The economy has not improved for low and middle income Americans

The tax cuys average about $425/year about $1.25 per day

Who is America's most dangerous enemy? The person responsible for 9/11 ia still at large

The deficit is off the scale

Trade deficitr is off the scale

Energy cost are up

Who is America's most dangerous enemy? The person responsible for 9/11 ia still at large

Is he as potent and not in a cave as he was when the Taliban was at full power? I think Draginol meant Saddam Hussein, but even bin Laden has been toppled. I just don't think he can be considered as potent as he was when he wasn't hiding in caves.

The economy has not improved for low and middle income Americans The tax cuys average about $425/year about $1.25 per day Who is America's most dangerous enemy? The person responsible for 9/11 ia still at large The deficit is off the scale Trade deficitr is off the scale Energy cost are up

Based on what do you say that the economy is not up for low and middle income Americans? The unemployment rate in November, 2001 (just after 9/11) was 5.6.  It was 5.4 last month.

Hourly earnings have continued to go up:

So I have to ask - on what basis do you form your opinions? Do you have any facts to back up your opinions at all?

The deficit and trade deficit are very interesting statistics but do not affect Americans. We have run trade deficits for nearly my entire life (about 30 years).   We can debate whether they may affect Americans in the future (at which point the deficit as a % of GDP becomes the meaningful statistic).  In fact, 2004's deficit was a measely 3.6% of the Gross domestic product.  Compare that to the 6% deficit during the Reagan years or the 7.2% that occurred on Truman's watch.

As the house budget (house.gov) points out: http://www.budget.house.gov/lgstdeficits030905.pdf last year's "record" deficit doesn't even make it into the top 10 budget deficits for all time. Which is pretty remarkable considering that we're at war.

As for energy prices:

Gas prices are pretty stable when adjusted for inflation.  Using raw numbers is meaningless. Costs go up over time due to inflation. That's why we have to pay $7 to go to the movie instead of a nickel.

I mean, you say all these things but you show that you really don't know what the heck you're talking about. 

Col Gene, I am getting quite sick of you bashing Bush when you talk about ANYTHING. If you want to point out problems, go ahead. If you want to provide solutions, all the better. But don't bash Bush in the process. Cause I've got a news flash for you: not everything that happens during a presidency is the president's fault. It is possible that some events have not been caused by him, his policies, or anything he ever did in his life.

P.S. I know your blog is "Bush Truth," but the beauty of this place is there is not a limit on what you can write. I came here to write politics, but I haven't done that for at least 2 months. You can go above and beyond your intent.

I do not know what Bush has done that could have improved you life

That's right, you don't know. And why is that? Because your Bush bashing gets in the way of seeing it.
Have you noticed that I'm not the only one seeing it?

Lie! Maybe for you it hasn't but do not even attempt to speak for everyone! Because mine definetly has. I'm so happy for you, drimiler. But, since when do you represent the 50 million people without health insurance and/or jobs? You don't. You don't represent anyone. You keep espousing how much others' opinions are meaningless, like you're the only person allowed to have one. Well, you know what they say about opinions? They're like assholes, cuz everyone's got one. EVERYONE. So, get over yourself.

YOU need to get over yourself and quit talking out of yours cause it stinks. NOWHERE did I say I represented everyone or even the majority now did I?

About 70% do not agree with private accounts for Social security. The same percent did not agree with Bush and his action in the Schiavo case. Look at the stock market and energy prices. Over 85% feel Bush is not protecting our borders. The fact is that the solutions Bush is providing are not solviong the nations problems and the majority do not think Bush is doing a good job. I point out the results of the policies wer are following. For those that believe that I am Bush bashing I would suggest you consider who is proposing the policies and why are they producing negative results. One blog claims that a $600 Billion annual Trade deficit does not impact Americans. That is not what every expert says. The loss of entire industries like electronics and clothing are examples. The deficit and the interest we will all be required to pay will impact us. The 12 million people that came across our borders while the Fed does nothing and Bush does not even ask for the money to secure our border are real issues that impact America. The problem is not with my pointing out the facts but the facts that result from the policies we are following are negative. That is due to George W. Bush.

See what has resulted in ten years from the policies we are following and all you Bush supporters will be looking for cover! The majority want Jobs, fair trade policies, a country without the large interest payments, a Social Security system that is solvent for us and our children, homeland security including border security and the ability to afford health care for the working and retired Americans. None of these will result from the Bush policies. This will be a country where there will be a few more rich, a lot more poor with a very much smaller middle class.

Over 85% feel Bush is not protecting our borders

See, this sentence sums up you and Dave, Col Gene.  It's not about facts. It's not about reality. It's about how you FEEL.  It's always about the poll, the gut feeling, the emotion.

You and Dabe give these impassioned, content-free essays on how bad things are. But there's nothing substantial in them. 

Someone states a fact: "Unemployment has been going down."

Then someone like you or dabe shows up and says "Tell that to the unemployed factory worker whose job has been outsourced to Mexico!"

