You hate Bush. You talk about NOTHING but how horrible Bush is. I've never seen you write a single article or comment that didn't bash Bush.

I don't like Bush... I didn't vote for Bush and I generally don't support his policies... but you're so rabid in your hatred you just spout the same tired line over and over... and if all else fails, if you're proven wrong you abandon your current argument and just jump straight to the defecit issue.

You've never presented a fact. You've only presented your own opinions and conjecture on how things are going. You fail utterly to tie anything back to the President specifically and act as if none of these problems existed before Bush and that he should fix them all over night. If he spends money, he's growing the defecit. If he cuts funding he's ignoring crisis X. When you are countered with facts, you start going off about how everyone here are just blind Bush followers.

You're one step off of Marvin Cooley.

Did Bush cut funding, or reduce the rate in the increase of funding, after several years of rampant increases in the rate of funding increases.

It seems that democrats like to say "funding slashed!" when what they really mean is "funding increase rate reduced from 9% to 8%, so the program will still get more money this next year than it did last year, but only 8% more money, rather than the 9% more money that has been traditional for several years now."

Also, a new threat doesn't necessarily require more money, if money has already been spent that adequately prepares for the new threat.

In some cases Bush has CUT funding BELOW the previous year. In some cases he has funded an increase less then costs are increasing. In other cases when demand for a service is increasing because we have more people he is not providing level funding given the increased number of people to be served. THESE ARE ALL CUTS as they provide LESS support then in the previous year.

The statement that I did not present facts:

Jobs created in 2004 and 2005 pay on the average 21% less then the jobs lost from 2001-2003 Fact - Source Study completed for the U.S Conference of Mayors.

The National debt in 2001 was $5.7 Trillion. The debt in Jan 2006 is $8.3Trillion Fact - source the U S Dept of the Treasury.

The Annual budget in 2000 had a $15 Billion surplus, The Annual Deficit this year is running $423 Billion after subtracting the Social Security and Medicare Surplus. Fact - Source OMB.

These are just 3 FACTS that demonstrate what Bush has done. You will be able to read many more with the sources in my new book, George W. Bush Robin Hood for the Rich.

In some cases Bush has CUT funding BELOW the previous year. In some cases he has funded an increase less then costs are increasing. In other cases when demand for a service is increasing because we have more people he is not providing level funding given the increased number of people to be served. THESE ARE ALL CUTS as they provide LESS support then in the previous year. The statement that I did not present facts: Jobs created in 2004 and 2005 pay on the average 21% less then the jobs lost from 2001-2003 Fact - Source Study completed for the U.S Conference of Mayors. The National debt in 2001 was $5.7 Trillion. The debt in Jan 2006 is $8.3Trillion Fact - source the U S Dept of the Treasury. The Annual budget in 2000 had a $15 Billion surplus, The Annual Deficit this year is running $423 Billion after subtracting the Social Security and Medicare Surplus. Fact - Source OMB. These are just 3 FACTS that demonstrate what Bush has done. You will be able to read many more with the sources in my new book, George W. Bush Robin Hood for the Rich.

Like Zoomba said..."There is NO pleasing you!". If he reduces/cuts funding he's ignoring a problem. If he lets an increase in funding go through, he's increasing the deficit. You can NOT have it both ways! I swear you just look for ways to slam Bush

" In some cases Bush has CUT funding BELOW the previous year."

Kudos to him for it. He should keep cutting until the budget is balanced. Granted, only a stupid or dishonest person would blame Bush for a budget that the Congress signs off on.

drmiler

Complex issues can not be solved by simple solutions. There are many areas that will require MORE funding. Other areas the funding levels may be adequate but the way the money is used is the issue. In still others areas we do not need to spend the money like the bridge to an island where 50 people live in Alaska for $230 Million which is pure PORK. The first step is to determine what needs to be spent, how best to spend it to achieve the desired results and then FULLY fund it not just charge it to the National Debt. The problem the Bush supports have is that have spent like drunken sailors to BUY VOTES and CUT TAXES to BUY VOTES. In that process they have created the Annual Budget Deficit that is so large it can only be resolved by major spending cuts and sizeable tax increases.

drmiler Complex issues can not be solved by simple solutions. There are many areas that will require MORE funding. Other areas the funding levels may be adequate but the way the money is used is the issue. In still others areas we do not need to spend the money like the bridge to an island where 50 people live in Alaska for $230 Million which is pure PORK. The first step is to determine what needs to be spent, how best to spend it to achieve the desired results and then FULLY fund it not just charge it to the National Debt. The problem the Bush supports have is that have spent like drunken sailors to BUY VOTES and CUT TAXES to BUY VOTES. In that process they have created the Annual Budget Deficit that is so large it can only be resolved by major spending cuts and sizeable tax increases.

