Bush defends tax cuts for the rich

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush criticized Kerry's plan to eliminate the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year, saying that the "the rich in America happen to be the small business owners" who put people to work.*

Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--bushvisit0809aug09,0,6920595.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

Help! Our president is a retard!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

..."the rich in America happen to be the small business owners"

Wrong again, Smirk.

The IRS reports that some 87% of small business owners make less than $200K per year and haven't felt your tax cuts for the already-filthy-rich.

http://www.bartcop.com/watch_drive.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I can understand why Chimp's cronies support the BFEE who manipulate the government to line their pockets, but why the hell does Joe Red-State support their looting of the country?

[Raider Bill]

Ever read "The Millionaire Next Door"? The most popular vehicle of millionaires the survey found is the Ford F150. That is because typically a millionaire in this country is some sort of Contractor/Builder. These are small business owners not the idle rich as you like to paint them.

With the passage of President Bush's two tax cuts, ten million more Americans no longer pay income taxes. The Senate voted to extend the $400-per-child tax credits to minimum-wage families, most of whom are currently not paying income taxes. What this does is give people a credit or rebate for something they have not paid into in the first place.

The tax burden of the entire country is being shifted more and more to fewer and fewer Americans. As it stands now, the top 5% of wage-earners in this country pay 50% of all income taxes collected. The bottom 50% of wage-earners pay only 5% of income taxes collected

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:lDxvFnVA6HEJ:nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200404300829.asp+2003+federal+Tax+revenu es+went+up&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
President Bush’s most recent tax cut proves that tax rates were, in fact, too high. This is demonstrated through the simple fact that the first half of fiscal year 2004 is showing higher tax revenues than the same period for fiscal year 2003. Between October 2003 and March 2004 (the first half of FY 2004), tax receipts were at more than $850 billion, which is $25.3 billion higher than receipts for the year-ago period.

This means that federal tax receipts went up rather than down after the Bush tax cuts of 2003. America has just passed the midpoint of fiscal 2003 and so far the data seems to be confirming the supply-side model. The Bush boom is big enough that it has already affected the budget.

http://nationalreview.com/images/chart_tax-receipts_bowyer4-30-04.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ever read "The Millionaire Next Door"? The most popular vehicle of millionaires the survey found is the Ford F150. That is because typically a millionaire in this country is some sort of Contractor/Builder. These are small business owners not the idle rich as you like to paint them.

This is an outright lie.

According to the IRS, some 87% of small business owners make less than $200,000 per year.

http://www.bartcop.com/tax-swindlers.jpg

[Raider Bill]

Ever read "The Millionaire Next Door"? The most popular vehicle of millionaires the survey found is the Ford F150. That is because typically a millionaire in this country is some sort of Contractor/Builder. These are small business owners not the idle rich as you like to paint them.

This is an outright lie.

According to the IRS, some 87% of small business owners make less than $200,000 per year.


Try to keep up son.

The other 13% make more Einstein. How did I lie? I said a millionaire in this country is likely to be a small business owner. Not the idle rich croisant muncher like your boy Kerry.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How did I lie? I said a millionaire in this country is likely to be a small business owner.

The lie here is in the word "likely."

"Likely" does not = 13%

Since 87% of small business owners make less than $200K per year, the likelihood of meeting a millionaire small business owner is much more remote than meeting a member of the 87% group.

Most people in this country who make $200K or more are working for big corporations.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not the idle rich croisant muncher like your boy Kerry.

I always have to chuckle at those wingnuts who suggest Kerry can't relate to ordinary Americans because of his personal wealth.

As if Bush and Cheney qualify as middle-income, blue collar, working-class Americans.

[Raider Bill]

Not the idle rich croisant muncher like your boy Kerry.

I always have to chuckle at those wingnuts who suggest Kerry can't relate to ordinary Americans because of his personal wealth.

As if Bush and Cheney qualify as middle-income, blue collar, working-class Americans.


Compared to all that Heinz money (The late Senator John Heinz must be friggin rolling over in his grave) Bush Cheney are working class schlubs.

[Raider Bill]

How did I lie? I said a millionaire in this country is likely to be a small business owner.

The lie here is in the word "likely."

"Likely" does not = 13%

Since 87% of small business owners make less than $200K per year, the likelihood of meeting a millionaire small business owner is much more remote than meeting a member of the 87% group.

Most people in this country who make $200K or more are working for big corporations.


Try to keep up. You have it backwards. The way I phrased it is a millionaire is likely to be a small business owner. e.g If you meet a guy that has a million bucks net worth more often than not you will find he is a small business owner. You have it the other way around.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Compared to all that Heinz money (The late Senator John Heinz must be friggin rolling over in his grave) Bush Cheney are working class schlubs.

Since you don't know how much Teresa Heinz-Kerry is worth, this is merely another unsubstantiated claim. And surely you don't think former Halliburton CEO Cheney could be perceived as a "working class schlub" by any ordinary American's standards? (Which is really the point here.)

Try to keep up. You have it backwards. The way I phrased it is a millionaire is likely to be a small business owner. e.g If you meet a guy that has a million bucks net worth more often than not you will find he is a small business owner. You have it the other way around.

You are the one who is lagging behind the curve here.

You claimed, in essence, that anytime I meet a small business owner, the odds favor the likelihood that he is a millionaire.

Since 87% of small business owners make less than $200K per year, this is obviously a false statement.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/teachers-oac.JPG

[Raider Bill]

Compared to all that Heinz money (The late Senator John Heinz must be friggin rolling over in his grave) Bush Cheney are working class schlubs.

Since you don't know how much Teresa Heinz-Kerry is worth, this is merely another unsubstantiated claim. And surely you don't think former Halliburton CEO Cheney could be perceived as a "working class schlub" by any ordinary American's standards? (Which is really the point here.)

Try to keep up. You have it backwards. The way I phrased it is a millionaire is likely to be a small business owner. e.g If you meet a guy that has a million bucks net worth more often than not you will find he is a small business owner. You have it the other way around.

You are the one who is lagging behind the curve here.

You claimed, in essence, that anytime I meet a small business owner, the odds favor the likelihood that he is a millionaire.

