How is the economy good for some and not others--simple. First if your income does not go up equal to your expenses, you are worse off. If you lose your job and can not find one or take a new one at a lower salary, you are worse off. If you have no increase in wages like many of the lower income Americans and you expenses go up like gasloine, gas or oil to heat your house, prescription drugs and medical costs, you are worse off. If you get a big tax cut like the wealthy which is greater than the cost increases of the things you buy, you are better off.

The facts are that almost ALL the lower income Americans are worse off and many of the middle income are worse off under Bush and his policies. Some middle income and ALL the wealthy are better off under the Bush policies. The 5 million that have entered the work force with no jobs are in an impossible position.

The one bright spot during the past 4 years has been lower interest rates which have nothing to do with the Bush policies. Mortgage refinancing and low mortgage rates have been the real driver for the economy. Interest rates are beginning to go up and when they do the small party for the average family will end. That is reality not living in the dream world of Bush. Kerry is right, Bush lives in Fanticy land.

Reply #16 By: COL Gene - 10/28/2004 4:21:38 PM How is the economy good for some and not others--simple. First if your income does not go up equal to your expenses, you are worse off. If you lose your job and can not find one or take a new one at a lower salary, you are worse off. If you have no increase in wages like many of the lower income Americans and you expenses go up like gasloine, gas or oil to heat your house, prescription drugs and medical costs, you are worse off. If you get a big tax cut like the wealthy which is greater than the cost increases of the things you buy, you are better off. The facts are that almost ALL the lower income Americans are worse off and many of the middle income are worse off under Bush and his policies. Some middle income and ALL the wealthy are better off under the Bush policies. The 5 million that have entered the work force with no jobs are in an impossible position. The one bright spot during the past 4 years has been lower interest rates which have nothing to do with the Bush policies. Mortgage refinancing and low mortgage rates have been the real driver for the economy. Interest rates are beginning to go up and when they do the small party for the average family will end. That is reality not living in the dream world of Bush. Kerry is right, Bush lives in Fanticy land.

In case you didn't look at it sources of *personal income are UP not down. The lower interest rates are directly tied to Bush's policies. According to you and those better than us the rates are *tied* to the economy. Which according to you is poor and a direct refecection of Bush's policies. Lets see you explain that one away. Bush *may* live in Fantasy land (but I doubt it). But Kerry is an *idiot*!

Sorry. The President has nothing to do with interest rates. That is the Fed Chairman. It was also the Fed Chairman and The former Sec of the Treasury, O'Neil that warned Bush that his tax cuts could lead to another round of deficits. They both wanted the tax cuts tied to the ability to pay for them with the surplus. Bush refused and we have the largest deficits in our history! You do not seem to understand the difference betweeen Fiscal and Tax policy and monetary policy. The Fed tries to stave off economic downturn by lowering interest rates. That has nothing to do with the Fiscal policy controlled by the President who has control of spending and tax policy( if congress goes along as they did with Bush)

You know as someone who was once an *officer* in our great country's military. You are awful quick to jump on the bandwagon of someone who has a well documented and factual history of treason.
I personaly would have more respect for you if you were backing Nader or anyone else if you don't like President Bush.

Lt. Kerry by his own words and actions violated the UCMJ and the US Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and US Code 18 U. S. C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. (Hanoi Jane?) The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-president, having previously taken an oath . to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Reply #18 By: COL Gene - 10/28/2004 5:18:50 PM Sorry. The President has nothing to do with interest rates.

The interest rate is *TIED* to the economy right or wrong?

When you look at the average family adjusted for inflation, the poor and middle income families are NOT BETTER OFF than in 2001.

Lets see Personnel income is up 5% last year.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/pi0804_fax.pdf

Inflation was at 2.27%

It does not take a rocket scientic to know that after inflation people are still making more money.

That's My Two Cents

The issue is more to split the power than if Kerry is the very best person. Bush and the conservatives will bankrupt this country and we must get a balance. The only that can happen, given the two parites, is to split the power. Voting for Nader insures the Republican conservatives continue to keep the power and govern from the right where the majority do not want to be.

