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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or was this just another opinion of yours?

Island Dog

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

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

Gene, the country was issued a Mulligan in 2004 - the majority concluded 2000 was not a "mistake."

And, as you know perfectly well, Bush was making a joke about people like you when he made that remark.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Gene, thank you for correcting my mistake. I was wrong to accuse you of not wanting a smaller budget. I am sorry. I apologize.

---

It's very easy to talk about taxing the rich when you say "them them them" all the time. Would you be preaching the same sermon if it was "me me me" instead?

Does your theory of progressive taxation change when it's applied to your own wealth?

Are you convinced that your current tax rate is the maximum you can afford to pay, or would you be in favor of a tax increase in your own bracket?

Stutefish

Before I retired I had a the low six figuar income and paid more in taxes than many other with a lower income. I had no problem with paying more when my income was higher. My point is that the wealthy received large cuts predicated on a surplus Bush told us existed. That was the justification for the tax cuts. If you play back his statements in 2001-2002 that was the claim. He said the economy would produce $5.7 Trillion surplus in the following 10 years. When it became clear there was NO SURPLUS, the tax cuts should have been reversed. We are borrowing money to give tax cuts to people that do not need the added money. Will they take it? - Sure Do they need it? Hell NO. To go further into debt to continue the tax cuts is NUTS! We need to take the tax rates back to the rates in effect before we were told we had this surplus that only existed in the small mind of Bush! In addition, we now are facing large new expendatures that requires even more new revenue. The cost of the recovery will be very great. To add to the cost by borrowing the money makes no sense! At some point, the people buying our debt may decide that we have too much debt. At that point our country has a major problen! 40% of our public debt is held by foreign investors. This has NOTHING to do with a dislike for the wealthy. It has everything to do for what is best, long term, for this country. We must start paying for our level of spending. We should cut the pork ( 232 Million to build a bridge where 50 people live in Alaska. WHY? Becaure o f the Republican head of the Tarnsprtation committee. Did we have Pork when the Democrats were in control - YES. However, the Republicans have outdone the Democrats when it comes to Pork!

Stutefish Before I retired I had a the low six figuar income and paid more in taxes than many other with a lower income. I had no problem with paying more when my income was higher. My point is that the wealthy received large cuts predicated on a surplus Bush told us existed. That was the justification for the tax cuts. If you play back his statements in 2001-2002 that was the claim. He said the economy would produce $5.7 Trillion surplus in the following 10 years. When it became clear there was NO SURPLUS, the tax cuts should have been reversed. We are borrowing money to give tax cuts to people that do not need the added money. Will they take it? - Sure Do they need it? Hell NO. To go further into debt to continue the tax cuts is NUTS! We need to take the tax rates back to the rates in effect before we were told we had this surplus that only existed in the small mind of Bush! In addition, we now are facing large new expendatures that requires even more new revenue. The cost of the recovery will be very great. To add to the cost by borrowing the money makes no sense! At some point, the people buying our debt may decide that we have too much debt. At that point our country has a major problen! 40% of our public debt is held by foreign investors. This has NOTHING to do with a dislike for the wealthy. It has everything to do for what is best, long term, for this country. We must start paying for our level of spending. We should cut the pork ( 232 Million to build a bridge where 50 people live in Alaska. WHY? Becaure o f the Republican head of the Tarnsprtation committee. Did we have Pork when the Democrats were in control - YES. However, the Republicans have outdone the Democrats when it comes to Pork!

Jeez col....I really wish you'd get over all this. For ALL your complaining and whining just what do you expect to change? You and dabe "both" need to face the fact that Bush ain't leaving office, you are not going to able to impeach him or try him for some crime (that only you see.). All these have been tried and "FAILED"! So he's in office till 08. Come hell or high water. And whether or not you'll admit it, he's not about to change his policies to suit you. So ease up will ya?

just a simple question gene, ok?

what is better 21% of 11 million or 45% of 3.2 million? which brings in greater revenue in taxes?

What is the point?

You can not make a case that a person like Cheney is paying too much tax at a 21% tax rate. He got a $300,000 tax cut predicated on a surplus that NEVER existed. Since there was nothing to give back, the tax rates should return to the pre 2001 rates! You never answer why should we have the tax cuts that were to return something that did not exist. We are borrowing money to give the wealthy tax cuts! We will then pass that debt to our children. What a GREAT plan. We are luckey our parents did not do that to us!

Col, everyone who pay taxes got a cut, not just the "evil rich".

We are luckey our parents did not do that to us!

- Col. Tukhachevsky, I mean, Abel

We sure are. All this generation's parents did was leave us the costs stemming from the Great Society. They, in turn, were given the costs of New Deal legislation that we are still paying to this day.

Don't get me wrong, Col., Bush still sucks a big one. You, however, are no moderate Rupublican. You're a fairly devout Marxist-Leninist. You're as much the enemy of the American people as Bush is. He's a well-meaning idiot. You're treacherous.

Ah. I finally figured out what you're doing, Gene. You're not actually trying to justify progressive taxation.

You're just trying to explain why now was a bad time to repeal unjustifiable taxes.

The flaw in your argument is that there's never really a "good time" to cut revenues. No economy ever seems strong enough or stable enough for a revenue cut to seem like a good idea.

And part of the reason the American economy isn't as robust as it could or should be is because people like you keep promoting "solutions" like socialism that don't really work and only make the situation worse.

At least we agree there should be less pork in the budget.

At least we agree there should be less pork in the budget.

Christ even "I'll" agree with that!