Since 87% of small business owners make less than $200K per year, this is obviously a false statement.


Are you this friggin Dense. I stated that a typical millionaire is a small business owner. Not the other way around.


Here is my original post:


Ever read "The Millionaire Next Door"? The most popular vehicle of millionaires the survey found is the Ford F150. That is because typically a millionaire in this country is some sort of Contractor/Builder. These are small business owners not the idle rich as you like to paint them


Regarding Theresa Heinz Kerry's net worth,

Since key details of Heinz Kerry's investments are not in the public record, a precise valuation is not possible. The Los Angeles Times' analysis produced estimates as low as $900 million and as high as $3.2 billion. Three senior executives at investment companies that handle accounts for wealthy clients reviewed the Times' study and said the $1 billion valuation was a fair and conservative estimate.


Bush/Cheney aren't even close. Mr and Mrs Heinz own 6 homes valued at 30 million dollars including one in France and a 35 million dollar Gulfstream jet to get them there. Throw in a fleet of cars and some gas money and you have a hundred million right there.

Again .. Get a clue.

[Raider Bill]

Here's how the Candidates net worth breaks down

Kerry - estimated 1 billion
Edwards - 60 million
Cheney - 50 million
Bush - 15 million

So yea I would say that Bush Cheney are working class schlubs when Kerry's net worth dwarfs theirs by a factor of 20 or so.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Are you this friggin Dense. I stated that a typical millionaire is a small business owner. Not the other way around.

Are you really so thick as to not grasp the contradiction here?

That is, if only 13% of small business owners are millionaires, then how could this group be construed as "typical" as a percentage of the total number of millionaires in America?

Bush/Cheney aren't even close.

You still haven't backed this contention with facts. Your own LA Times quote starts by saying "Since key details of Heinz Kerry's investments are not in the public record, a precise valuation is not possible." And you provided no facts to substantiate either Bush or Cheney's net worth.

But, IMO, the real point is this:

No matter what the difference in Bush/Cheney and Heinz-Kerry's net worth, your insinuation that the same criticisms you're leveling at Kerry and his wife don't apply to Bush and Cheney is ludicrous. Even if Bush and Cheney are worth less than Kerry and his wife, it still doesn't follow that this difference in net worth is meaningful enough for them to be perceived as being in touch with ordinary, working Americans.


http://www.bartcop.com/clinton-rec.jpg

[Exile_In_SJ]

njbil, you may as well talk to a brick wall as talk to LABartcop. he's unable to understand any concept higher than, bush is bad (attach goofy gif from bartcop here)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

you may as well talk to a brick wall as talk to LABartcop. he's unable to understand any concept higher than, bush is bad (attach goofy gif from bartcop here)

Says the same right-wing tool who starts a dozen new threads full of cut and paste from Smear Boat Goons for Bush per day?

LMFAO!

That's a thigh-slapper.

[Raider Bill]

Are you this friggin Dense. I stated that a typical millionaire is a small business owner. Not the other way around.

Are you really so thick as to not grasp the contradiction here?

That is, if only 13% of small business owners are millionaires, then how could this group be construed as "typical" as a percentage of the total number of millionaires in America?

You are the one who is confused. We are talking about 2 distinct groups. Millionaires and Small business owners. If 13% of small business owners are millionaires it still could be theoreticly possible that 100% of millionaires are small business owners. To use a grade school math expression, Millionaires are a subset of small business owners not the other way around.





The book I spoke of did a survey of Millionaires in this country and found that the most common vehicle was the Ford F150, because the typical millionaire is some sort of contractor. They didnt survey small business owners and find that the typical one was a millionaire which is what you're arguing I said.






Bush/Cheney aren't even close.

You still haven't backed this contention with facts. Your own LA Times quote starts by saying "Since key details of Heinz Kerry's investments are not in the public record, a precise valuation is not possible." And you provided no facts to substantiate either Bush or Cheney's net worth.

Their homes and jet alone dwarf Bush/Cheney. Put it this way if Cheney leveraged his entire net worth and invested it at 10% it would take him over 140 years to approach the Heinz fortune.


But, IMO, the real point is this:

No matter what the difference in Bush/Cheney and Heinz-Kerry's net worth, your insinuation that the same criticisms you're leveling at Kerry and his wife don't apply to Bush and Cheney is ludicrous. Even if Bush and Cheney are worth less than Kerry and his wife, it still doesn't follow that this difference in net worth is meaningful enough for them to be perceived as being in touch with ordinary, working Americans.


[img]


Hey in politics perception is everything. Bush jetting down to his ranch to kick back, wear jeans, and fix the fence on the back 40 seems more "in touch" than winging off to France to hit the slopes or whatever. It may be a lot of carefully crafted nonsense, but Bush does come off as more of a "regular guy" than Kerry.

[errand]

Bush criticized Kerry's plan to eliminate the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year, saying that the "the rich in America happen to be the small business owners" who put people to work.*

Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."



Pray tell, LANutcase.....

How many poor people hire people?

You think that taxing the hell out of the rich will make things better? your nuts! Remove the obstacles that government places in the way of people achieving and you'll see more people reach financial independence.

Rich people are usuaully smart people...and smart people will find ways to hide their money if you keep demanding they foot the bill for everyone else.

All you are is just another liberal who wants to punish people for achieving financial independence thru hard work.

[errand]

Since 87% of small business owners make less than $200K per year, this is obviously a false statement.

Yes, they may EARN less than $200,000 annually....but that is no indication of what they're WORTH. Some people make smart decisions with their lives and their money.

I know a guy who works as a salesman in the lumber dept of a Home Depot who thru the employee stock purchase plan was had shares worth approximately $450,000 in '98.....and no doubt they are worth more. He earned less than $40,000 a year and lived in a former VA foreclosure home and had driven the same '82 Camaro until it broke down completely and he was "forced" (his words exactly) to buy a new car. Was he a millionaire in '98? No...but I'd be willing to bet he's damn close today. Why? Because he made smart decisions with his money and had the discipline to make his plan work to achieve his financial goals.

Your typical millionaire is a former small business owner, has no more than 3 credit cards (one major, one gas, and one dept. store), has never paid more than $300 for suit or more than $100 for his watch...they more than likely drive an American made car like a Lincoln or a Buick, Cadillac, etc...and have lived in the same middle class home for approximately 30 years.