That's a meaningless statement. You will always have someone who has suffered no matter what.

You guys don't care about facts or realities. It's about emotional satisfaction. A kind of ideological narcisism.

For instance, Col Gene, you have stated that the congressional budget office has stated that the tax cuts caused the deficit.  I asked you to provide a source. You "couldn't find it".  So I looked myself and guess what I found:

Title: "Tax cuts did not cause the deficits"

http://www.budget.house.gov/nottaxcuts030905.pdf

The CBO data not only does not say what you claimed it said but it actually states the opposite to the point that the HBC made a chart entiutled "The tax cuts did not cause the deficit"

Emotion is not fact.

I'm still banging my head against the wall trying to figure out the point of this. Are you trying to rub it in, make yourself feel better because you lost? Hope that this propaganda sticks on the next, most likely non-Bush adminstration Republican candidate?

This, to me, is like trying to lord over people saying "Sure, your team won the Superbowl, but polls show that people don't like them much". So what?

Col, you claim that you are a Republican. I have to take you at your word for that, because I have yet to see anything much other than Democratic propaganda. Given your stated political affiliation, do you realize that what you are really doing is working to defeat the next Republican candidate, someone you might actually agree with?

Keep yapping, keep trying to convert everyone to Democrats by skewering Republican figureheads. If you like Dean or Clintonette, you are right on target for 2008. If a moderate Republican is what you want, you should consider how much anti-Republican propaganda you want to spread.

In the end, the only people you can hurt are the next Republican candidates. Bush is there, he isn't going to be impeached, and he isn't going to change his stance this late in the game.

Draginol Lets stop the BS. We are spending $675 Billion MORE then we are taxing this year. Last year it was about $625 Billion more then we taxed. We need to cut spending and or increase tax revenue by $675Billion. Since there is no place to cut spending anything close to $675 Billion, our taxes MUST be increased. Only a fool cuts taxes when the budget is out of balance. For example, in every war since the Civil War, we have increased taxes to pay the added cost of the war. Not Bush- he cuts taxes and the deficit goes nuts! Every year when the total deficit increasess the interest we must pay goes up because we owe more. Now interest rate are increasing so the total intetrest will go up for two reasons- we owe more and the rate of interest is higher. If you believe the economy is so dam good, explain why the deficit is growing larger? I have no idea where you went to business school but the spiral that we are in will bankrupt any country, company or individual given enough time. When George Bush began with his tax cuts, Alan Greenspan as well as Paul O. Neil told him they must be tied to available surpluses and not to again go into a spiral of deficit spending. What did Bush do the exact opposite of what to most knowledgeable individuals in our government financial management advised him to do. I have never seen such idiotic explanations for a way to run anything including this country that I have seen from the blogs on this site. almost every credible economist and financial manager has told the administration same thing we cannot continue operating with trade deficit ,federal deficit, ignoring the impact of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security the way we are operating. just keep burying your head in the sand and when you take it out when a find a financial disaster facing you and everybody in this country.

YOU stop the BS! You were PROVEN wrong with data from YOUR own source! I realize though that you will NEVER admit to it. I proved you wrong with data that differed from yours and drag has proven you wrong yet again with data from your prefered site. When are you going to own up?

I'm so happy for you, drimiler. But, since when do you represent the 50 million people without health insurance and/or jobs? You don't. You don't represent anyone.

I think he represents the area of the country he is from. My area is at 3.9%.Link Historically that means full employment. If you feel you can't find a job, maybe you should move to another part of the country, . If you just sit at home crying that know one is opening a new business next to your house, so you have a job to walk to. Then it's your own fault you don't have a job and I for one would not place you high on my highering list with that type of attitude.

Ask the growing number of the unemployed and the low-level employed who do not have health insurance.

The national unemployment rate is 5.4%. The national Average rate for the last 35 years is 6.2%.
Link

You also fail to point out that during almost half the Clinton years there was more raw numbers of people out of work then in Jan 2005. The average number of unemployed between 1992-1999 was 7,503k (Clinton era), compared to 7,737k in Jan 2005. Now add to the fact that over 12.3 Million more people now live in the US since the end of the Clinton Era. I think that shows we are surpassing what's needed for population increase.

And since when is it the Governments (i.e. my responsibility) to pay for someone else's health insurance?????

I pay for my own family. My wife, who has lived in a country that has a national health system for over half her life, gets ticked off every time she hears how great a national health system is. She wound up paying for over half of her medical expenses because it was the only way to get a medical care fast and safe.

Anyway there are laws now that forbids hospitals from not helping the un-insured. i.e. the State or national Government eventually picks up the tab. It is ironic how people are screeching that every illegal alien gets free health care, but refuses to acknowledge that the same system that gives them healthcare is the same system that pays for the un-insured.

That's My Two Cents

P.S. As for the origianal artical I just believe that people was unhappy with Bush's preformance even before the election. They just could not bring themselve to vote Kerry/DNC that was three times as worse then Bush/RNC.