-sponsored "National Prayer Breakfast" Wednesday morning. "He calls me Pearl and says he's my friend," she said.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who spoke at the event, said Bush is "someone who prays every day," and people constantly approach him, here and abroad, saying they are praying for him.

"I hear it everywhere in America," he said. "That is the greatest help this president gets, it's the prayers from you."

Balsiger said he expects more than one million DVDs of his film, which documents the role of faith in the president's life and in his leadership, to be in circulation in the next few months, and he hopes it will "go head to head" with the DVD release of Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" on Oct 5.

"It ended being a great tie-in. It provides a great alternative for people who want to know what George Bush is really like," he said.

"The main mission (of this film) is to show a side of George Bush that says he is different from other contemporary presidents. He's not reluctant to talk about his faith," Balsiger said.

Aside from distributing the film through secular channels like Wal-Mart, Balsiger said it will be available at thousands of churches, religious organizations and bookstores. It will also be shown at several film festivals between now and the election.

"A lot of religious believers are asking whether their leaders are just pandering to the beliefs of people or are they really walking the talk," he added. "I think this film indicates that he does walk the talk."

But while folks like Balsiger and others, like former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts (search), who led the prayer breakfast Wednesday, say faith is key to the party, this aspect has hardly been high profile among the major events and speakers at the convention this week.

Experts suggest that convention delegates, part of Bush's loyal base, know who they are going to vote for, and much of the convention is geared toward targeting more moderate swing voters who identify with economic and national security issues rather than religious and social issues linked more closely to the conservative wing of the party.

"I think the difference is in the past, the Christian conservative base wasn't happy with the nominee, and they were dissatisfied with the party, so the party had to reach out to them," said John McLaughlin, Republican pollster.

"This president has their support and right now their objective is to register more conservatives and make sure these conservatives go and vote, and that's going to happen," he said. "They're not complaining, you're seeing them lining up and saying, what do we need to do? On the other hand, the party understands that we're battling for the middle right now."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a life-long Roman Catholic, has said he is also a man of faith, but has contended that faith is a personal matter and that he does not want to be a spokesman for any church or faith.

At the same time, Democrats say attempts to appear centrist at the Republican convention don't disguise the true nature of the conservative right.

"Underneath a thin veneer of compassionate slogans, there's a divisive, negative agenda that is driving the Republican Party and has controlled this White House and their policies for the past four years," said Mary Beth Cahill (search), campaign manager for Kerry. "The Republican Party has miscalculated again if they thought they could keep their true extreme agenda under wraps while middle class families have been suffering from it all along."

Democrats held their own prayer reception at the Democratic National Convention, albeit a smaller one. They said faith has been "hijacked" by Republicans, and their issues of faith include opposing war and eradicating poverty.

"Our faith has been stolen and it's time to take it back," said Jim Wallis, a Christian activist who runs "Call to Renewal" in Washington, and appeared at the Democratic prayer breakfast in Boston.

"Democrats are clearly extremely frustrated by the idea that religion is equated with conservatives," said Steven Waldman, founder of BeliefNet.com, a Web site dedicated to religious issues, at the July convention. "And they're flailing around, trying to figure out what to do about it. The Democrats know they have to be more welcoming."

Gene Riccoboni, a Manhattan layer who considers himself a traditional Catholic, said his faith surely plays a role in his political support — and Bush is his man. He likes the fact that faith helps to guide Bush's decisions as a leader.

"Personally, I would prefer a man of faith," he said. He believes that most people who consider themselves religious can be found on the same side of political issues, like abortion and stem-cell research. "It's ideological," he added.”

“Buddha, you had me until you said you were a union rep. I'm waiting out my year to get on as a steward at AFSCME here in Dayton. Many people I work with have been pushing me to become local president, but I am mostly interested in getting people on the executive board. According to the local president the only way the union will go to bat for us, as we would like them too, is if we (the county) control the board rather than the city. Political garbage if you ask me. My biggest wake up call came when I was speaking to a man who had a Freemason ring on. When the conversation was over he advised me that he would put in a good word for me with the regional director. As a conspiracy theorist the last thing I want to hear is that the man who can get me my raise is a Freemason. Anyway, not all union reps are bad but it's becoming more obvious that they don't all put there best foot forward. The local president just pulled an administrative move even though no new position was posted and there was no vacancy posted. The contract clearly states the position has to be posted unless it's a temporary transfer and then they have 45 days to post the position so they can fill it permanently. When the person you would go to when you want to complain is part of the problem what do you do? I can't say I'm warming up to the union very well when it seems to be run by elitists just looking out for themselves. Don't mean to put you in that class but I never have liked unions.”