They never tell their kids or other relatives how much they are worth, and they always require that friends and family members pay them interest on personal loans they give.

I'm not a millionaire (yet)...but I'm confident that by the time I reach my mid-50's I'll be damn close. Because like the guy I told you about, I too have the discipline to make my plan for financial independence work

[Rohirrim]

In Eisenhower's day, the very wealthy paid 91% in taxes. CEOs averaged an income 34% more than their average worker. One wage earner could raise a family, buy a house, raise children and send them to college. Mom could stay home, provide care for her children, and help the kids with homework.

In the 80s, Reagan ushered in the era of globalization - the new economic religion - replacing Keynesianism. Corporations became free floating, free agents, loosed from the ties of country. Corporate gigantism began. De-regulation began. The social bonds of corporate America were cut. They no longer owed any allegiance to the local community of workers (Flint, Michigan, for instance). Junk bonds, penny stocks, buying up the competition, the "Greed is good" era. Taxes plummeted for the rich. Offshore shelters became the norm. Outsourcing and corporate "slimming" started. Corporate taxes dropped to the point that now, 67% of corporations are able to bypass taxes completely. Two incomes were "required" to raise a family. College started moving out of reach. Homes moved out of reach for the average worker. CEO salaries now average 1000% more than their average worker. For those wealthy individuals who actually pay taxes (remember the offshore shelters) the percentage hangs around 30%.

The playing field has shifted, all right.

[errand]

Hey in politics perception is everything. Bush jetting down to his ranch to kick back, wear jeans, and fix the fence on the back 40 seems more "in touch" than winging off to France to hit the slopes or whatever. It may be a lot of carefully crafted nonsense, but Bush does come off as more of a "regular guy" than Kerry.

...ever see the difference between Bush throwing out the first pitch at a St. Louis game and Kerry doing the same in Boston? Well, to put it in perspective for you, Bush proved that in his younger days he could've probably snuck a pork chop past a wolf, where as Kerry proved that he was more than likely the last guy picked and threw like a girl.

that alone makes Bush closer to the average guy than Kerry.

[Rohirrim]

*(appropriations bill for Iraq war that would supply our troops with any & everything they needed to fight the war successfully, including but not limited to the body armor John kerry has been crying about)

I'll bet you've never asked yourself why that bill was even necessary in the first place. Why didn't they have that body armor (and armored vehicles) going in?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are the one who is confused. We are talking about 2 distinct groups. Millionaires and Small business owners. If 13% of small business owners are millionaires it still could be theoreticly possible that 100% of millionaires are small business owners.

But we already know that 100% of millionaires are not small business owners, so your point is moot.

To use a grade school math expression, Millionaires are a subset of small business owners not the other way around.

You've got it bass-ackwards again. You are essentially saying that all small business owners are millionaires. A 'subset' is a class contained by another class, and you're saying the class of millionaires is contained within the class of small business owners--which is false.

The book I spoke of did a survey of Millionaires in this country and found that the most common vehicle was the Ford F150

But this sort of "survey" only takes into account the sample group used in its "study". Thus, its findings aren't as meaningful as census statistics, IRS data, etc.

Their homes and jet alone dwarf Bush/Cheney. Put it this way if Cheney leveraged his entire net worth and invested it at 10% it would take him over 140 years to approach the Heinz fortune.

Pure conjecture on your part, since you haven't provided any documentation of either Bush or Cheney's net worth, and you admitted that Heinz-Kerry's actual net worth was unknown.

And you really haven't addressed my main point, i.e, that, even if Bush and Cheney are worth less than Heinz-Kerry, they are both still rich enough to warrant the same criticism your side levels at Kerry, i.e. that they can't possibly releate to average working Americans.

Hey in politics perception is everything. Bush jetting down to his ranch to kick back, wear jeans, and fix the fence on the back 40 seems more "in touch" than winging off to France to hit the slopes or whatever. It may be a lot of carefully crafted nonsense, but Bush does come off as more of a "regular guy" than Kerry.

You're right--there are far too many people out there whose voting behavior is dictated by this sort of superficial, meaningless stuff. But I don't know if the Kennebunkport Cowboy is going to be able to depend on them this time around.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Pray tell, LANutcase.....

You support the guy responsible for the quote at the top of this thread and you're calling me a "nutcase?"

LMFAO!

That's rich.

How many poor people hire people?

The real question is: How many big corporations have doubled and tripled their profits under BushCo, received huge tax cuts, and have still laid off workers, outsourced all of their jobs, and not hired a soul?

It doesn't take an economic genius to realize that when you give rich people a tax cut, they are going to put the money in the bank, whereas, when you give regular working people a tax cut, they are going to spend the money and thus stimulate the economy.

You think that taxing the hell out of the rich will make things better? your nuts!

Do you think taxing the hell out of the poor, working, and middle classes while giving huge tax cuts to big corporations and the wealthiest Americans is going to make things better? Then you're living where Tinker Bell lives.

Reality check:

Trickle down was a disaster for the country before, and, as the past four years have demonstrated, nothing has changed.

[Raider Bill]

To use a grade school math expression, Millionaires are a subset of small business owners not the other way around. [/b]

You've got it bass-ackwards again. You are essentially saying that all small business owners are millionaires. A 'subset' is a class contained by another class, and you're saying the class of millionaires is contained within the class of small business owners--which is false.

.

I can't believe you're still struggling with this one. According to the survey a typical millionaire in this country owned a small business, so therefore Millionaires are a subset of small business owners. If picked a Millionaire out of a crowd, chances are he owns a small business.

I'm not arguing that If you picked a small business owner out of a crowd chances are he is a millionaire.


Holy Moly you are still trying to twist around what I said. A millionaire in this country is likely a small business owner.

If I said that apples are likely to be red, you are trying to twist it that I said anything red is likely to be an apple. Face it you're wrong.

[Old Dude]

The whole "rich vs. poor" thing aside, the bad news is that the Bush tax cuts seem not to have achieved anywhere near the economic stimulus hoped for.

