Given that the economy has been improving steadily, quarter after qaurter, since Bush first came into office, I'm willing to bet that he has found some other way besides raising taxes to take care of the deficit.

I mean, give me a break. The deficit comes and goes, from decade to decade. Presidents come and go, some good and some bad. But the nation is still here, still strong, still healthy.

I'm content to wait a few more years, to see if the economic forces Bush has helped to set in motion solve the problem that keeps Gene up at night. The only problem I can see with this solution is that it doesn't fix everything right now. But that's not my problem so much as it is Gene's. But then, patience has never been a socialist's strong point.

If Gene is right, then we should see a Democratic president in office in 2009. How much do you want to bet that the economy will tank and unemployment will skyrocket, the moment his policies go into effect?

Hasn't that always been the way, Gene? Reagan inherited a crap economy from Carter, and turned it around. Bush inherited a crap economy from Clinton, and turned it around.

Only, Gene can't accept these facts, so he must hang his entire argument on the deficit. I'm sorry, but the deficit hasn't killed this country in the past, and frankly, Gene, you don't have enough credibility to convince me that it's going kill this country in the future.

It's a dead horse, and it's done as much as it's ever going to do to make me reconsider my viewpoint. If you're serious about building a better tomorrow, you'd best find a new line of argument quickly. I'm tired of paying attention to this one.

The economic improvements are in corporate profits and GDP not in areas that impact the low and middle income workers. For example, the poverty index has increased in each of the last four years. Dispoasble income adjusted for inflation has gone down. The savings rate is the lowest in modern history ( was negative last month) and people going bankrupt is at an all time high. The impact of the higher energy costs on heating bills has yet to hit the poor and middle income families like a hammer. Interest rates are increasing and will begin impacting loan rates, credit card rates, car loans, mortgage refinancing. The higher rates will bebefit those with money to invest but they, for the most part, are not the poor or middle income groups. The economic improvement has helped the wealthy, done very little for MOST of the middle income workers and has harmed the poor and retired.

The increased turnout of GOP voters in the states with the gay marriage questions on the ballot in 2004 was just a fluke. Get real.

Now just pretend for a minute that Democrats in some of those swing states, managed to put amendments about abortions on the ballots. I know, I know, but I'm trying to think of something to compare it to. Democrats came out in full force, we needed no amendments.

How anyone can look at the economy of the US and say we are better off now is so beyond me. Even conservatives are starting to question Bush. Why can't you guys?

AsWayOpens

I think the wealthy and surely the very wealthy are better off now because of the change in the tax laws. Look at Cheney. In 2001 he was paying 38 % of his taxable income in Federal Income tax according to his tax return that is available on the Web. In 2004, Cheney paid 21.3% of his taxable income in Federal Income tax.

"Nobody cares what they think in England or most of the world for that matter."

Since America is not an empire the extent to which it can use its power to bring into force its international policy depends on the goodwill of other nations, so that point is wrong.

Besides, America has always prided itself on having good relations with the world and I think it is grossly arrogant for any US politician to throw diplomacy to the wind. The US reputation is in the gutter and it is sad some are proud of that.

Bush and Blair are both seeing their domestic authority waning. We are seeing this era of politics coming to an end.

You're reading too much into typical lame-duck, end of term politics.

condenm Bush and Blair for not attacking Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, North Korea etc.

Okay. Why are those S.O.B.'s dragging their feet? Let those regimes have 10+ years of U.N. resolutions against them with repeated foot dragging, stalling, and general saber rattling and they'll be gotten around to.

I feel sorry that the great battle between secularism and radical Islam is being fought with their blood.

Hmm, now the U.S. is in a world wide battle to force secularism? That's a new one.

The long lasting democracies come about from within i.e. free peoples movements from within dictatorships. I am sick and tired of the armchair generals who love to spill the blood of others.

But I think it is a bit rich having abandoned the Iraqis when the were ready to rise up in the first gulf war to come back and bomb Iraq to pieces and play the heroes when it was through US/UK indecision it was not done in the first place.

So it's acknowledged that the people of Iraq wanted to overthrow Saddam but couldn't accomplish it. The quibble then is who took the lead role? You're arguments have fallen off track.

For what it's worth, I didn't support this Iraq war because I felt it was too late to do something we should have done a decade earlier. It wasn't indecision. Bush the first coming didn't have the balls to act alone when he knew his precious coalition would fall apart with a march on Baghdad. It would have screwed up his precious New World Order.

Guantanamo Bay should be closed as a prison.