“Yay!! My county went to Bush (So did I lol), I really hate some Bush policies, I wish he were more pro-environment, but overall I think he is better than Kerry...but what do I know, im a republican and I live in a republican county lol :-(.”

“It just looks better broken down into the county level.”

“That map is like comparing the box office receipts of Titanic with Gone With the Wind. Titanic made more, sure, but not in inflation adjusted dollars.

There are more cows in some of those red counties than people. And with today's announced cut in farm subsidies, most of those cows would now vote Democrat (Please note that the "ic" has been officially banned by the Office of Homeland Doublespeak).

I find two things interesting about the map. First, I see a chain of blue along the US/Mexico border. The growing immigrant population there should be a new source for Democrat-- support. If Bush follows through on his citizenship for illegals campaign, the Democrats should run with it.

Second, note the long chains of blue in the South. Those chains have been enough to elect as many Democrat-- state legislative majorities in the South as in the "blue" Midwest.

Northeastern Democrats and the Democrat-- establishment have to ask themselves how badly they want to win. If they actually nominated someone with the views of Harry Reid or John Dingell, they would energize those blue strings and win the presidency in a heartbeat.

Fiscal conservatism across ALL departments, support for immigrant populations, emphasis on education and common-sense health care reform, preservation of social security, hard-line national defense and programs to attack the number of abortions in the country would bring victory to Democrats.

Pie in the sky? Sure. But if the party threw out a few bones to Midwestern and Southern voters, the party would rebound.

And I don't necessarily think that Dean is anathema to this. Dean was great at building the grassroots base. If he realizes that his core message is the "way" he attracted voters rather than his actual plank, he'd do the entire party a great service.

Liberals would get more with a moderate Democrat in office than this free spending Republican.

Finally, I don't hate President Bush, but his policies suck dog.”

“I would vote democrat but I dont think they would be very strong on national defense and I think they would raise taxes too much, I dont agree with who got the bulk of Bush's tax cuts but it is better than having higher taxes.”

“Lower taxes is another form of doublespeak. We're on a deficit budget now, and some day the bills will come due. Who do you think is going to pay those bills? Shrub's rich friends? Think again.”

“We are in a deficit but its not because of lower taxe, its because of too much spending (something I dis-like republicans and democrats for doing), if we simply cut spending we could have lower taxes and still have a surplus.”

“Bush is on a spending spree with the national credit card and only paying the minimum balance.

I've been a conservative Republican for 18 years and I hate my president.”

“komkeen, you are absolutely correct that cutting spending is the way to go. Not the nickel and dime approach introduced today, but across the board. Giving Homeland Security a 7% increase when it has done nothing is crazy. And Bush's plan to reduce a deficit that he created by 50% the year after he is no longer president is also crazy.

And I think the way to approach the Bush tax "cuts" is like this...

The government currently has no money to give to anyone. It is in massive deficit mode.

If it decides today to give more money to young people for college expenses, it would be called a BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

But if the government decides to give a whole bunch of people money in their tax returns, it is called REDUCING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.

My position is that the Bush tax increases were actually the worst example of government welfare imagineable. The government didn't have the money to give because it is in deficits. It is actually an INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, given to 2005 Americans and paid for by 2020 and 2030 Americans. Generational welfare.

Now, if we cut the budgets and ended up with a hundred billion dollar surplus and decided to give that back to taxpayers, that would be a tax cut. Bush's plan was a spending increase.”

“The tax cuts and spending increases are just what Lurker said, generational welfare. It's like taking your grandchild to the bank and having him co-sign a loan you plan to default on. No banker in the world would loan you money if you were deep in debt and using a minor as your cosigner. Unless you were the US Government.
http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html
last edited: 2/07/05 8:22:41 PM”

“I agree with you reformed lurker. Thats what I dont like about Bush, he is spending more than probably any other president and is incresing the size of the government at the same time :-S.”