According to Economy.com, the stimulus created by the reduction in the tax rates themselves produced only 59 cents for every tax dollar forgone. Even worse was the return on the cuts in capital gains & dividends - just 9 cents for every tax dollar lost. One of the reasons why the return in this instance was so palltry was because capital gain cut operate mainly as a reward for capital already in place, rather than for new investments. (This should not have been all that unexpected. The Congressional Budget Office forsaw it in January, 2002.)

Aid to state governments, on the other hand, showed the best return: $1.24 for each dollar invested. Unfortunately, that accounted for only 3% of the package.

[RaiderH8r]

On the one hand they b!tch about the rich in this country and the need to tax them to death. And on the other hand wonder why they pack ship and head to friendlier tax climates. How many jobs does a bankrupt business create? Go ahead and villify those signing the checks to the people working who pay the taxes to support those sucking off of the rather considerable government teet. Those same people who have worked to build an economy and standard of living that provides an opportunity and soap box for those (see Michael Moore hollywood rich b!tch, limosine liberal types) to complain about the means by which their lifestyle is sustained. What a bunch of freaking fascists, don't agree with me...I'll sue, complain, whine and when I don't get my way...I'll sue some more. So, ultimately the philosophical question is, do we want to encourage entrepreneurial spirit via lower taxes and business incentives, or the inevitable mediocrity that is socialism?

[Old Dude]

Actually, H8r, I don't think the problem is that corporations are moving to better tax climates. It goes pretty well for them here. But they are outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor. I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.

LOL

:thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For some reason, people refuse to vote their wallet.

Stop a middle-age white man on the street and he'll tell you it's important that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet get another tax cut. The GOP has convinced people they're better off when the super-rich get richer - even though the super-rich have refused to hire anybody with the billions of tax dollars Bush gave them.

Bush can't even break even on jobs.

Clinton taxed the super-rich and gave America the best years ever.

[errand]

It doesn't take an economic genius to realize that when you give rich people a tax cut, they are going to put the money in the bank, whereas, when you give regular working people a tax cut, they are going to spend the money and thus stimulate the economy.

.

So tell us there genius.....

what does the bank do with the money these rich people put in them?

They loan it to small businesses trying to expand....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to buy homes....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to purchase automobiles and other goods......which helps the economy.

BTW...did it ever occur to you that perhaps if the poor working middle class saved their money or invested some of their money, they too would be rich?

[errand]

Actually, H8r, I don't think the problem is that corporations are moving to better tax climates. It goes pretty well for them here. But they are outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor. I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.


Old Dude...surely you run a household as does the majority of posters here. What options do you have if you find that your bills are greater than your income?

You have basically two options....raise your income....or lower your expenses. Some people take on 2nd jobs, or their spouses take on jobs to help raise their income levels. They take night classes to increase their knowledge or training to obtain higher paying jobs, they hold yard sales...whatever they have to do to increase their incomes.

And if that doesn't get you back on track, then you have to lower expenses. so you stop eating out, or you car pool to save fuel $$$, or you raise your deductible on your insurance (if your a safe driver that is) you buy generic Fruit Wheels at Food Lion instead of Fruit Loops for your kids.....the point is, you do what you have to do to lower your expenses to keep your budget in line.

Well, businesses aren't any different than your household. They too have bills to pay and to pay them they have to have the money to do so. If they are operating in the red, they have to do the same two things you would....either raise their income (via increased sales) or lower their expenses (budget cuts, layoffs, outsourcing)

So why do you blast them for trying to stay in business when nobody would blast you trying to keep your budget in line?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So tell us there genius.....

what does the bank do with the money these rich people put in them?

They loan it to small businesses trying to expand....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to buy homes....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to purchase automobiles and other goods......which helps the economy.

BTW...did it ever occur to you that perhaps if the poor working middle class saved their money or invested some of their money, they too would be rich?

But Einstein:

All the "expanded" small businesses in the world are worth nothing if regular working people don't have money to spend on their products and/or services.

As for auto loans, last I checked, auto retailers (among others) all over the country were in deep doo-doo because of the poor economy and the evaporation of disposable income for the working and middle classes. (Not to mention what happens when you factor in the record number of American jobs lost under AWOL Boy.)

And your foregone conclusion that banks were not already doing brisk business lending money to people for the kind of things you mentioned before Smirk's tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy is ridiculous.

Bottom line: Smirk and his team of trickle-down snake oil salesmen said their tax cuts for millionaires were supposed to "stimulate the economy."

We all saw how that turned out. (Again.)

[Exile_In_SJ]

So tell us there genius.....

what does the bank do with the money these rich people put in them?

They loan it to small businesses trying to expand....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to buy homes....which helps the economy.

They loan it to people who want to purchase automobiles and other goods......which helps the economy.

BTW...did it ever occur to you that perhaps if the poor working middle class saved their money or invested some of their money, they too would be rich?

I've often had to explain how rich people put their money to work and it creates jobs and helps the economy. Most of these lefties think rich people put their money into a show box and keep it there. Money in the economy is good for everyone.

[RaiderH8r]

Actually, H8r, I don't think the problem is that corporations are moving to better tax climates. It goes pretty well for them here. But they are outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor. I guess it's good to know that the U.S. tax cuts are helping out the Chinese economy though. I'd sure hate to see some dirty socialist country benefit from those.
Your myopic view is startling. We have few choices in terms of dealing with the Chinese. 1. Engage them in combat (Never start a land war in Asia and never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, great line from the Princess Bride) 2. Economic sanctions hurting US producers of goods and ag products. 3. Engage the 1.2 Billion consumers of the country in free trade of goods and ideas.

Furthermore, the labor movement in this country has priced themselves out of the competition. How much would a pair of Nikes cost if made in the US? You'd have to take out a 2nd mortgage on your house. This isn't to say that I condone sweatshops but the US worker bears some responsibility here. For better or worse the economy is now global, competition exists on all continents and will continue in that fashion. The US GDP is still the highest and we are on the cutting edge of most aspects of business. The only real impediments are those we place on ourselves. So get the hell out of the way and let those with the knowledge and will make money and create jobs. The liberal economic theory states, "Tax it to death, if it still moves then regulate it, and when you've finally killed it then you subsidize it."

