One thing I have to say about COL Gene. He's getting a lot of people to do some research. Unfortunately, they only believe stuff from sites they like the answers to. It's no surprise that I back the COL 100%. But really, do any of you actually read the stuff? Or, are you just in a who can post more crap duel?

I do read the material. As with most research, some of the data in any given article is more on point. In addition, I have operated in the real world with some degree of success and have a BS in Finance/Economics and an MBA. Many of the things I sight are from well established Economic principals or my own experience from 40 years of working in Business and Financial management. I also have learned that when a plan does not achieve the desired results, you go back and see why so you can alter the course to achieve the objective. Simply staying on a path that leads to the wrong location is not smart . The two issues I have with Bush is that many of his objectives are designed to benefit only the wealthy and when it is clear that a policy is harming the majority he continues with that policy without reguard for the long term negative impact. The deficit is the best example of that. In 2001, Bush said we needed the tax cuts because of a $5.7 Trillion projected Surplus that the economy would produce over the following 10 years. That surplus proved we were over taxing the American tax payers. He was advised by the Fed Chairman and Sec of the Treasury to tie the tax cuts to available surpluses to pay for the tax cuts. Not Bush, he and people who think like him in Congress passed them without linking them to the money with which to fund the tax cuts. Whan it became clear there was NO surplus, he passed two more tax cuts. That created a structural deficit because at the same time he was cutting taxes he increased spending. Even non- defense spending has increased at 6% since Bush took over and his projections said the spending increases should not exceed an average of 4%. What does Bush do? He wants Congress to make the tax cuts Perminant. He must be brain dead! His own projections NEVER show a balanced budget much less a time when we generate a surplus so we can begin paying down the deficit and lower the interest we will be required to pay. That approach in business would bankrupt ANY company . It will take the needed money we need for things like Social Security, Medicare, Education , defense and spend it on interest THAT PROVIDES FOR NONE OF OUR CURRENT NEEDS!

I am not really into politics (giving loyalty to any PARTY). But I always find it hilarious how ONE MAN gets blamed for an entire countrie's woes! Let's face it. A president is part of a 3 BRANCHED Government...Dem or Rep. All equally responsible.

Blame is easily thrown and hardly ever embraced. If you want to know why America is in the shape it's in...look in the mirror, look at your neighbor, go ahead look at the President....but don't think one man is responsible for it all. That's crazy.

Col, you research things that you use to try and prove your allegations, but totally ignore the posts that prove you wrong. Like right now, I am still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the 2000 election.

I am not wrong on the 2000 election. If the 3,500 ballots that were double punched in error in Palm Beach had been counted, Bush would have had just under 3,000 votes less then Gore. There people voted and what we should have done because of the confusion is to have allowed that one county to have revoted just for President so their votes would have been counted. These votes did not create the confusion it was the ballot design.

The economic principals and factual data I have used HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN INCORRECT. The Bush supporters refuse to accept these facts. For example-- we did have a balanced budget in 2000. We are not even close today. The interest will increase with the added national Debt. The trade defict has increased over 50 % since Bush added China to the WTO. 3 million people came into this country without our control. Over a million Americans have lost their healthcare coverage since Jan 2001. Lower income workers will spend more of any tax cut then the wealthy. Show me where ANY of these statements is not correct!

It has everything to do with getting the needed revenue from those who can afford to pay more with the least negative impact on their lives

Ahh, so the wealthy should be willing to do so..."for the greater good"

I always knew something rubbed me the wrong way about your posts. Clearly it's the macro-socialist underpinnings/

Do not forget, it is the welthy that received the big tax cuts from a surplus that did not exist. The reality is that given our needs, we must generate more Federal revenue. It will produce far less pain and harm to demand (spending) to get the added revenue from those that will pay it from their SURPLUS and not from the money the less affluent need to live. If the choice is taking money for people who spend it on food or clothing or other essentials as compared with taking it from huge surpluses of the wealthy, the choice is simple-- tax the wealthy a bit more. If George W. Bush had followed the advice of Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan, tax cuts would have ended when it became clear there was no surplus to return to the overtaxed American people.

Gene, if it won't hurt the rich to take away their extra money, then please put yours where your mouth is: Buy all the food and clothing and other essentials you need, and then donate the rest of your income to charity and go live at the YMCA.