“BTW, here is how social security will play out.

Bush needs 60 votes in the Senate to get his plan passed because he needs to avoid filibuster. The Democrats seem pretty united against his plan. Add to that a small chunk of Republicans who will not vote to change social security fundamentally. So, the current plan is dead. Bush doesn't have the votes.

But, Bush cares more about raiding Democratic issues than upholding Republican ideals. He is willing to increase spending if it hurts the Democrats.

On the senior prescription drug plan, he decided that he'd rather spend massive amounts than allow Democrats the ability to run on the senior prescription drug issue.

I believe that the Republicans in the Senate can be persuaded to support a plan that does not cut social security, but adds the private accounts anyway. It is the only thing that has a chance of passing. Bush will take this deal. And then Bush will start looking for Democratic stooges in the Senate.

So, instead of securing social security for the future and CUTTING BENEFITS, we will instead have a major budget giveaway and increase in the size of government.

Can 41 Democrats resist the urge to increase social security spending? That is the question.”

“"The tax cuts and spending increases are just what Lurker said, generational welfare. It's like taking your grandchild to the bank and having him co-sign a loan you plan to default on. No banker in the world would loan you money if you were deep in debt and using a minor as your cosigner. Unless you were the US Government.
http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html"

bateauxdriver
8:13:14 PM
2/07/05

It's a shame that some people can't get their heads around economics. This is the same thinking that led to the great depression, keep govt's hands off the economy and it'll fix itself (It will, but at what cost?). There's a reason that we use tax cuts and deficit spending and why they aren't bad things. You're looking at this from an unrealistic perspective. We used tax cuts and deficit spending to ensure that the economy did not continue to sink, remember that recession? How the heck do you think we got out of it? Tax cuts and deficit spending. They are the govt's two best ways to boost the economy other than monetary policy which is controlled by the Fed. So there's another perspective that you have to keep in mind when looking at this, we could have a balanced budget, and you could not have a job. I'm sure when you look at it that way it makes a whole lot more sense.

Remember those terrible deficits of the 80's that were going to bankrupt us all? (fortuneatly as a consequence of those deficits we weren't all personally bankrupt) They were wiped out in a matter of a few years. And these deficits aren't nearly the largest we've ever run as a percentage of GDP (You always hear that it's a record deficit, it is in terms of dollars which is a an absolutely worthless way of looking at it and tells you absolutely nothing about the current deficit in historical terms).

Last time I checked the fed wasn't going wild raising interest rates or printing money because they're terribly concerned about deficits, they're concerned in a general sense, but they realize that the current policy is appropriate to the economic situation.

Having said all that the economy is looking like it's nearly recovered to an optimal level so it is getting to be time now to think about moving more toward balance, but the situation is certainly not urgent and there's plenty of time to move toward balance incrementally.
last edited: 2/07/05 8:57:20 PM”

“Bison, I fully understand the use of tax cuts to spur the economy and avoid deep recession. I also believe the tax cuts would have worked much better as trickle up instead of trickle down economics. When working class people get extra money they put it directly into the economy much faster than the wealthy. I'd really like to know how cutting capital gains really helped the economy? I pay less than half the taxes on my stocks than I pay on my real job. It doen't make sense for a working stiff to give away over 1/3 of his pay to taxes while a wealthy investor may pay as little as 15% on his investments. The capital gains tax break was spread across the income levels but how much can a family making $30,000 save to invest? I'm debt free, currently investing almost 1/2 of my salary and Bush is making it easy on me. The 20 somethings across the street with little kids are barely making ends meet. They need the tax break. They pay as much in Social Security taxes as they pay in income taxes. That is money they may never see.”

“Well... if we could get rid of Social Security and replace it with a program that actually acts like an insurance program instead of one the functions as a pyramid scheme...”

“Bison, I agree with you on Social Security. We must take care of the disabled, elderly and little kids that have abusive or no parents. That should be the insurance part. The retirement part should be your money not the governments. I would prefer an expansion of the IRA/401K programs for the retirement part. It should be your choice to stick with the current plan or move to the private plan. All income should be taxed under the program as well. Currently income over $87,900 is not taxed for Social Security. The current rate is 6.2% for you and 6.2% for your employer. We should cut that rate to half and let everyone pay for social security not just the working class.”