[RaiderH8r]

But Einstein:

All the "expanded" small businesses in the world are worth nothing if regular working people don't have money to spend on their products and/or services.

As for auto loans, last I checked, auto retailers (among others) all over the country were in deep doo-doo because of the poor economy and the evaporation of disposable income for the working and middle classes. (Not to mention what happens when you factor in the record number of American jobs lost under AWOL Boy.)

And your foregone conclusion that banks were not already doing brisk business lending money to people for the kind of things you mentioned before Smirk's tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy is ridiculous.

Bottom line: Smirk and his team of trickle-down snake oil salesmen said their tax cuts for millionaires were supposed to "stimulate the economy."

We all saw how that turned out. (Again.)

And last I checked home ownership is the highest it has ever been. Yearning for the days of 27% interest on a 30yr. fixed mortgage are you? Do the math, figure what that comes to on a modest $250K loan. The greatest, and largest, investment the average American will make is the purchase of their home. That is something you've conveniently overlooked.

[Old Dude]

Old Dude...surely you run a household as does the majority of posters here. What options do you have if you find that your bills are greater than your income?

You have basically two options....raise your income....or lower your expenses. Some people take on 2nd jobs, or their spouses take on jobs to help raise their income levels. They take night classes to increase their knowledge or training to obtain higher paying jobs, they hold yard sales...whatever they have to do to increase their incomes.

And if that doesn't get you back on track, then you have to lower expenses. so you stop eating out, or you car pool to save fuel $$$, or you raise your deductible on your insurance (if your a safe driver that is) you buy generic Fruit Wheels at Food Lion instead of Fruit Loops for your kids.....the point is, you do what you have to do to lower your expenses to keep your budget in line.

Well, businesses aren't any different than your household. They too have bills to pay and to pay them they have to have the money to do so. If they are operating in the red, they have to do the same two things you would....either raise their income (via increased sales) or lower their expenses (budget cuts, layoffs, outsourcing)

So why do you blast them for trying to stay in business when nobody would blast you trying to keep your budget in line?

The first thing I'd do is pay off my damned credit cards before I went on a hunting trip in Iraq.

[Old Dude]

Your myopic view is startling. We have few choices in terms of dealing with the Chinese. 1. Engage them in combat (Never start a land war in Asia and never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, great line from the Princess Bride) 2. Economic sanctions hurting US producers of goods and ag products. 3. Engage the 1.2 Billion consumers of the country in free trade of goods and ideas.

Furthermore, the labor movement in this country has priced themselves out of the competition. How much would a pair of Nikes cost if made in the US? You'd have to take out a 2nd mortgage on your house. This isn't to say that I condone sweatshops but the US worker bears some responsibility here. For better or worse the economy is now global, competition exists on all continents and will continue in that fashion. The US GDP is still the highest and we are on the cutting edge of most aspects of business. The only real impediments are those we place on ourselves. So get the hell out of the way and let those with the knowledge and will make money and create jobs. The liberal economic theory states, "Tax it to death, if it still moves then regulate it, and when you've finally killed it then you subsidize it."

First of all, the stats don't back you up.

Tax cuts are intended to be an investment in the economy itself.

The tax cuts generated 59 cents for every tax dollar lost. That's a net loss of 41 cents on the dollar. The capital gains tax breaks generated 9 cents for every tax dollar lost. That's a net loss of 91 cents on the dollar.

That does not strike me as a real good investment.

Aid to States, for things like rebuilding the country's infrastructure, generated $1.24 for every dollar spent. That's a gain of 24 cents on the dollar. That was obviously a better investment, but it formed only 3% of the package.

As far as labor and corporations are concerned, consider this. Corporations, like any other business, can increase profits two ways - cut costs or increase revenues.

We are still the biggest consumer market, per capita, in the world. When the American labor force loses ground, they have less to spend, they buy less, and revenues fall. So corporations do have an interest in making sure that labor gets paid. The problem is that corporations are all basically in competition with one another, so what they really want to see is that their COMPETITOR'S labor gets paid well. So the corporation that relies priomarily on American workers is at a disadvantage to the one that ships work overseas.

Well, there are ways to fix that. For one thing, you can give a tax incentive to corporations who hire American workers, in order to help level the playing field.

Am I worried that corporations will pack up their home offices and go overseas? No. They get tremendous benefits from being in teh US - our transportation system (supported by tax dollars) our R&D (much of which is supported by tax dollars) our educated work force (tax dollars again) and our banking & telecommunications industries are all the best in the world. And even if they do pack up, there is no way they can resist the American consumer market. They get tremendous benefits from being here, and they need to share the load.

There was certainly a time when "big labor" and the unions were out of control here. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The last thing we needed were capital gains cuts that did nothing but reward the wealthy for being wealthy.

.

[Raider Bill]

The whole "rich vs. poor" thing aside, the bad news is that the Bush tax cuts seem not to have achieved anywhere near the economic stimulus hoped for.

According to Economy.com, the stimulus created by the reduction in the tax rates themselves produced only 59 cents for every tax dollar forgone. Even worse was the return on the cuts in capital gains & dividends - just 9 cents for every tax dollar lost.

Unless economy.com has a time machine and can compare what has happened subsequent to the Bush tax cuts to what would have happened had Bush not cut taxes this is basicly opinion. Revenues to the treasury are up over last year. Even if only 59 cents of every dollar made it in to the economy the multiplier effect of this 59 cents being spent year after year will make up the difference.



One of the reasons why the return in this instance was so palltry was because capital gain cut operate mainly as a reward for capital already in place, rather than for new investments. (This should not have been all that unexpected. The Congressional Budget Office forsaw it in January, 2002.)

Aid to state governments, on the other hand, showed the best return: $1.24 for each dollar invested. Unfortunately, that accounted for only 3% of the package.

This doesn't make any sense. Taxes were withheld sent to washington, doled out by vast beuracracies, sent back to the states to be doled out again by vast beuracracies to the individual communities and showed a net return? I don't buy it personally.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Proof Bush LIED about his tax cuts

From the 2000 debates:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

BUSH: Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- he's trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan that he continues to criticize, I set one-third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check. But I also dropped the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. Because by far the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.


from Yahoo...

