Col, do you support a welfare state?

I support programs that help people that NEED help. I do not agree to support people that can help themselves. Some even though they work have limited abilities to earn a living wage. I support limited help to enable those people to live so long as they try to add to the society.

What I have a problem with is paying out billions to Iraq, Israel, Egypt and many other countries while we watch our people in the Gulf area with little or no help. We talk about loans to the people in LA and we GIVE billions to other countries. WHY?

I support Social Security because I know the majority will not put money away during their working years and upon retirement we all have a problem. I am willing to look at other solutions for retirement and health care for future generations so long as we keep our committments to those that must have these programs because their working years are over. The Bush plan to set aside part of the SS into individual accounts just made the problem of funding the people too old for that plan more insolvent. I do NOT agree to go into more debt to pay for SS. We must begin repaying the $8 Trillion we now owe. Bush has NO PLAN THAT WILL DO THAT!

"I have said from the start that the policies that are not working are the result of BOTH Bush and those that think like him in Congress. "

Sorry, but looking over your blog that just doesn't ring true. You look more like someone playing blocker for the Senate, if you ask me. If not, why would you spend your time drumming up dissent against someone who isn't going to run for office again?

If you consider them both in the wrong, wouldn't your time be better spent addressing the Congressmen who sit there year after year after year and who have no sign of ever leaving? Do you prefer complaining that doesn't accomplish anything over complaining that does?

I have stated the way in which the policies Bush and the conservatives have put into placed have not help our country. That is not complaning it is documenting the problems. You never show where the results of the Bush policies I state are incorrect.

"Documenting problems" with no end other than stating them publicly is complaining, Col.

What do you call it when someone whines about things they can't influence incessantly, and yet they ignore any OTHER venue wherein their activism might actually do some good? You aren't trying to do anything but spread your irrational hatred for Bush. If you wanted to do anything else you'd target areas that would allow your ideas to bear fruit.

You never really show any results anyway, other than skewed polls and spurious, subjectively interpreted statistics. The reason most of your junk is so esoteric and skewed is because it has to be to make Bush the culprit. If you look at it plainly, it will be other people's fault.

So, the issue here isn't "the country" that you constantly whine about, or the economy, or Bush's base. The issue is Bush. That is what you write about, that seems to be your only target, and this whole betterment of society shtick is patently fake.

Baskerstreet

Lets take just two issues I have talked about. The deficit A direct result of the fiscal policy of Bush. His tax policy and the spending policy that he has followed took us from a balanced budget in 2000 to over a $550 Billion dollar deficit in 2004-05.

Ther Iraq war 100% Bush . He talked about removing Saddam at his first cabinet meeting long before 9/11.

Today the Presidents counselor said on CNN that yes the intelligence was wrong but we were correct to invade Iraq. If Saddam had no WMD how was he a danger as we were told which was the reason Bush and Cheney said he had to be removed. How was he a danger to the United States?

"The deficit A direct result of the fiscal policy of Bush. His tax policy and the spending policy that he has followed took us from a balanced budget in 2000 to over a $550 Billion dollar deficit in 2004-05.

You say "tax policies", I say "spending policies" in terms of Congress. Who is the bigger ass, the man who doesn't make enough, or his wife that spends all his money foolishly and complains about not having enough? Do you make things better by getting a second job?

"Ther Iraq war 100% Bush . He talked about removing Saddam at his first cabinet meeting long before 9/11."

Again, subjective. Many consider the war in Iraq a good undertaking, though many differ on the tactics involved. We elect people, and then have to trust their leadership. If you don't like who you ended up with, you'd be better advised to start thinking about the next election, instead of trying to play the last one out over and over as if you could possibly effect the outcome.

"Today the Presidents counselor said on CNN that yes the intelligence was wrong but we were correct to invade Iraq. If Saddam had no WMD how was he a danger as we were told which was the reason Bush and Cheney said he had to be removed. How was he a danger to the United States?"

Wow, that's a question you've only asked about a million times, and have been answered just as often. Why should I endeavor to answer it again? You're a sad little man if you think you can just keep asking the same stupid questions over and over in hopes that people will finally get tired of answering and you'll appear right by default.

Ther Iraq war 100% Bush . He talked about removing Saddam at his first cabinet meeting long before 9/11.

Wrong col. Congress authorized Bush to go to war. The democratic Senators claimed Iraq was a threat and that Saddam had WMD's.