Do that, and then let's talk some more about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

My income is not even close to the top two income brackets. I give a lot to my church and we support 10 different charties. It is not my tax cut that is the problem. I believe my total tax cut from the three Bush cuts was just over $300 per year. It is people like Cheney who got almost $300,000 in tax cuts and paid about 21.3% of his income to Federal income taxes in 2004. In 2001, Cheney paid 38% to Federal Income taxes. Bush paid 26% per his 2004 return. He paid about 31% in 2001. You can check this on Google which will get you to the tax returns for Bush and Cheney from 2001 o 2004

I believe my total tax cut from the three Bush cuts was just over $300 per year. It is people like Cheney who got almost $300,000 in tax cuts and paid about 21.3% of his income to Federal income taxes in 2004

Get a clue will ya? That is still "ALMOST" one quarter of his income.
Just what in blazes do you expect? And just an fyi... Bush still paid "MORE" than 1/4 of his income (26%).

He got a cut from 38% to 21.3% from 2001 to 2004. You get a clue! There is no other place to get the needed money and the wealthy can afford it. We had NO SURPLUS that justified lowering the taxes on people like Cheney from 38% to 21%. In fact we had No Surplus at all-- It was just in Bush's head! That, plus the increased spending under the Bush Budgets is why we have a deficit!

All you Bush supporters fail to answer the basic question, If the tax cuts were to return a Surplus that turned out not to exist, why should there be the tax cuts?

Gene, you're saying that even though you're not as poor as some people, you're still not rich enough to justify paying more in taxes, or giving more to charity. I disagree. As long as you aren't living in the projects, you're spending money on luxuries while the poor among us are starved for necessities.

I still don't understand how you justify drawing the line so conveniently between you and President Bush. Is it that you deserve to keep your extra money, and he doesn't? Why not draw the line between you and the people on welfare? Give me a break, Gene. You want to force people richer than you to be more generous than they already are, but you're convinced that you yourself have already given all you need to give, and we shouldn't ask you for any more.

I bet there's a soup kitchen in your neighborhood that could use the money you spend on your internet connection every month.

Gene, just because someone can afford to be robbed, that doesn't justify robbing them.

Aren't you ashamed to live in a country that can't make ends meet without abusing its power to levy taxes?

Should not you, like me, be clamoring for a budget that reduced taxes and reduced spending?

And by now, shouldn't you really be explaining why George Bush is rich enough to be taxed extra, but you're not? I'm still waiting for that one.

COL

Paying almost 40% of ones income in taxes while others pay none at all, just sounds like socialism to me. What is your fascination with socialism? It has only been proven to be a failing system. I'm still wondering why you want me to pay for someone else's health insurance. This country has been built on a controlled capitalism. I have a feeling that if the founding fathers had made this a socialist country, we would most likely not be a Democracy today, but another country collapsing under a failing infrastructure and lack of initiative.

And as for your theory of the rich not spending all their money or not even using it all... I know very few rich people that just puts the money under their matters. The rich put the money to work in the form of new companies or there investments that produce more jobs. A rich person that does not use their money will not be rich for very long.

I don't have an income nearly as much as you do, but even I feel that paying near 40% of ones income in taxes is unfair. All my extra money that you claim should go to those who don't work, is being invested in companies who do make opportunities for people to work. That is my form of true social welfare.

I have said we need to cut spending ( Start with the Pork that has never been higher)
We need to enforce the existing tax laws.

That alone will not solve the deficit. Part of the reason we have a deficit is we granted tax cuts with the belief there was this surplus that ment we were overtaxing Americans. When it became clear we did not have a surplus, the tax rates should have returned to the prior levels. THERE IN NO SURPLUS TO RETURN! WHY DO WE STILL HAVE THE TAX CUTS!

Will someone answer that question?

These votes did not create the confusion it was the ballot design.

It wasn't the ballot design, it was stupid people. As you think, democratic voters.

No, there was no comperable problem anyware else in Florida. It was the Ballot design. Had these 3,500 people had their votes counted as they wanted, Bush would not have won Florida! The Bush victory was due to an error and he has upheld that with a series if errors ever since Jan 20, 2001.

I see no one can answer why we have the tax cuts when the reason for the tax cuts does not exist.

No, there was no comperable problem anyware else in Florida. It was the Ballot design. Had these 3,500 people had their votes counted as they wanted, Bush would not have won Florida! The Bush victory was due to an error and he has upheld that with a series if errors ever since Jan 20, 2001.