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_taxes_cbo_dc&e=3&ncid=

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Electoral Vote Predictor is now:

Kerry 327

Bush 211

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Old Dude]

Unless economy.com has a time machine and can compare what has happened subsequent to the Bush tax cuts to what would have happened had Bush not cut taxes this is basicly opinion. Revenues to the treasury are up over last year. Even if only 59 cents of every dollar made it in to the economy the multiplier effect of this 59 cents being spent year after year will make up the difference.


The whole point is that the "trickle down" was far less than predicted. (the so-called multiplier effect) And even if there is a hidden second wave on its way, what makes a bigger wave? 9 cents on the dollar? 59 cents on the dollar? or $1.24 on the dollar. No matter how you spin the numbers, the payoff was far better for the State Aid.

Meanwhile, the deficit grows and grows.



This doesn't make any sense. Taxes were withheld sent to washington, doled out by vast beuracracies, sent back to the states to be doled out again by vast beuracracies to the individual communities and showed a net return? I don't buy it personally.

So you basically reject any economic data that doesn't square with your personal economic theories? I don't really have an answer to that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/king_clown_bush.jpg

[watermock]

I am literally speechles.

Rarely does my nose itch. You have absolutely no clue. It's sad and disapointing that someone that had all the opportunity to educate himself wound up as a coward and indulges in cheap insults and misrepresentations.

Don't come back until you redeem yourself.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Bush Economic Record: What a Difference Three Years Makes

It's still the economy, stupid! Don't the Bushes ever learn? Bush inherited record surpluses, a balanced budget and steady job growth -- and he's blown it. The budget deficit is ballooning, job growth is non-existent and the stock market is faltering. Even Republicans are disgusted with Bush's handling of the economy. It's time to ask yourself the classic question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Jobs


Number of jobs lost in the private sector since Bush took office (1)

2,931,000

Average number of jobs created monthly under every President since Truman (2)

135,000

Average number of jobs created monthly under Bush (1)

-79,189

Number of people who have become unemployed since Bush took office (1)

2,447,000


Increase in the unemployment rate since Bush took office (1)

37 percent

Unemployment rate when Bush took office in January 2001 (1)

4.1 percent

Unemployment rate in March 2004 (1)

5.6 percent

Total number of unemployed Americans (1)

8,170,000

Number of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment (27 weeks or more) when Bush took office in January 2001 (1)

675,000

Number of Americans suffering long-term unemployment in March 2004 (1)

1,871,000

Increase in long-term unemployment under Bush (1)

177 percent

Percentage of consumers who believe jobs are plentiful (3)

11.8 percent

Number of workers who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 2002 (4)

760,000

Ballooning Deficits

Baseline surplus for the 10-year period for FY 2002-2011, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office when Bush took office in January 2001 (5)

$5.6 trillion

Budget deficit over next 10 years if Bush's 2005 budget proposal is enacted (6)

$5.2 trillion

Amount Bush's budget will raid from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 10 years (6)

$2.4 trillion

Budget deficit for 2004 as predicted by CBO, if Bush' s proposals are enacted (6)

$478 billion

Amount Bush's budget deficit for 2004 exceeds the highest budget deficit in history, which was posted in 1992 by Bush's father (6)

$188 billion

Bush's 2003 "Jobs and Growth" Plan

Ten-year cost of Bush's proposed tax cuts including additional costs for interest on the national debt (7)

$2.2 trillion

Percent of tax cut for the top 1 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan (8)

32.4 percent

Percent of tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan (8)

8.5 percent

Number of taxpayers (48 percent) who receive $100 or less under the Bush "growth" plan (9)

64 million

Average tax cut for the top 1 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan (9)

$30,127

Average tax cut for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan (9)

$289

Amount Bush tax proposal would cost states (10)

$4-5 billion

Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax affected in 1999 (11)

1 million

Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax will affect in 2010 because of Bush's tax cuts and his failure to address the AMT (11)

36 million

Lower Income, Rising Costs

Decrease in real median household income in 2002 (12)

1.1 percent

Increase in bankruptcies since Bush took office (13)

10 percent

Number of consumers who filed for bankruptcy in 2003 (13)

1,625,213

Drop in consumer confidence since Bush took office (14)

24 percent

Increase in out-of-pocket health care costs for workers since Bush took office (15)

50 percent

Increase in the cost of job-based health insurance in 2003; highest rate in 13 years (15)

14 percent

Increase in the cost of the 10 most-used prescription drugs in 2003 (16)

8.7 percent

Percent of employers who cited rising drug costs as a major cause of premium increases in 2003 (15)

61 percent

Increase in gas prices since 2000 (17)

11.5 percent

Number of states that increased tuition at their public colleges and universities in 2003. State budget cuts fueled by the Bush recession have forced colleges to hike tuitions and fees-threatening access to higher education for low-income students. (18)

49

Increase in tuition and fees at four-year public institutions since Bush took office, adjusted for inflation (19)

35 percent

Sources:

1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/04; 2 House Appropriations Committee Minority Staff, 3/04; 3 Conference Board, 3/04; 4 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/25/04; 5 Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011, 1/01; 6 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/1/04; CBO, An Analysis of Bush's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2005, 3/04; 7 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/30/04, 1/21/04; 8 CTJ Fact Sheet, 1/8/03; 9 CTJ Fact Sheet, 2/3/03; 10 CBPP Fact Sheet, 1/10/03; 11 Brookings Institute, Tax Policy Center, The AMT: Out of Control, 9/18/02; New York Times, 1/10/03; 12 U.S. Census Bureau, "Money Income in the United States: 2002"; 13 American Bankruptcy Institute, 3/04; 14 Conference Board, 3/04; 15 Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003; 16 AdvancePCS, 8/25/03; 17 CNN.com, 2/23/04; 18 Associated Press, 8/25/03; 19 College Board, College Costs 2003

[Raider Bill]

The whole point is that the "trickle down" was far less than predicted. (the so-called multiplier effect) And even if there is a hidden second wave on its way, what makes a bigger wave? 9 cents on the dollar? 59 cents on the dollar? or $1.24 on the dollar. No matter how you spin the numbers, the payoff was far better for the State Aid.

