That is the conclusion of people who have looked at the turnout.

You mean the people against Bush who looked.

That is the conclusion of people who have looked at the turnout. The impact of the Gay marriage amendments in the 11 states was to increase turnout of fundamentalist Christian and Catholic voters in greater numbers than in the past. Exit polls clearly indicated in those states that the reason for the higher turnout were the amendments. It is you that do not know what you're talking about. All you want to do is defend Brother Bush. I accept it was a brilliant political strategy that has nothing to do the major issues that face this country such as higher energy costs, trade, the federal deficit, Social Security, loss of jobs. Tthe policies Bush is following are not improving any of these problems and do not agree with what the general public says they wouldn't the government to do. Thus on the issues Bush would've lost because if he had lost Ohio he would not be President of the United States. Anyone looking at the economic impact between 2000 and 2004 on Ohio that believes the Bush policies help that state have lost their mind.

Can you explain how GW's policies have hurt the state of Ohio specifically?

Exit polls clearly indicated in those states that the reason for the higher turnout were the amendments.

No the exits polls stated "Moral Values". IMO, unlike what democrats who are trying to make it sound like they lost because of Gay rights and Religious issues, the regular Joe was more motivated to vote against a candidate (i.e. Kerry) that grew up and made his career out of the Anti-Government, Anti-establishment, Anti-Cultural, Anti-morals, and Anti-war movement of the 60s. Even in the 60s the movement members were never in the majority or really popular. Now years later, as a symbol (Kerry and the New Democratic leadership) of that era tried to take control of the very Government, establishment, Culture, and morals that they spat on and wanted to mold into their views, there is a back lash.

Many on the left laughed and joked about when Bush stated that he was going to bring "Integrity" back into the White House. The rest of the country did not see it as a joke. This let Bush ride his way through two elections, mystifying the radical left. Leaving them to wonder and make up reasons for their lose. Never truly realizing that it is them themselves that caused their lose.

Kerry and all that he stands for was the reason the Radical 60's Democrats lost. As long as the Democrats keep nominating symbols of the Radical 60's, they will continue to lose.

It's not the gay rights issues that lost Ohio. Even the Gay Peoples Chronicle (a leading guy rights magazine) states the Gay issue was not a major factor. Link


That's My Two Cents

Well *col* given Lee1776's post now what have you got to say?

the issue of the economy in Ohio is straightforward. Neither the Bush economic recovery of tax cuts to the wealthy or his trade policy reversed the loss of jobs in Ohio. Of all the states, Ohio lost a greater proportion of manufacturing jobs and between 2000 and 2004 which shows the Bush policies were ineffective in dealing with the economy in Ohio. In addition, the average weekly wage for blue-collar and nonsupervisory white-collar has been falling. This week the Department of Labor admitted that for the past year between March of 2004 and March 2005 average weekly wage of 80% of the American population has gone down. This is after the so-called economic recovery that Bush talks about. Voters in Ohio given their economic situation would never have reelected Bush without impetus of the gay rights amendment which brought out conservative Republican voters in record numbers.

The article cited by Lee 1776 is one opinion. many others attribute to record turnout of fundamentalist Christian voters to the gay rights and abortion issues. There is no logical reason for voters in Ohio to support the reelection of George Bush since his economic policies, tax policies and his trade policies failed to stem the loss of jobs in Ohio. For the 80% of the American workers weekley wage to fall during this past year when we are in the so called Bush Economic Recovery shows that the people benefitting from the Bush agenda are not the 80% but the top income people. Only the wealthy and a few of the top of the middle income Americans heve a better life under the Bush tax, economic and trade policies!

There is no logical reason for voters in Ohio to support the reelection of George Bush since his economic policies, tax policies and his trade policies failed to stem the loss of jobs in Ohio.

It may not be logical to you or the DNC, who can't see how people are tired of the 60's additude.(i.e. moral values) John Kerry was the perfect political scum bag, and it did not matter to a large number of moderates and the few remaining conservative Democrats that Bush mismanages everything.

The article cited by Lee 1776 is one opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion that Kerry himself was the biggest reason why Kerry lost. But I still respect your opinion too. But sometimes humans don't think logicly and they think by the gut. That gut feeling by a large number of your 80% said no to Kerry anyway.

