You do not want to accept anything that proves the Bush policies are not helping the majority of the people of this country

I can't stop laughing.  Are you someone who accepts the fact that you have been proven wrong, and continues to ignore anything that is good about this country?

Keep quoting media polls and basing your "facts" off DNC talking points, it's just hillarious.

Island Dog

Look at the defections on Iraq, the environment, Energy and the debt in Congress and with conservatives. Just today the right wing religious groups have broken with the Bush policy on global warming. You have at least 8 GOP senators that oppose the added troops to Iraq. I look at the letters to the Editor in my local paper-- I live in GOP Land and the letters that show NON-Support for Bush and his policies is growing every day. Finally is the ultimate indication-- the election of 2006. Keep acting like George and refuse to see what is taking place in our country. You and he would not know the truth if it was 3 feet in front of you.


Keep Laughing and show that you are a true Idiot!

Once again col your personal attacks show me nothing but that you are a true liberal.  Don't like what you hear so lodge an insult.  It's typical really.

Now If I cared to argue with you anymore, because it's hopeless for you really.  How about the democrats who were calling for a "surge" in troops before the new year, but now since Bush proposed it, they backed off. 

For you to even mention letters to the editor in your local paper is just hillarious.  I can't believe I waste my time arguing with someone who blames Bush for every problem in their life.

IslandDog

The majority of Democrats were NOT proposing a Surge. The generals were against a Surge. What happened to I will listed to the commanders on the ground. Bush had to Change generals to get someone to agree with him!

I guess you also discount the election results of 2006!

DREAN ON!

The majority of Democrats were NOT proposing a Surge.

I didn't say the majority col.  Just the usual hypocrits.  

I guess you also discount the election results of 2006!

LOL.  Col, democrats didn't win that election because they stand for something, they won because conservatives were trying to "teach" the GOP a lesson. 

IslandDog

You are correct. The GOP LOST the election because the majority of voters do not agree with their policies. The GOP even lost in areas where they engineered the districts to prevent their loss.

IslandDog The majority of Democrats were NOT proposing a Surge. The generals were against a Surge. What happened to I will listed to the commanders on the ground. Bush had to Change generals to get someone to agree with him! I guess you also discount the election results of 2006! DREAN ON!

Sorry col but the congress can do NOTHING about a troop surge. That's not in their baliwick. They can be against it all they want. All they can do is try and defund the war. And if they do that their channces of re-election will go in the toilet. The general concensus is that defunding shows no support for the troops. And the "majority" of Americans would not like that.

I'm still looking for the democrats plan for victory, and the key word there is victory.

drmiler

The one power they have is to investigate how we got into this war and if they conclude Bush abused his power they can Impeach him and remove him from power.

If that fails, the Voters, who clearly do not support the Iraq war, can finish the job of removing the GOP from power by electing a Democrat for President in 2008 and further increase their control over Congress. If you do not think the key people in the Republican Party are not afraid of that taking place in 2008 you are really kidding yourself. That is why they are moving away from Bush and his policies. Immigration, Energy, Environment, Iraq, the deficit. Every day GWB becomes more alone and soon it will be just Barney and maybe Laura that support him!


IslandDog

As for the Democratic plan for Victory in Iraq—I think Bush has made Victory as we would like it impossible and the choice will come down to the least onerous failure. The violence has gotten to a point where neither the U.S. or the Iraqi Government can bring it to an end without an all out civil war that will end with the Shiites totally dominating the Sunnis or an Iraq where the three factions will assume control over a portion of the country!

The one power they have is to investigate how we got into this war and if they conclude Bush abused his power they can Impeach him and remove him from power.

There have already been investigations, and they have shown there was no manipulation or lies.  It's time to move on.

As for the Democratic plan for Victory in Iraq—I think Bush has made Victory as we would like it impossible and the choice will come down to the least onerous failure. The violence has gotten to a point where neither the U.S. or the Iraqi Government can bring it to an end without an all out civil war that will end with the Shiites totally dominating the Sunnis or an Iraq where the three factions will assume control over a portion of the country!

Wrong again.  Victory is possible, only if you want it.  The problem is, democrats don't.

IslandDog

Victory is ONLY possible if the Iraqi Government and military STOP the secterian violence. It will not be ended by another 17,000 U.S. troops to Baghdad.

There has been no oversight by Congress on this administration and it is time for that to take place. If we can impeach a President for lieing when no one was killed we can impeach a president that is directly responsible for taking this country to a war that is unjustified in which 3,000 American Military have been sacraficed.

Let's assume for sake of argument that all those jobs that have been created since 9/11 just "aint't as good as they used to be." Gene is saying that somehow Bush should have found a way to replace all the jobs lost with equivalent-paying jobs, not just "jobs." Well.

Thanks to the administration's policies, which have been doggedly adhered to since 9/11 despite the bleating of people like Gene, our economy has rebounded in 5 years to heights thought, in the aftermath of 9/11, unlikely to be seen again in decades, if ever. Gene doesn't like "who" has succeeded in the post-9/11 economy, but then no socialist would.

P.S. It speaks volumes about the influence of the gloom-and-doom mainstream media that so many people have been convinced the economy is somehow "bad" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not to mention the evidence of their own personal experience.

Daiwa

Thanks to Bush and his policies the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, the middle income workers are about the same and we have added $3 Trillion Dollars to our debt to achieve this great result! Our children can enjoy paying hundreds of Billions more every year in interest on that added debt!
51% of his tax cuts go to 1% of ther population who have average incomes of $1.2 Million per year!