Meanwhile, the deficit grows and grows.




So you basically reject any economic data that doesn't square with your personal economic theories? I don't really have an answer to that.
http://www.economy.com/dismal/economycom_bushfiscalpolicy.pdf

I finally found the link to the source of the stats you posted. They are only talking about the short term. That 59 cents if it earns 3% (2 cents) and is taxed at 28% (around 17 cents) the other 41 cents is made up in three years not to mention the increase in GDP from allowing people to keep/invest/save/ or spend more of their own money.



After reading that report. That 1.24 figure assumes the money would be a one time measure for states to plug their budget holes and long term would have no impact.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oil and Economy Cloud Stocks' Outlook

Record high oil prices and never-ending war - let's vote the bastard out.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040815/bs_nm/column_stocks_outlook_dc

http://www.bartcop.com/le-diable.jpg

[watermock]

http://www.bartcop.com/le-diable.jpg

I think this latest Bartcop can basically explain LABF. What saddens me the most I guess that so many actually bought in.

I am incredibly hard to insult, even with personal attacks. You may think that there is some demonic motivation to the Bush Administration, just whatever. I'm a little shaken. It saddens me actually.

If Senator Kerry is elected, I will support him and expect him to protect the national security. This so blatently over the top. I can't keep from shaking my head and will let it go.

[Cito Pelon]

Old Dude, LABF, nice arguments, and I've presented a few good ones myself, but some people revel in being led.

Some people actually believe that power comes from enslaving themselves. But despite facts, reasoning, and common-sense - they believe that allying themselves with someone who's only plan is to use them for their own ends will actually profit them.

Despite all of American's sacrifices to give them power as an individual, they bow down under the lash. Subservience is their reward. They LIKE it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Old Dude, LABF, nice arguments, and I've presented a few good ones myself, but some people revel in being led.

Some people actually believe that power comes from enslaving themselves. But despite facts, reasoning, and common-sense - they believe that allying themselves with someone who's only plan is to use them for their own ends will actually profit them.

Despite all of American's sacrifices to give them power as an individual, they bow down under the lash. Subservience is their reward. They LIKE it.

Great observations, Cito.

The current crop of neo-nazis calling themselves republicans are like kids in a fÙcked up, dysfunctional family run by an abusive, drunken father.

There's no limit to the amount of abuse they will absorb from Daddy Smirk. They will cover his flank, make excuses for his inappropriate behavior, and defend him to the death. They derive a false sense of strength and security from identifying with and siding with the schoolyard bully.

Another part of the equation is "product loyalty."

That is, they've been raised in rethug households; they and their families have always voted rethug, etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/reasons-none.jpg

[watermock]

Old Dude, LABF, nice arguments, and I've presented a few good ones myself, but some people revel in being led.

Some people actually believe that power comes from enslaving themselves. But despite facts, reasoning, and common-sense - they believe that allying themselves with someone who's only plan is to use them for their own ends will actually profit them.

Despite all of American's sacrifices to give them power as an individual, they bow down under the lash. Subservience is their reward. They LIKE it.

I have never seen a set of assertions labled as fact in my life. First, I am not giving up my rights, those are taken away bit by bit anyway. So now I am enslaving myself for their own ends. yeah, terrorism has raised the situation to rediculous levels. What part of this are you missing? Security is very high.

This is just another circle-jerk without foundation. Hey Cito, you didn't even make an argument. Just asking there Cito, do you even have a Green Card?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/brock-noise.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/102-9718381-5704141?keyword=The+Republican+Noise&mode=blended&tag=bartcopcom&Go.x=8&Go.y=7

[watermock]

Great observations, Cito.

The current crop of neo-nazis calling themselves republicans are like kids in a fÙcked up, dysfunctional family run by an abusive, drunken father.[/quote]

Yeah. Guess what Dimwit, that sounds like an abusive, drunken father.

There's no limit to the amount of abuse they will absorb from Daddy Smirk. They will cover his flank, make excuses for his inappropriate behavior, and defend him to the death.[quote]

This is another circle jerk affirmation. So now we have been beaten like jews by the :Brown Bush: movement. More facist assertions.

[quote]They derive a false sense of strength and security from identifying with and siding with the schoolyard bully.

Assertion and Pathetic Insult. It's not specific whatsoever, just pathetic.

Another part of the equation is "product loyalty."

I don't even know where the idiot is going here. He will probably try to make a generaliztion.

That is, they've been raised in rethug households; they and their families have always voted rethug, etc.

OIC. We are once again too stupid to think for ouselves. I have been raised in a "rethug" household huh?

You make a hell of alot of assumptions that could be explained as simply psychotic.

You have been running around like a maniac for 5 months.

(excuse me, Beezlebub just got in from from Iraq

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes

"For all the talk about polarization, I find a startling agreement from everybody I talk to. Nobody seems to like George Bush very much. The Democrats I talk to hate him and
the Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about him."

--Robert Novak, "Does a GOP Implosion Await?"

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C 200408%5CCOM20040816c.html

http://www.bartcop.com/son4done.jpg

[watermock]

Here is the point Idiot Boy.

You have not given fact one that revenue hasn't increased.

All these problems happened under Dubyas's Watch.

It's literally incredible.

When we get the backlash of this idiot Kerry in January, it's going to be pretty hostile.

When did I declare the election? There are enough spics and Jews in Florida to carry the election is the breadbasket does't go red.

Unless Bush gets the mississippi he loses unless he carries Florida.

It terrifies me to have Kerry but if that is what is to be, so it is.

There was a reason they elected IKE.

[errand]

Old Dude, LABF, Cito and the rest of you leftists.....your crying how bad the economy is doing.

So tell us....how are YOU doing?

I just bought a mountain home on an acre of land ($188,000) and have added another vehicle and another full-time employee. Surely with all your brains and education your doing much better than little 'ol me. You'd have to be....

So tell us...how are you doing? Are you working? Do you make enough money to pay all your bills and save for your future/retirement? Are you earning more today than you were 4 years ago....has the quality of your life improved or regressed? Answer this truthfully....if you dare.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Old Dude, LABF, Cito and the rest of you leftists.....your crying how bad the economy is doing.

So tell us....how are YOU doing?