Kerry was no prize. But to continue the policies that have not worked during the past four years is NUTS! See my Blog , "Failure of Bush Economic Policy documented by Labor Dept."

Kerry was no prize. But to continue the policies that have not worked during the past four years is NUTS! See my Blog , "Failure of Bush Economic Policy documented by Labor Dept."

Well obviously people believe his policies wre better. Again, it's your opinion that the policies aren't working. We have seen your blog, and we also have seen you proved wrong so many times and you still won't admit it.

The national Debt, trade deficit, Iraq, energy cost, loss of average weekly Wage for 80% of Americans, job loss are proven results of the failed Bush policies. I have yet to see your proof that my issues about the Bush policies were not correct!

The national Debt, trade deficit, Iraq, energy cost, loss of average weekly Wage for 80% of Americans, job loss are proven results of the failed Bush policies. I have yet to see your proof that my issues about the Bush policies were not correct!

Just as "we" have waited for *your* proof that your "opinions" *are* correct!
Like Island dog said:

We have seen your blog, and we also have seen you proved wrong so many times and you still won't admit it.

The national Debt, trade deficit, Iraq, energy cost, loss of average weekly Wage for 80% of Americans, job loss are proven results of the failed Bush policies. I have yet to see your proof that my issues about the Bush policies were not correct!

Draginol has stomped on your "proof" so many times I have lost count. I myself have proven you wrong along with other people here. You have never admitted your mistakes, and you never post a comment in the posts that show rea facts that dismiss your opinions on the economy.

BS. Tell me the Treasury reporting that when Bush took 0ffice the debt was $5.7Trillion and today is $7.7 Trillion. The Trade dedicit was 400 Billion in 2000 and is 620 billion today of which 220 billion in China that Bush added to the WTO. Tell me the loss of millions of jobs, the loss of 6 million workers health coverage, the higher gas prices are not proof. The Bush policies have FAILED to correct ALL of these issues. Every one has gotten much worse during the past four years under Bush! That is the Proof and the data is from the Federal Governmnet!

You haven't proved your "facts" are the result of policies. You never take in account anything but blaming Bush. That is why nobody takes you seriously.

Remember how you were proven wrong on unemployment, then you changed your rhetoric to "underemployment". You are a joke.

The policies we are following increased the deficit by 2 Trillion. The policies, Tax and spending, took us from a 235 Billion Surplus in 2000 to a 475 Billion deficit in 2005 (after subtracting the $200 Billion in SS and Medicare surpluses. Look at the change in the statistics from Dec 2000 to March 2005 on my last Blog- All factual changes. The Bush policies ave either created these changes or allowed then to take place.

The policies we are following increased the deficit by 2 Trillion. The policies, Tax and spending, took us from a 235 Billion Surplus in 2000 to a 475 Billion deficit in 2005 (after subtracting the $200 Billion in SS and Medicare surpluses. Look at the change in the statistics from Dec 2000 to March 2005 on my last Blog- All factual changes. The Bush policies ave either created these changes or allowed then to take place.

You have never showed where a policy is to blame. You never take in account for the recession from the democratic administration, Sept. 11, etc. It's all "blame Bush".

Cutting taxes while increasing spending created the deficit and added 2 Trillion to the debt. Adding China to the WTO added 200 Billion per year to the trade deficit. Failure of his economicc policies, lost jobs, health care and lowered the Average Weekly Wage for 80% of the American Workers. No energy policy helped create record high gas prices. Just for starters! The President is to establish policies to correct problems not allow then to get worse! Every one of these issues got worse each year of his first term and they continue to spin out of control.

You are wrong. 21% is too much for any of us, rich or poor. The reality is waste and overspending drive over taxation. That waste and overspending are direct results of people spending money that they did not earn, and therefore are not passionate about using wisely. All of us would be better served by more responsible use of OUR money that the government has dubbed “theirs” by way of taxes.

Instead of taking money as a paycheck that is taxed, you have it paid to your LLC company.  Then, at the end of the year, rather than paying yourslefl a pay-check, you pay yourself a dividend.  Guess what? Dividends are taxed at only 15% of their NET.

So what's the point of raising taxes on the rich in that case (I knew about this)? Why do the Democrats propose raising the taxes of the rich when they already know that the rich can get away with paying less?