Agreed.

A good measure of the dislke is the amount of security that is needed when he visits throught out the world!

That's a ridiculous measure. A President should have as much security as possible regardless of his popularity. It only takes one hater with a gun.

Unfortunately people in general now oppose democracy and are more fond of fascist regimes. This is a sad development.

What's a few beatings when daddy promises to take care of you?

Too many people came out to stop gay marriage and while they were out voted for GWB. It was very clever to have the gay marriage issue in 11 states the GOP needed Bush to win.

And that wins the award for most asinine, ridiculous statement I have seen here in a long time.

Voter turnout always ramps up dramatically for presidential elections, even moreso when hotly contested. People who come out for a single issue usually vote for just that single issue regardless of what else is on the ballot. The idea that they stood there and concluded, "Aw, what the heck -- I'll vote for Bush while I'm at it" is ludicrous in the extreme.

The increased turnout of GOP voters in the states with the gay marriage questions on the ballot in 2004 was just a fluke. Get real.

you get real.

You are spouting out utter crap as opinion!! I have already told you that in Michigan, a state that had Gay Marriage on the ballot, did not have any effect on going to Bush..the state STILL WENT TO KERRY. So....you get real.

You liberals are always trying to justify why you lost....you suck, that is why you lost. But instead of dealing with your party suckiness, you try to come up with "logical reasoning" why you lost...and that is why you will most likely continue to lose...

PCS The biggest change since WWII is that we are no longer the single power in the world. The growth of other countries means we need more not less coorperation. It does not matter if is to control terrorism, to fight drugs, to control illness or trade. Today under Bush, we have less support because so many people dislike him. He can not visit ANY country I can think of, including our neighbor to the north, without people demonstrating aginst Bush and his policies-economic and non-economic. IT DOES MATTER WHAT PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES THINK OF THE U S AND OUR LEADER!

MINO

Michigan is ONE state. Ohio, where the loss in jobs under the Bush policy has devistated that economy would have gone for Kerry had it not been for the Gay Marriage issue. The truth is that many of the people that voted for Bush have been and will be harmed by his policies. Jobs, Trade, energy costs and the higher debt all will harm the GOP middle class that voted for Bush. The Bushies talk about job growth. First, just in numbers we have added about 2 million MORE workers then new jobs since 2001. The quality of the pay and benefits is lower today then in 2001. For many, especially the lower middlle and lower income workers have sceen their costs increase MORE then their wages. They are WORSE off then 5 years ago. In addition these two groups received the least benefit from the tax cuts. In fact the lower income received NOTHING from the tax cuts. They have no growth in wages, no tax cuts and higher costs.

Michigan is ONE state. Ohio, where the loss in jobs under the Bush policy has devistated that economy would have gone for Kerry had it not been for the Gay Marriage issue. The truth is that many of the people that voted for Bush have been and will be harmed by his policies. Jobs, Trade, energy costs and the higher debt all will harm the GOP middle class that voted for Bush. The Bushies talk about job growth. First, just in numbers we have added about 2 million MORE workers then new jobs since 2001. The quality of the pay and benefits is lower today then in 2001. For many, especially the lower middlle and lower income workers have sceen their costs increase MORE then their wages. They are WORSE off then 5 years ago. In addition these two groups received the least benefit from the tax cuts. In fact the lower income received NOTHING from the tax cuts. They have no growth in wages, no tax cuts and higher costs.

Ohio is ONE state just like Michagan is ONE state. And as usual the rest is whine, whine, whine.

drmiler

One state would have sent Bush back to Texas. I would like to see your proof that the low and most of the middle income working Americans are better off under Bush!

Michigan is ONE state. Ohio, where the loss in jobs under the Bush policy has devistated that economy would have gone for Kerry had it not been for the Gay Marriage issue. The truth is that many of the people that voted for Bush have been and will be harmed by his policies. Jobs, Trade, energy costs and the higher debt all will harm the GOP middle class that voted for Bush. The Bushies talk about job growth. First, just in numbers we have added about 2 million MORE workers then new jobs since 2001. The quality of the pay and benefits is lower today then in 2001. For many, especially the lower middlle and lower income workers have sceen their costs increase MORE then their wages. They are WORSE off then 5 years ago. In addition these two groups received the least benefit from the tax cuts. In fact the lower income received NOTHING from the tax cuts. They have no growth in wages, no tax cuts and higher costs.

Hmmm....

Nah....I have to disagree with you again, Col.