Nobody knows who they really voted for col. It's just you and the liberals opinion that they wanted to vote for Gore. Those ballots were recounted anyways, and Bush still won. Get over it col. Gore lost.

see no one can answer why we have the tax cuts when the reason for the tax cuts does not exist.

One of the reasons for the tax cuts was to stimulate the economy, as most economists say it has, to get out of the Clinton recession and the impact of Sept. 11 on the economy.

By the two punches, we know they were not for Bush. It was a very Democratic area and voters were interviewed in that area who said they in fact did double punch and inteded to vote for Gore. Bush won Florida because of the Palm Beach Ballot confusion!

By the two punches, we know they were not for Bush. It was a very Democratic area and voters were interviewed in that area who said they in fact did double punch and inteded to vote for Gore. Bush won Florida because of the Palm Beach Ballot confusion!

Wrong again col. You don't they were for Gore either. They might have been for someone else. Get over it col, the reount counted these anyways, Bush still won. Admit you were wrong.

The Democratic district and the interviews of the voters made it clear, they did not intend to vote for either Bush or Buchanan. You face it, Bush was elected because of the confusion of that ballot not because he was the choice of the majority of the voters in Florida or the country overall. He got about 500,000 less votes then Gore! In 2004, the voters in this country made an error they will be paying for for decades.

Today Dan Bartlett said the Federal Government has plenty of resources to rebuild the Gulf area. He said Bush will propose more tax cuts and credits for the businesses. He did not say what help would be provided for over a million people without homes. The truth is if Bush proposes to fund the recovery cost with more debt, he is dead wrong. The federal Government does not have ANY resourses, given the deficit . Unless Bush increases taxes, we have no money to rebuild anything!

The Democratic district and the interviews of the voters made it clear, they did not intend to vote for either Bush or Buchanan.

I can't believe you even posted that col. The district has nothing to do with it col. There were many counties in Florida that are largely democratic, but they mostly vote for Repbulicans. We call them dixiecrats. As far as the interviews go, that's just bs. Are you telling me all 3500 of those people came forth and said they voted for Gore. Can they identify their ballots? You have no arguement col, you lost, just admit you were wrong. Those ballots were counted and Bush still won.

You face it, Bush was elected because of the confusion of that ballot not because he was the choice of the majority of the voters in Florida or the country overall. He got about 500,000 less votes then Gore! In 2004, the voters in this country made an error they will be paying for for decades.

Col, first of all there was no confusion about the ballots. It was the stupidly of the people filling them out. The local radio stations took the same ballots to kindergardens and had them fill them out. The Kindergardeners got them all right. Bush was elected col, every recount shows it. No matter what you say, you lost.

He got about 500,000 less votes then Gore! In 2004, the voters in this country made an error they will be paying for for decades.

Like the rest of your post, that's irrelevant. We don't vote based on popular vote. It's amazing col you don't know that.

The truth is if Bush proposes to fund the recovery cost with more debt, he is dead wrong. The federal Government does not have ANY resourses, given the deficit . Unless Bush increases taxes, we have no money to rebuild anything!

Col your rhetoric about raising taxes is just now boring. That is your solution to everything is to make successful people pay for the failures of others. How liberal of you.

Col,, did you ever provide a link to this statement?

Sometime ago, Bush addressed a wealthy audience and put his finger on the problem with his policies. He said, some call you the haves and the wealthy, I call you MY BASE

Or was this just another opinion of yours?

Island Dog

The statement I quoted was on nation TV- CNN and MSNBC. It had Bush in the flesh saying thoes words. It is not my opinion it is from the mouth of GWB!

Given the annual Federal deficit, spending more to help the gulf without new finding will increase the debt. The Federal Government has NO money to pay for any added expenses. In fact, we are short about $600 Billion this year WITHOUT the Katrina expense. I do not know what Business experience or training you have but I can assure you, any organization, including the Fed, who is already in debt has no money to buy anything else. We must rebuild that area and need to provide the money WITHOUT more debt! That means we must increases taxes. We should never have cut the taxes since there was no Surplus to return to the American Taxpayers as Bush claimed! Here is the speech and what Bush said: # Al-Ahram Weekly | International | 'The haves and the have-mores' During that speech Bush remarked, "this is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." ... http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/727/in1.htm - 20k - similar pages - add to favorites