That means nothing. The actual uderemployment rate which is people that do not have jobs that pay a living wage is 9.3%. I documented that in my earlier Blog about how the unemployment rate does not document the issue of jobs. All that does not change the $675 Billion deficit etc. 46 Million nonretired Americans have no health coverage and only 25 % of companies have pension plans. Better read the March 7th article before you show how much you do not understand!

drmiler Look at article by Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, Monday March 7 2005 page AO1. That article shows that YOU are Wrong genius. This article entitled "tax cuts loose spot on GOP agenda" clearly state what I have been saying and quote such people as Alan Greenspan, Senator Lindsey Graham and the Senate finance committee.

YOUR not addressing the POINT genius! The CBO said YOUR wrong. Not us. I knew you wouln't fess up.
Hey Col, you need to wipe your mouth. There's still the tiniest spot of BS showing around your lip.

Col Gene: You claimed the tax cuts caused the deficit. You claimed that your info came from the CBO. When questioned you couldn't come up with a link.

I found the link and it states the opposite. Tax cuts did not cause the deficit.  The cause of the deficit is largely because the economy hasn't grown as fast as was originally projected and spending increased faster than expected as the same time.  Tax cuts were a minor element in this whole thing.

If you REALLY want to balance the budget, then demand a one or two year spending FREEZE on everything.  No cuts, just don't increase spending on anything.  The deficit will evaporate pretty quickly then.

When you have a deficit of only say 3%, then all you have to do is wait for the taxable receipts to increase 3%.  Last year the economy grew at greater than 3%. The problem is that we increase spending at around 6% each year (hence the 3% deficit).

I find it pretty sad that when confronted with errors in your statements that you try to change the topic. It's rather vile actually.

The CBO does not say anything like that. Read Alan Greenspan and the senate Finance committee. CBO. and OMB clearly show the deficit the long term problems I have documented and Greenspan says can not continue. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!

I don't say this very often but.. Col Gene, you're a liar.

You have yet to provide a single link to back up any of your claims.  I (and others) have provided links to government sources that demonstrate you're wrong.

I don't like the deficit either. However, it was not caused by the tax cuts which you have claimed on numerous occasions.  EVEN if we raised taxes back to where we had them, we would still have a large deficit.

Here's another congressional budget chart based on the CBO figures:

http://www.budget.house.gov/lgcausdeficit030905.pdf

If we had not provided tax cuts, the deficit MIGHT have been 14% smaller.  However, even that's misleading because odds are the economy would not have recovered as quickly or as strongly withou those tax cuts.

The weaker than expected economy and excessive new discretionary spending (such as increases in education and the military) are a problem.

Here is another chart about deficits you should look at:

http://www.budget.house.gov/netinterest030905.pdf

(note that both these governments are .gov sites, they're not being spun, these are just the raw numbers based on the CBO that Col Gene loves to shried about).

The biggest issue I have with deficit spending is that the interest payments start to eat up the budget. However, in 2004 (that would be last year btw), the interest on the debt was only 7% of the budget.  Compare that to when it was 16% during the Clinton years.

So let me sum this up to you - I don't like deficit spending but it's largely for aesthetics reasons.  The deficit is clearly not a major problem right now and for most people the economy has been steadily improving since the 9/11 attacks.

Those are the facts.  Shrieking and sounding insane only damage your "argument".

The CBO does not say anything like that. Read Alan Greenspan and the senate Finance committee. CBO. and OMB clearly show the deficit the long term problems I have documented and Greenspan says can not continue. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!

Lying sack! Then explain the url from draginols chart link, fool! http://www.budget.house.gov/nottaxcuts030905.pdf

That means nothing. The actual underemployment rate which is people that do not have jobs that pay a living wage is 9.3%. I documented that in my earlier Blog about how the unemployment rate does not document the issue of jobs. All that does not change the $675 Billion deficit etc. 46 Million nonretired Americans have no health coverage and only 25 % of companies have pension plans. Better read the March 7th article before you show how much you do not understand!