Like I said you can't have it both ways! You complain at "any" increase and you complain at "any" decrease. If you want him to "increase" funding on certain items then quit your complaining about the deficit. If you want him to bring spending back under control and shrink the deficit, then quit complaining when he makes cuts. Would you like me to start posting examples that show this trend of yours? You have a "lot" of them out there. And just an fyi......that bridge in Alaska? That WAS NOT GW's idea now was it?

The proposed bridge would be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and high enough for cruise ships to pass underneath. It's being paid for in part by $223 million worth of designated funds, so-called earmarks, included in the $286.4 billion federal highway and mass transit bill getting wrapped up by Congress last week. Critics call it the Bridge to Nowhere, and cite it as a prime example of congressional pork. "It is an abomination," says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a fiscal watchdog group. But Alaska Rep. Don Young, chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, earmarked the project as "high priority." He's not alone. Members of Congress stuffed the final legislation with more than 6,300 earmarks worth about $23 billion. "It's sort of like building highways by ransom," says Stephen Slivinski, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. "They divide the spoils in exchange for a vote on the bill."

drmiler

I suggest you READ before you flap your gums.

The first step is to determine what needs to be spent, how best to spend it to achieve the desired results and then FULLY fund it not just charge it to the National Debt

I have said the problem lies BOTH with Bush and Congress. Congress could STOP the Earmarks or Bush could VETO bills that contain too many. Neither branch is acting responsibly. Before you tell me the Democrats are part of this process, which they are, The GOP CONTROLS Congress and the White House and can STOP this even if the Democrats insist in continuing the PORK.

Col, I have defended or agreed with you before, but you do tend to let your stupidity take over too often.

For starters the Alaska bridge is not for the "50 people" that live in Alaska, everyone from Asia, to Europe, to Canada, the USA, South and Central American will benefit from this bridge. So next time try to act more mature and leave the childish responses to our children.

About you not hating Bush is the biggest bull you have ever posted on this site since you showed up. The fact that you next book has Bushs name in it says it all. If you were really concerned about the US and how we can make things better you would focus your book on how to better it not how Bush has destroyed it. But in a way you are not stupid, since in the end the point of the book is to make money not change anyones mind, you focus on what seems to be the best customer is today, those who dislike, hate or are having second thoughts about Bush. Heck if I wanted to make money by writing a book Bush bashing would definitely be a best seller. No one wants to read about Gov't issues, not unless you are bashing someone about it and at this point Bush is your money maker.

Another thing you gotta get thru your think skull is that in order to have better health care, which is what you want so bad, we need to spend money on it. Now here's an analysis for you. Why do you want better health care in the US? Because people can't afford it by themselves. Why? Because it is too expensive. So what's your solution? Get the Gov't to give you health care or at the least help you out a little. And how will the Gov't get this health care for you? By paying for it. The funny thing is that medical benefits are just as expensive when paid by the Gov't as it is when paid by yourself. In other words the Doctor will still get paid good no matter who is paying. So that means that it will cost alot of money to give health benefits to Americans and paying for it will make the national debt go higher, which you don't want. So how do you pay for health care without raising the national debt? TAXES!!! Yes taxes. That means that while I'm busting myself on an 8 hour job and sometimes a second job, I will have to pay up the ying yang taxes just so someone else can get health care for free. And at times your own health care from your job is deducted from your paycheck as well. And what about those who don't have a health care plan from their jobs but can't get one from the Gov't because they earn too much? If I have to pay just so you can geo to the doctor for free and get SS just to by crap that I say F_CK YOU (pardon my french), I would gladly put my money in my own account so that I can use my own money for my own SS in the future.

Ignoring the issues you say, you can't even get your own issues straight. Somehow you believe that we should have a magical Gov't where we can have our cake and eat it too. Well you can take your magical Gov't and your book and shove it where the sun don't shine. I would read you books if I could get an illegal PDF copy of 1. I would put it on a CD and burn the CD. I would format my hard drive 200 times just to make sure there is little or no trace of it on my hard drive. Better yet I would burn it and get a new one.

I have never been this upset with you before but I have jad it up to hear with your crap and you will only get poison from me from now on no matter how right you might be someday.