I am much better off than i was before....I was unemployed 5 years ago....now? I not only have a job....but a new home to boot. Oh...and I am FAR from rich....

So, try again, bubba....

How anyone can look at the economy of the US and say we are better off now is so beyond me. Even conservatives are starting to question Bush. Why can't you guys?

Simple. The boom on the 90s was not clinton, it was literally the dot com. And it busted and then the towers fell. Given that doulbe whammy (and the fact that no expansion in the history of the world has lasted forever), Bush has accomplished a lot in a very short term.

So how can you NOT be happy that Bush cut taxes and made the recession short and mild, instead of raising taxes and killing a recovery?

I think the wealthy and surely the very wealthy are better off now because of the change in the tax laws. Look at Cheney. In 2001 he was paying 38 % of his taxable income in Federal Income tax according to his tax return that is available on the Web. In 2004, Cheney paid 21.3% of his taxable income in Federal Income tax.

Hey Klink! What did Kerry Pay? Kennedy? Clinton? YOu are pathetic and laughable.

Besides, America has always prided itself on having good relations with the world and I think it is grossly arrogant for any US politician to throw diplomacy to the wind. The US reputation is in the gutter and it is sad some are proud of that.

Prove it. Lets see your poof.

Dr Guy

Any wealthy person is paying much less. The difference is that Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton as well as people like Gates and Buffet are willing to pay higher taxes because the budget is out of balance. Gates and Buffet wrote Bush in 2001 to ask him NOT to lower taxes on the wealthy because they did not NEED a tax cut and the country had more important needs then a tax cut for the wealthy. Greenspan and O'Neil told Bush ANY tax cuts should be tied to the SURPLUS to pay for it and that if the SURPLUS ended so should the tax cuts! Guess what the Bush SURPLUS NEVER EXISTED.

drmiler One state would have sent Bush back to Texas. I would like to see your proof that the low and most of the middle income working Americans are better off under Bush!

Why should I supply "you" with proof? "You" have shown me none. All I've seen is your opinion.

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Saturday, November 05, 2005 Dr Guy Any wealthy person is paying much less.

Col Klink, you make a spurilous allegation, I call you on it and you change the subject. 

let me give you a clue, altho I doubt you are smart enough to understand it.

ANYONE Paying taxes gets a reduction.  If you only pay $1000, you do not get a $5000 reduction?

kapisch?  Probably not.  You do not have enough gray cells to understand.

But let me leave you with this thought.  What god given law, or man made one, entitled you do the money of others?  Can you direct me to that law?  Where you are ENTITLED to what you had no interest in earning?

buhBye.  You are no longer worth the time to respond to.  I only respond to those with at least half a brain.

"Prove it. Lets see your poof."

Have you been under a rock since Iraq? I am not here to plug the gaps in my opponents ignorance, it is patently obvious that Bush is the most disliked president in recent memory and consequently America is widely distrusted due to the shambles of an occupation of Iraq.

Dr Guy

The government has the power to levy taxes. The issue is not are Income ( or other taxes) legal but at what level are the taxes applied. At the present time the Federal Government is spending about $550 billion MORE then it is taxing. Therefore, we must cut spending, increase collection of existing taxes and to the extent that does not balance the budget increase taxes to bring the Federal Income equal to the spending.

There is no combination of spending cuts that would be acceptable to the majority to come even close to a balanced budget. The taxes that are not being collected would help but again would not produce anything like $550 billion EVERY year. You can BS all you want. It would not harm the wealthy to return to the tax rates in efect during the 1990's and would bring us a lot closer to a balanced budget. Like Gates and Buffet said, the wealthy DO NOT NEED A TAX CUT. The Fed DOES NEED THE ADDED REVENUE.

Have you been under a rock since Iraq? I am not here to plug the gaps in my opponents ignorance, it is patently obvious that Bush is the most disliked president in recent memory and consequently America is widely distrusted due to the shambles of an occupation of Iraq.

Better check poll history. Your ignorance is showing.

#96 by COL Gene Saturday, November 05, 2005

Does Brad have gnats on this board?

"You're reading too much into typical lame-duck, end of term politics."

Oh really, Gene. You know when Blair is in the shit when he does his 'man of the people' routine. He did it today by appearing on the BBC's 'Football Focus' programme and chatting about how he watches Premiership football. It was cringeworthy.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/football_focus/default.stm#

Dr. Guy, I'm not sure what arguments you have been in with COL Gene, but I must admit to being surprised at the way you write to him and at how well he is ignoring it.