1. I was replying to dabe.

2. So now the argument has changed from unemployed to underemployed. Col G, then could you please send out the memo to all those drones still beating the unemployed drum.

3. I read your other post and it don't hold water. Your saying that 9.3% underemployed rating is bad. Did you look at the historical numbers for that chart? Because it also shows that for two of the six years that appear in that data base you used (to pick this obscure number from), shows that during the middle of the Clinton Administration it was at 10%, even higher then the highest Bush rating. I will conceded that the average 8.8% during the last six years of the Clinton years (first two not available) and a 12 year average of 9.0% is lower, but that is not taking into account the first two years of Clinton or the historical averages before 1994. From Bush's highest point at 9.9% (lower then Clinton) it has dropped .6% and shows no changing its decline (can you show me different?). Let us not even take into effect 9/11 and the tech bubble busting either.

Better read the March 7th article before you show how much you do not understand!

I think I do know what I'm talking about Sir, so please stop being condescending. I have not been condescending to you and it does not help make your point.

4. Again, why is it my responsibility to provide health insurance for others?

5. Why is it requirement for a Company to provide health insurance and a pension? Such thing are called fringe benefits. Ultimately it is the individuals responsibility. If you required those Companies that did not provide those benefits, to start providing them, one of three things will happen. A) The employees pay will be cut and they will most likely get stuck with the bare minimum coverage. I will have to pay more for the Companies services to pay for those benefits (i.e. again, why is it my responsibility to pay for some one else's insurance). C)The company will move the jobs oversea where pension and health insurance is not required in order to keep their doors open (Just another way of blaming Bush for losing jobs).

6. When I worked in the private sector, I didn't receive a pension or insurance from the company. I personally paid for those and that was most likely when I worked for your under the living wage. It was called living in a joint Kitchen studio, having a roommate or wife to lower overhead cost. People can live on below the living wage, I know because my single mother, two brothers, sister, and myself lived on that wage for 17 years after our father left us.. Yes, we did get free butter, cheese, bread, rice ect.. (IMO one of the best programs ever), did allot of fishing for dinner, bought shoes from Payless and got cloths from the Salvation Army (that's why I support them, even though I'm not religious). But it can be done. Millions of people have done it for years, so what if I never had cable, VCR, a new Atari, and had to piece together bikes. I think today I’m better off from the experience.

That's My Two Cents

What you did is great but the vast majority do not act like you. The issue is how does one live with jobs that do not pay a wage that allows the worker to pay for their needs? The rate of underemployed was much lower when Bush took office. The fact is that many of the jobs that have been created pay far less then the jobs that were lost. Last night the clothing import news was released that shows last month imports from China was up 50%. They are dumping cheep goods in America and will soon eliminate the clothing industry in the U S. Bush does not even use the controls in the trade laws to help level the playing field and more Ameicans can not affortd to live. My wife has cancer and I can tell you that without my health coverage only a person with assets in the multi million range could have paid the bills. Thus if any of the 46 million without insurance had the same problem they could not survive.

I just read an article about a study of govt workers in Galveston County Texas who opted OUT of Social Security. The results were mixed. Some did better and some worse. That is the issue- Is it better to provide the sure thing under the current system, if properly funded, or convert the system as Bush wants and interject inconsistant results? For the majoritry the flloor which is sure plus equity accounts in addition to Social Security would be far less riskey solution. My point, when you look at the policies we are following and evaluate what is the likely impact on the vast majority of Americans, the outlook of what we are doing in not good.

The argument of the conservatives is to get government out of people's lives and allow the individual to make choices for themselves. This sounds good on the surface but when you look at the choices that people are already making in their lives such as the amount of personal debt, lack of planning for future including retirement ,the bottom line is many people don't make wise choices. That should not mean that people do not have choices but it does mean that there needs to be a certain protective mechanism to insure some income and health care for retirement.