As to the service in the military, Bush got his commission not by earning it but because of his fathers friends. After he got his commisssion he did not obey the regulations and orders he swore to uphold. That is not waht I want as the Commander-in-Chief. His refusal to properly staff the Iraq War has resulted in many more American deaths than needed. Again not my idea of a Commander-in-Chief. Bush has not done the Job. Why would anyone rehire someone that failed during the first four years?

As a former military commander the objective is to accomplish the mission. To get the proper balance in our government we need a split between the Right and the Left. That is why Kerry must win on November 2, 2004! You do not see the BIG PICTURE and get tied up is the side issues.

Reply #22 By: COL Gene - 10/28/2004 8:48:40 PM The issue is more to split the power than if Kerry is the very best person. Bush and the conservatives will bankrupt this country and we must get a balance. The only that can happen, given the two parites, is to split the power. Voting for Nader insures the Republican conservatives continue to keep the power and govern from the right where the majority do not want to be. As to the service in the military, Bush got his commission not by earning it but because of his fathers friends. After he got his commisssion he did not obey the regulations and orders he swore to uphold. That is not waht I want as the Commander-in-Chief. His refusal to properly staff the Iraq War has resulted in many more American deaths than needed. Again not my idea of a Commander-in-Chief. Bush has not done the Job. Why would anyone rehire someone that failed during the first four years? As a former military commander the objective is to accomplish the mission. To get the proper balance in our government we need a split between the Right and the Left. That is why Kerry must win on November 2, 2004! You do not see the BIG PICTURE and get tied up is the side issues.

I refer you back to reply #19.

The overall personal income exceeding inflation is fine but the impacted because of the very large increase in income of the wealthy distort the inpact on the middle income. When you look at the impact on the poor and middle income individuals, the picture is very different. Average weekly wages is down and things such as energy costs are up sharply. My point that we need policies that are more centrest is valid. That is where the vast majority of Americans want to be and that is not where the Bush policies have taken us( or will take us if he is re-elected). To move toward the center, we need a split in the power. The GOP will prevent Kerry from starting new spending programs ( i.e. health plan) and Kerry will stop the raid on the treasury we can not afford by not allowing the GOP to make the tax cuts on the wealthy perminent.

When Bush tells us electing kerry will increase spending and taxes he is not telling the truth!. Kerry can not enact ANY laws that increase expendatures or taxes WITHOUT Congrerss first passing a law! Even if kerry can not roll back the tex cuts on the wealthy, beacuse the GOP blocks the action in congress, at least the tax cuts on the wealthy will not become fixed. In 2011, the tax rates all return to the pre Bush levels . With a split in the power, both sides will be forced to compermise or get NOTHING. THAT IS HOW WE MOVE TO THE CENTER WHERE MOST AMERICANS WANT TO BE! That is why I, as a moderate Republican, have voted for Kerry!

Here is another Christmas present for Kerry. AP has video taken by KSTP in St Paul on 18 April 2003 that shows the explosives in the Al-qaqaa munitions base. The the claim of Bush and Cheney that the explosives were removed prior to our going into Iraq is not true. The explosives were there AFTER we took over and they are now missing? I wonder how many Americans were killed or injured by the missing explosives? GOOD WORK, Mr. President! The New York Times yeaterday has its front page story about how we and the Iraq forces have all but lost control of RAMADT, a city of over 400,000. The people have turned aginst the U.S. and the Iraq governmnet has almost no control. The situation according to the New York Times story says it is slipping into "Chaos" Why? Because Bush did not listen to his military leaders and provide a level of military forces needed to establish control in Iraq. The Army Chief of Staff and Gen Franks both told Bush it would take 300,000-400,000. Our Amb. L. Paul Bremer pleaded with Bush for more troops to restore order. Bush DID NOTHING! Our military is doing a great job but their Commander-in-Chief has failed to give them the tools needed to do the job they have been given! Finally, the last Bush Ad is a FRAUD! They doctered pictures of troops that Bush was pictured as appearing before. What a fitting last Bush AD to a campaiign full of lies!