Surely whatever perceived benefit there is of making the rich pay more is totally destroyed by the fact that the rich would not be paying more at all?

It seems to me that the system the Democrats propose would merely tax some rich more, namely those rich who are either too honest to use the Edward method, who are too busy to initiate the method, or who are not rich enough for the method to generate much.

In other words, they would punish the honest, the hard-working, and the poorest among the rich. But why? Who would it help?

I am not hard-working. I work 45 hours a week in a normal office job and I pay 42% taxes (20% up to 29,000 Euros/year).

If I worked only half-days, I would make more than half of what I make now. If I moved between Ireland and Germany every mid-summer, I would only pay between 15% and 25% for the year. What's the point of it?

Enough with the estate tax. The money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED; it should be allowed to pass on to the next generation.

I disagree. Any tax that is not a tax on productivity should be preferred over others. Estate tax is an excellent tax, because it does not affect supply or demand of anything and thus doesn't affect market mechanisms.

First we need to bring the tax revenue into balance with spending. We can all talk about cutting spending but when the cutting is done, if ever, the budget will still be FAR from balanced. This year we are spending about $600 Billion more then we tax. The Fed borrows one dollar for every five we spend. THAT MUST END.

When the Fed spends money some think that money goes to Hell. No it either goes to individuals that spent it which in turns created demand and more jobs. The other place the Fed spends money is to companies who provide goods or services and that enable the companies to make profits and employ people which in turn stimulates the economy.

The money the Fed spends that does not help our fellow Americans is the 40% of the interest paid on the national debt that goes to foreign investors. The more we borrow because we refuse to balance the budget the more of our interest is paid to countries like China. That should give you a warm fuzzy feeling.

Today we are borrowing money and paying interest on the money so we can continue tax cuts to Americans that do not need the money from the tax cuts. That makes NO sense.

No Bush and Cheney and people like them are NOT OVER TAXED. Yew we should eliminate most of the tax loop holes and keep just the basics like State and Local Taxes you pay and interest on their mortgage, Reasonable deductions for each member of you family and then tax the reminder with a progressive tax.

Bottom line we MUST make our Tax revenue equal our spending! We will have to see just what % Bush and Cheney paid this year.

Some also say it is better to cut taxes and allow the individual to make the choice on how to spend their money. In some cases that is correct and in others no correct.

For example, if we cut the taxes for a person making $500,000 per year by $30,000 would it be better for that person to choose what, if anything, to spend that $30,000 on or to pay a private in the Army to defend our country? There are many things that the government spends money on that are essential that individuals would not choose to pay for if given the option.

There are many things that the government spends money on that are essential that individuals would not choose to pay for if given the option.

Excellent! How do we tell which things are "essential"?

Look at the Budget.

Defense, education, the depts. of the government like Homeland security. The obligations like pensions help to people who need help and the interest we must pay because we refused to balance the budget in the past. When you look at where most of the money goes, except for the interest on the debt, it winds up going to people who in turn spent it or companies that hire people and make a profit that adds to the economy.

The biggest lie is that some how if the Fed spends money it is BAD. If we took $100 billion and said we can either cut taxes on the top 2% or rebuild the Gulf area which would be better for America? No question rebuilding the Gulf is better for the country. Not only would that money spent on the Gulf stimulate the economy but the largest port in America would be available for our country into the future. If we give it to the wealthy that $100 Billion they can increase their new worth or but another Beemer, which is better for our country?

What is BAD is the Fed spending $600 Billion more then it takes in from Taxes and then borrows the money and pays interest, 40% of which is paid to foreign inveators!

Look at the Budget.

Who are you talking to?

Lets look at Bush and Cheney in 2005:

Bush had AGI of $735,180 and paid federal Income tax of $187,768 or 25.5%

In 2004 Bush paid 26.4% so he paid an even smaller percent this year. Way to go George!

Cheney had AGI of $ 8,820,000 and paid Federal income taxes of $529,000 or 6%. Most of his income, $6,870,000 was from stock options that he set aside for charity. Thus
his $8.82 Million less the $6.870 set aside gives him $ 1,950,000 with taxes of
$529,000 or 27.2%

In 2004, Cheney paid 21.3% so this year he paid a little more to offset the reduced tax paid by his boss.

No the Boys are NOT OVER TAXED!!!!!