I agree the policies that Bush supports will benefit certain segments of our population. The problem is the number of people who will be adversely impacted by his policies. When you look at the impact on balance, far more will be adversely impacted the positively impacted by the policies that the conservative right is following.

You have your opinion but no evidence whatsoever to back up your opinion.  I have my opinion, I have backed up my views with concrete evidence.

Ultimately we can only agree to disagree. We have no way of knowing whether in 10 years we'll look back and say "Oh man, Bush has wrecked the country". It's a pointless argument.

What we can say with some certainty is that most (>50%) of people have seen things improve since the 9/11 attacks.  And sicne we just had an election that Bush won by a reasonable margin, most of the country prefers him to any other options.

My proof is the results of the last four years.

Middle income america is NOT better off.

The poor are not better off

More of the tax butden falls on the middle class

The deficit is 675 Billion

The tarde deficie is up about 50% since Bush took office

We have not moved to a better energy solution

The underemployment rate is up about 30% since Bush took office

Medicare and Medicade are the real problems and Bush talks only about Social Security

The textile industry is about to end in America because of Bush and his China Policy

This in my evidence which is documented every day by one report or another. Just this week commerce dept reported that China Dumped clothing in the U S in january and increased those iimports by 50%. The Social Security Trustees report was released last week that documented the real propblem is Medicare not Social Security. What does Bush do? Continues with his non solution for solving the lack of funding of Social Sceurty by proposing to remove Trillions more to fund the individual accounts. How do you make something solvent that is short of money by taking more money from it?

The issue is the Bush supporters make believe all this information does not exist. IT DOES EXIST AND SHOWS THE RESULTS OF THE POLICIES WE ARE FOLLOWING!

COLGene, a little history:

In 1941, the vast majority of the American people wanted the US to stay out of the wars in Europe and Asia. Roosevelt (yeah, I know, he was a Democrat, but if I had pick a favorite Lefty president, he'd be it) knew it was in the best interests of the nation to get us into the fight before Britain and the USSR collapsed. To that end, he did everything he could to get our military and industries as involved as possible, which kept the struggling contries afloat, stopping at actually exchanging fire with the enemy and/or their ships (which did frequently happen, anyway). This, despite what his electorate wanted of him.

The Japanese finally came to Pearl Harbor in December and gave him the opportunity he was looking for. We got in with the Allies and were able to turn the tide before it got too far gone.
We won the war because a president made unpopular decisions based on what was right and proper for the country he was running, and not because it was what got him his place at the popular kid's lunchroom table.

Middle income america is NOT better off.

I wanted to know who made you spokesperson for the "middle class". You need to edit your post and say "in my opinoin, the middle class is not better off", because that's all it is, an opinion.

Like I have said before, your constant complaining does nothing. Bush was re-elected without a doubt. Why was he re-elected then? If you ask any person on the left that question they come up with either the usual conspiracy theory, or something about Christians. However the fact is Bush was re-elected because he was the best choice, not the perfect choice, but the best choice of what was offered.

I am not completely happy with Bush, but a liberal President would have been much worse. Democrats have no real ideas of their own, this election proved that. Their entire campaign was based on hate, with the usual scare tactics and intimidation. Until you guys realize this, you will keep losing elections.