There has been no oversight by Congress on this administration and it is time for that to take place. If we can impeach a President for lieing when no one was killed we can impeach a president that is directly responsible for taking this country to a war that is unjustified in which 3,000 American Military have been sacraficed.

There is no grounds for impeachment col, because there was no lies.  Get over it.

Thanks to Bush and his policies the rich are richer, the poor are poorer,

Not so fast....

"The gap between rich and poor -- a rallying cry for some congressional Democrats wanting to increase mandates on business -- isn't really growing that much, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

From 2001 to 2005 -- the last year data was available -- there was virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau, requested and released by Congress's Joint Economic Committee."

Thanks to Bush and his policies the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, Not so fast.... "The gap between rich and poor -- a rallying cry for some congressional Democrats wanting to increase mandates on business -- isn't really growing that much, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. From 2001 to 2005 -- the last year data was available -- there was virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau, requested and released by Congress's Joint Economic Committee."

Once again, shown wrong.

Impeachment is a political process. If Congress believes Bush for example took this country to war knowing that Saddam had no nuclear weapons or military capacity in 2002, they could impeach him and Cheney both! If Congress were to limit the troop levels or decide because Bush is not enforcing g our laws, they could impeach him.

As to his tax cuts 70% goes to the top 20% and 41% to the top 1%.

Bush Tax Cuts Offer Most For Very Rich, Study Finds


*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. January 8, 2007, Monday
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 16, Column 5, 832 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study. The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates ...


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F10FA3E540C7B8CDDA80894DF404482

Well, Duh. The people paying the most taxes had bigger drops in taxes. Wow, never would have guessed that.   

There is no reason to have cut taxes for the wealthy for the following reasons:

They were not being over taxed as Bush claimed since there was NO SUIRPLUS (Like the WMD)

The wealthy did not need a tax cut and we have far greater needs for that money as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet told Bush in 2001.

We have a budget deficit. Bush forgot about that old saying, "when you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

There is no reason to have cut taxes for the wealthy for the following reasons: They were not being over taxed as Bush claimed since there was NO SUIRPLUS (Like the WMD) The wealthy did not need a tax cut and we have far greater needs for that money as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet told Bush in 2001. We have a budget deficit. Bush forgot about that old saying, "when you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

I noticed you ignored ID's post as per usual.

drmiler

The wealthy do pay more taxes and they can afford to pay slightly higher taxes. Higher taxes on middle income Americans will cause financial problems to them. The point you all do not address is that Bush rational for the tax cuts in 2001 was to return a “projected surplus” that NEVER EXISTED. How does one return something that DID NOT EXIST?

drmiler The wealthy do pay more taxes and they can afford to pay slightly higher taxes. Higher taxes on middle income Americans will cause financial problems to them. The point you all do not address is that Bush rational for the tax cuts in 2001 was to return a “projected surplus” that NEVER EXISTED. How does one return something that DID NOT EXIST?

Try again. That is NOT an answer to ID. Let me help:

"The gap between rich and poor -- a rallying cry for some congressional Democrats wanting to increase mandates on business -- isn't really growing that much, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. From 2001 to 2005 -- the last year data was available -- there was virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau, requested and released by Congress's Joint Economic Committee."

Drmiler

“Isn't growing that much” but it is growing!

The issue you have not addresses is that the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts was because the American taxpayers were OVER TAXED because we had, according to Bush, this PROJECTED SURPLUS that needed to be returned. NEWS FLASH There was NO surplus and therefore NOTHING to give back. That means the people were NOT being overtaxed relative to our spending. If there in NO Surplus there should be NO Tax Cuts to return something that does not exist.

Greenspan and O’Neil had it right-- They told Bush the tax cuts should be tied to the SURPLUS. If the Surplus did not materialize the tax cuts should be ended. They also warned Bush NOT to return to annual budget deficits. They knew what they were talking about but as usual Bush did not listen to people that have the experience. The Bush Surplus must be the same place as the Bush WMD in Iraq!

“Isn't growing that much” but it is growing! The issue you have not addresses is that the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts was because the American taxpayers were OVER TAXED because we had, according to Bush, this PROJECTED SURPLUS that needed to be returned. NEWS FLASH There was NO surplus and therefore NOTHING to give back. That means the people were NOT being overtaxed relative to our spending. If there in NO Surplus there should be NO Tax Cuts to return something that does not exist.

Sorry but this is NOT the topic you started with, is it? This was supposed to be about Iraq policy. However we got off on a side topic as per usual.

Your comment was, and I quote:

Thanks to Bush and his policies the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, the middle income workers are about the same

And both ID and myself have called you on it. ID even offered proof which you immediately twisted to suit your porpose. Yes the gap is going to grow. No matter what you do or say....it's called progress! If it doesn't grow the country is in a "recession", get it? This had NOTHING to do with tax cuts. Now you're trying to bring in the tax cuts. Again nothing to do with topic.


And I notice you can come up with NO convincing arguement against the Census Bureau which absolutely REFUTES your position.

From 2001 to 2005 -- the last year data was available -- there was virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau, requested and released by Congress's Joint Economic Committee."

Lets see you argue your way out of this.

Drmiler

I Think it is interesting that you site the Census Bureau concerning income inequality but when that same agency said the AFTER INFALTION Average Weekly Wage is lower then in 2001 you say that is not true!.

The Data from CBO shows that in 2005 70% of the Bush Tax Cuts are flowing to the wealthy. 51% of the tax cuts in 2005 go to the top 1%.

You refuse to address the question of the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts-- To return a projected Surplus that DID NOT EXIST!


As to the subject of this Blog I have not been shown ONE reason why what I have suggested as a NEW Policy in Iraq is not a policy that we should try!