When I talk about higher taxes I am NOT talking about impacting the average worker but helping to balance the budget with tax increases on those that CAN afford a little more to STOP the debt. If you and others refuse to see the damage the current policies are doing, it will not be long before even you will not be able to ignore the damage we are doing to the future. Since my new book is predicated on many of the foremost experts and Federal Government agencies, I believe the information is useful to anyone interested in passing a better future to the next generation of Americans!

This is the preface:



George W. Bush Robin Hood for the Rich

Preface


This book examines the policy changes that have taken place since George W. Bush became President of the United States. Although no amount of introspection can definitively predict the long-term impact of these policy changes, they can be examined on the basis of past events, social and economic theory and by the results and the reactions to date at home and abroad.

Regardless of how you view the way George Bush became President of the United States; no one can claim the American voters gave him a mandate for change. In November 2000 our nation was equally divided and the political atmosphere was very divisive. By 2004, in spite of President Bush’s pledge to restore a more positive atmosphere to our political process, we are even more polarized and he won reelection by about 2% of the vote. It is hard to recall a time since the Civil War when the divisions in our country were more intense. The laws that have been passed since January 2001 have moved us to the right and have been designed to benefit the wealthy of America at the expense of both the middle class and the poor. The spread between the haves and the have-nots has widened and we have turned to huge increases in debt to pay for the rapidly expanding Federal budget.

The economic impact of the Bush tax cuts is clear. The poor have received no benefit since they do not pay Federal Income taxes due to their income level. In addition, the static wage rates of the low paying jobs combined with rising costs have made the plight of the poor worse over the past five years. Middle income tax payers only received any real benefit if they had children under18 or from the elimination of the marriage penalty if both adults were employed. The alternate minimum tax provisions have actually harmed many middle income tax payers. The median benefit from the Bush tax cuts for middle income Americans has been estimated at $470 per year or less then $1.25 per day. When President Bush proposed his tax cuts Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two wealthiest people on earth, wrote to Mr. Bush and advised him not to cut taxes for the wealthy. They explained to the president the wealthy did not need a tax cuts and that the country had far more pressing needs for that money. Bush ignored their advice. The Chairmen of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury in 2001 advised the president to tie his tax cuts to the available surplus and NOT to return to annual budget deficits. The president ignored them.






When we view consumer debt and personal savings rates the results are very clear - we are heading for trouble. The average family credit card balance has jumped from $3,300 in the mid 1990’s to over $8,600 in 2005. The personal savings rate is the lowest since 1933 and in December 2005 it was negative. Americans took money out of the past savings to make purchases in December 2005. Personal bankruptcies are at an all time high. The Federal deficit, after subtracting the Social Security and Medicare surpluses of about $175 Billion, is over $400 billion in 2006. The national debt has jumped from $5.7 Trillion in January 2001 to $8.3 Trillion in January 2006. OMB has estimated the National Debt at the end of the Bush term will be about $10 Trillion and the annual interest will have jumped from $230 Billion in 2001 to $500 Billion by 2010.

In December 2005, David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States said, “The current fiscal policy is unsustainable.” He went on to say, GAO simulations indicate we could be facing “rising taxes 2.5 times today’s level or spending cuts of 60%.” He said that the fiscal burden that our policies have placed on Americans amounts to $350,000 for every full-time worker.


At the same time, President Bush in his 2007 budget is proposing that his tax cuts be made permanent and the Brookings Institute released a study that shows making the tax cuts permanent will add another $2 Trillion to the national debt by 2014. Both parties selectively use statistics to justify their positions. This book will lift the fog that has been used to mask the real conditions of the United States.

On October 20, 2004 George W. Bush gave us a very clear look through the window of his soul. Mr. Bush addressing an affluent audience said, some call you the haves and the have-mores, I call you my Base.

George W. Bush was not seeking the highest office in our land to be president of all the people, not even the majority, just his base –the wealthy. The policies he has implemented with the cooperation of the GOP in Congress have benefited his rich base at the expense of the middle income and poor of our country.

Gene, you're priceless. Proving his point for him by trying to hawk your book. Here, of all places.

I have finally reached my limit with him. He bores me with his stupidity. He doesn't get that I would find it unfair to tax those who earn more than I do simply because they have more. That would be like me being envious that they have more and that's not fair so I screw them by making them pay more just so everyone else is happy. Even worse since I do not plan on staying at the lower end of the poor food chain, I plan on working my way up and, who knows, maybe one day I will be one of those in the upper class that he wants to tax so much. It would bug me even more to have to pay more just so he can get his SS and Medicare or Medicaid while I bust my balls to make MY money.