It is not my opinion it is the data released by the Governmnet. Average incone adjusted for inflation shows that middle income America is loosing ground. This coupled with higher energy and health cost is creating more probolems for the average Americans. The poor have shown littie increasse in their incomes and also have to pay higher prices for energy etc. I do not have to be as spokesperson but I am pointing out the results of the policies we are following. personal bankruptcies, and individual debt are at record levels. Individual savings rates are at record lows. If you believe that that bodes well for the future of this country's economy you ARE DEAD WRONG. These things are the results of the policies we are following. Jobs that pay less and less and have fewer and fewer benefits. Higher and higher interest payments because of an ever escalating federal deficit. Trade policies have failed for 12 years and are creating huge economic problems in all parts of the United States. None of these issues are being addressed by the current policies in Washington. It is as if they do not exist. I realize we've reelected George W. Bush the issue is we can not continue with policies have failed to deal with the major issues facing this country?the reason the middle income is so important is that they are the source of the spending creates the wealth for the top 5%. They are also the provides much of the ability to help the poor and disabled. If this group is not vibrant and able to continue supporting their families creating a demand from once the profits flow, economy of this country goes in the toilet. None of the policies that we are following are helping the middle income American and for the most part their life is getting more difficult. If we destroy the ability of the average family living pay their bills and their taxes, the entire system will be severely damaged. I understand the president and the leaders of our government cannot simply do what everyone would like. However the policies that they do follow must effectively deal with the issues at hand. The policies we are following are not fixing things that had been problems in the past and are creating new problems for the future (the deficit for example). That is why we must change the policies and try something that has a better chance of success rather than simply continuing down the road to nowhere.

This sounds good on the surface but when you look at the choices that people are already making in their lives such as the amount of personal debt, lack of planning for future including retirement ,the bottom line is many people don't make wise choices. That should not mean that people do not have choices but it does mean that there needs to be a certain protective mechanism to insure some income and health care for retirement.

---COLGene

Oh, My God!
This is one of the most glaringly leftist statements I've ever seen on here! Leave it to the COL.
COLGene, this is exactly what causes the Left to lose every time! Their arrogant attitude that they instinctively know what is good for all the people! You don't!
Governmental overinvlovment has screwed up so many things in the last 30 years that it should be painfully obvious by now that it doesn't work. But devout Lefties like
you keep on trying to make it work, despite the evidence of time and results (or lack thereof).

You invaded the halls of our public schools and colleges in the '70s with your silly schemes for reworking the educational system. What's the result? 25-30 years later, American kids consistently score lower on aptitude tests than do kids from other countries, even some with billions less money in their educational systems than we have.

The EPA (not a bad thing overall, but...) and its attitude of environmental fascism has caused many an American factory, mine or complete industry to go belly-up or to move to other countries where the restrictions aren't so harsh, which costs Americans their jobs.

Don't even get me started on Affirmative Action and the welfare system, two other White Elephants foisted upon us by liberal ideals.

It is not my opinion it is the data released by the Governmnet

It IS your opinion! Though it is based on released data. You no longer work for the US government so it's your opinion.

The conservatives say we have to get more and more choices to the average person. The average person is a really making poor choices with those they are making. I'm not saying we shouldn't have freedom but there are certain things requires to have structure such as retirement security. Like it or not the average person is not providing adequately for their retirement. To ignore that and make believe that without things like Social Security and Medicare we will solve the problem is simply not healthy.There are certain structures that need to be in place. That does not mean we should not have all the freedoms we have what it does mean that to ignore human nature to ignore history is to get ourselves a hole of which you may not be able to climb out of.

Social Security and Medicare werre essential for parents and wioll vbe for most of us and our children. It is in the best interest of the wealthy, the middle income or the poor to not ensure measures like Medicare and Social Security continue. The alternatives are far worse. The vast majority of Americans agree position that I have enunciated. They want to maintain Social Security in its present form and make sure it can pay that have been promised. They want that not just for themselves but for their children and grandchildren. They want to be able to receive necessary health care throughout their lives and when they retire. The vast majority want border secured. The vast majority want a strong military and homeland defense to protect us. The majority of people recognize we must educate the next generation so that they can succeed as we have. If you define these as liberal or what ever they do represent the vast majority of Americans want for themselves and the future generations of this country. Without a strong economic system wealth of the top 5% is not secure nor is the welfare of the middle income or the less well-off in this country secure. And objective appraisal of what has been happening especially over the last four years does not set a base for a strong economy either from a loss of low-paying jobs, our trade policy, the federal deficit, or the impending issues that you with the growing retired population called the baby boomers. We cannot provide what this country needs the current federal revenue stream. We need to make sure that we are collecting the taxes have been levied on individuals and corporations. We need to cut unnecessary things from the budget like the $25-$30 Billion of pork. And yes we're going to need the additional revenue from the huge tax cuts to the wealthy in order to balance the federal budget. Even Alan Greenspan, a staunch Republican is tell everyone we cannot continue on the path that we are on. That is exactly what President Bush is doing and is proposing to do.