I just bought a mountain home on an acre of land ($188,000) and have added another vehicle and another full-time employee. Surely with all your brains and education your doing much better than little 'ol me. You'd have to be....

So tell us...how are you doing? Are you working? Do you make enough money to pay all your bills and save for your future/retirement? Are you earning more today than you were 4 years ago....has the quality of your life improved or regressed? Answer this truthfully....if you dare.

Thank you for doing a wonderful job of illustrating one of the essential, core differences between Democrats and republicans.

You see, for me, it's not just a question of how I'm doing.

It's a question of how those children in America who are going to bed hungry and the elderly people who can't afford prescription drugs and the millions of my fellow Americans who have lost their jobs because of Resident AWOL's tax cuts for the super-rich and the Iraq veterans who are not getting adequate medical care are doing (among the numerous other casualties of Smirk's actions and omissions as commander-in-thief.)

If your view of the world and your place in it is "I've got mine--f*ck everybody else," then I guess that's a matter for you and your conscience.

[RaiderH8r]

Thank you for doing a wonderful job of illustrating one of the essential, core differences between Democrats and republicans.

You see, for me, it's not just a question of how I'm doing.

It's a question of how those children in America who are going to bed hungry and the elderly people who can't afford prescription drugs and the millions of my fellow Americans who have lost their jobs because of Resident AWOL's tax cuts for the super-rich and the Iraq veterans who are not getting adequate medical care are doing (among the numerous other casualties of Smirk's actions and omissions as commander-in-thief.)

If your view of the world and your place in it is "I've got mine--f*ck everybody else," then I guess that's a matter for you and your conscience.
And Cue the violins and the heart strings. I'm sooo glad I have you intellectual elitists to look out for all of us low-life imbeciles whose existence serves only to clear your conscience of any tangible civil duty above and beyond paying your taxes and spewing your rhetoric. You want a clear conscience, volunteer for a community organization, build a house (Jimmy C. will hook you up) donate to your favorite charity, whatever. But don't assume that all people are obligated to think the same way as you because you find taxation a more convenient means of absolution for your guilt ridden mind. I make no qualms and make no apologies for any success I've had in life, I've earned it and I object to being villified because I've had some measure of success. I volunteer, I donate. Giving of your time is more valuable than money.

Furthermore, it looks like Operation: Starve the Babies and Elderly is going to be a resounding success as a platform at the RNC Convention.

Meanwhile, I wonder what it is going to be like for the elderly who can't get heating oil for their homes this winter because enviros won't allow ANY drilling, inland or offshore, for oil or natural gas. Ahhh, clean burning natural gas. Say it with me hippie radical.....Clean burning. MMMM sounds so good it must be fattening. But we couldn't possibly have a rational discussion of national energy policy without some hippies crying about cutting down forests as they trot around with thier....ahem....cardboard signs and SUV with the "Earth First" bumper sticker.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You want a clear conscience, volunteer for a community organization, build a house (Jimmy C. will hook you up) donate to your favorite charity, whatever.

Who in the f*ck are you yammering about, specifically? Since the original question was directed at Cito and myself, are you suggesting you have some personal info about either of us that would support these wild assumptions?

I volunteer, I donate. Giving of your time is more valuable than money.

Once again, do have some sort of crystal ball which tells you that Cito and I don't give our time to specific causes? I'd say you need to apply the Windex in a bad way.

Furthermore, it looks like Operation: Starve the Babies and Elderly is going to be a resounding success as a platform at the RNC Convention.

Nah. The RNC will more likely stick with its winningest themes: God,
greed, and guns.

Say it with me hippie radical.....Clean burning.

Say it with me, dumb redneck: "There's no evidence that the AWR contains enough oil and/or gas to beak even on drilling. Bush and GoFYourself pull more oil off the open market than the AWR could produce."

But we couldn't possibly have a rational discussion of national energy policy without some hippies crying about cutting down forests as they trot around with thier....ahem....cardboard signs and SUV with the "Earth First" bumper sticker.

Yep, last time I was in Colorado and that neck of the woods, all the SUV drivers I saw were hippies, alright. LOL Everybody knows what a radical leftist/hippie stronghold/blue state Colorado is.

[watermock]

No, we are talking about killing children to get a Silver Star.

[errand]

Thank you for doing a wonderful job of illustrating one of the essential, core differences between Democrats and republicans.

You see, for me, it's not just a question of how I'm doing.

It's a question of how those children in America who are going to bed hungry and the elderly people who can't afford prescription drugs and the millions of my fellow Americans who have lost their jobs because of Resident AWOL's tax cuts for the super-rich and the Iraq veterans who are not getting adequate medical care are doing (among the numerous other casualties of Smirk's actions and omissions as commander-in-thief.)

If your view of the world and your place in it is "I've got mine--f*ck everybody else," then I guess that's a matter for you and your conscience.

...so, in your warped mind, their failure to achieve or prepare for the future is MY fault?

You libs cry that children are starving...and cannot name one solitary child that died of malnutrition in the US that wasn't a case of neglect/abuse....and conveniently ignore that the latests research says that approximately 40% of our population in the US will be obese by 2015

You cry about how the elderly are struggling, and neglect to mention they had their entire lives to save for their retirement years. I'm not saying their stupid, but wouldn't they have to be, to have worked approximately 40-50 some odd years and not save anything?

You cry about people losing jobs as if all the unemployed are victims of corporate greed, when the truth be told, about a third of them are more than likely pieces of **** who deserved to be fired because they were non-productive, lazy, late for work or showed up high or drunk

Tell you what, if your so concerned about how the rest of the nation is doing and really want to help your fellow man....tell your liberal friends to stop the overtaxation and tell them to quit putting regulatory obstacles in our way and begin to measure your success by how many people AREN'T dependent on the government.

[errand]

...oh and as a public service announcement

Hey everyone, there will come a day when you will not be able to work anymore, so save some freaking money for your retirement, unless you too want to become a huge burden on the rest of us who had the foresight to prepare for ours

....oh, and the time will come when you will die too....so buy some life insurance so your family won't become burden to those of us again who had the foresight to be prepared for our inevitable deaths.

[Rohirrim]

It's Clinton's fault.