Oh and COL, while I'm at it.... Give it a rest will ya? Please? Seeing your comments is getting real boring! It's *always* the same tired old routine. No matter what the topic is you *always* somehow manage to steer it off topic to one of your rants about Bush is wrong, his policies are wrong, doom & gloom, blah-blah-blah!

It is not my opinion it is the data released by the Governmnet. Average incone adjusted for inflation shows that middle income America is loosing ground. This coupled with higher energy and health cost is creating more probolems for the average Americans. The poor have shown littie increasse in their incomes and also have to pay higher prices for energy etc

Yes it is your opinoin. You keep telling us what the middle class thinks and is doing, but you are once again wrong.

Until we change the policies that are not working, we must keep trying. The consequences of doing what you suggest simply gets us further and further in trouble.

I am not wrong. You will not look at the data that is available. The results of what is taking place will nor go away by your refusing to acknowledge the facts!

The average person is a really making poor choices with those they are making. I'm not saying we shouldn't have freedom but there are certain things requires to have structure such as retirement security.

The typical liberal line. Americans are too stpuid to make their own choices, so let us do it for you. And you wonder why you guys keep losing elections?

The vast majority of Americans agree position that I have enunciated. They want to maintain Social Security in its present form and make sure it can pay that have been promised. They want that not just for themselves but for their children and grandchildren. They want to be able to receive necessary health care throughout their lives and when they retire. The vast majority want border secured. The vast majority want a strong military and homeland defense to protect us.

The "vast majority" of Americans do wants things like a strong military and homeland defense, thats why they vote Republican.

I am not wrong. You will not look at the data that is available. The results of what is taking place will nor go away by your refusing to acknowledge the facts!

Your "data" and the rhetoric you use it with have already been proven wrong. You still haven't admitted you were wrong.

You're just so full of crap.  Time and time again people like me take the time to find the facts and give them to you and time and time again you close your eyes and scream how we're all wrong without offering any sort of evidence yourself.

I am still waiting for you to concede the undeniable FACT that the tax cuts did NOT create the current deficit. This is something you were very adament at. If you can't even concede your error there, then you're just a blind ideologue.

Just want to point out one thing about this article. Probably the biggest error in it too and goes to show why Kerry lost the election.

VOTERS DON'T MAKE ERRORS!

Unless they checked the wrong box or the votes were tampered with in absolutely massive quantities (as in so many that it defies reason), they don't make errors. They vote their mind and opinions, and that is neither an error nor a mistake.

Just because they voted against your opinion doesn't necessarily make them wrong, it just means they disagree and there are more of them. Also, polls are not true representations of how things will go. There is a margin of error, and there are always issues with sampling (who they asked, who was willing to answer etc...) It gets especially difficult in a close race.. stats and polls essentially mean nothing.

It's this attitude, that the voters were WRONG, that lost us the election. It's this arrogance that is pushing away the right AND the middle from the Dem Party.

Here's the idea turned around on you...
I dislike mushrooms. In fact I HATE mushrooms. I can't stand them in any food I eat. I think that anyone who likes mushrooms is merely misguided and misinformed and by eating them they're making the WRONG decision. So I take it upon myself to insult and talk down to every mushroom eater I meet, saying that I am their intellectual superior because I know the TRUTH about mushrooms.

Sounds silly when you use mushrooms. Yet, replace that with Bush in the above paragraph and you have the core of the extreme left's argument.