The Iraq war 100% Bush . He talked about removing Saddam at his first cabinet meeting long before 9/11.

Oh so it's okay for Clinton to say this but not Bush? Sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

Bakerstreet

Here is the big difference between us. I acknowledge the deficit is the result of BOTH spending and the tax cuts. You only look at PART of the cause. In no way can the deficit be resolved with spending cuts alone. The difference is too large and many of the spending increases are the result of things like our security and the fact that our popilation is getting older.

Islanddog

Congress authorized Bush to go to war because they believed Saddam was a threat to our security. That was a SNOW JOB. It was not true even if Saddam had WMD,( which he did not and many tried to tell Bush that was the case) he would never have used WMD aginst the US for two reasons. First if he used it he would have been destroyed. Second, he did not have the MEANS to attack the US. If he had given any WMD he had to terrorists that was traced back to him, he would also have been destroyed. There has NEVER been an attack aginst the US by ANY ROGUE Dictatorship. The entire case that Saddam was a threat to the United States was a LIE. Iraq did not become a part of the war on terrorism until AFTER we attacked them. Now the terrorists operate dispite the occupation by our military .

drmiler Clinton did not ATTACK Iraq!

How are thee wrong... let me count the ways (and notice a few where you may be right also). ;~D

For example how can anyone look at going from a balanced budget to $550 billion in the red this year a good outcome.

~ Prs. Clinton NEVER had a balanced budget. There were billions of expenditures that here merely deemed "off the budget". He also "balanced" the budget by cutting the size of the active duty military, and reassigning more combat responsibilities to the State National Guards and Reserves... Aren't we glad to see the benefits of that move now?

Yes, much more has been spent during the Bush administration than the Clinton administration, but the GNP has consistantly grown also. Besides, Clinton didn't accomplish crap while he was in office, so if you want to compare "bang for the buck" I'd guess that Bush has Clinton hands down.

How can our energy policy be considered good for our country.

~I'll go along with you on this one... to a point. Prs. Bush has done little to remove the anti growth stupidity placed on natural gas, domestic oil and geo-thermal energy.

On the other hand, he has put MORE money than any other president (including Prs. Clinton and his socialist "greenie" VP Al Gore (who couldn't even eke out more than $250 a year to his "green causes").

So, while I'll agree that he hasn't done as much as he could, he has done more than most. Also, this would be a great issue for some of those people in Congress to take up... unless you are still under the halucination that Congress does nothing but sit around waiting for orders from the White House.

How can anyone look at Iraq and believe that was a good choice.

Sorry, but with the high voter turnouts and the recent constitutional vote, you only make yourself sound like a total and complete idiot when you ask this. No, it hasn't gone perfectly, there has been much lost on both sides. It's pathetic and downright inhuman of you to resent the freedoms you enjoy for the people of Iraq. I spit on you for this.

How can anyone look at the arrest of the White House procurement officer, Libby: Any convictions? Or are you just throwing justice out the window?

The outing of Mrs Wilson: If you know who "outed" her (or if a crime was commited here), maybe you should contact Patrick Fitzgerald, apparently you have information he isn't privy to.

The scandle of GOP leader of the Senate, The DeLay matter: Again, no convictions... and a prosecutor who can't even make up his mind on a crime with which to charge him.

The Myers nomination: Ok, I'll give you that one.

The response to the storms: Apparently, now that the lies and rumor mongering of the press and local officials have been aired out, the only thing the Federal Government did wrong was failing to adapt to local incompetence and attempts to get the Federal Government to do their job for them. Yes, Prs. Bush did take responsibility for the Federal part of the breakdown, but the Mayor Nagin and Gov Blanco should be thrown out on their butts for their total failure to follow their own Emergency Protocols. Even now they are more interested in using emergency funds to build casinoes and hotels than rebuilding infrastructure. The only problems they know how to solve are those that involve being bought off, or buying someone else off.

The lack of border control: No argument from me, in fact, to me if he doesn't take some active role in this soon, Illegal Immigration will be to him what terrorism became to the Clinton Administration.

Which of those decisions made by Bush has truly helped the majority of Americans? Please point them out for me.

Let's see, we have an economy that has absorbed record high gasoline prices, with every economic indicator expanding. We have the Federal Reserve reacting to us spending and investing our money a little too fast, a foreign policy that has brought freedom to millions (both directly and indirectly). While our military enlistments aren't up to the latest goals, our military re-enlistments are higher than ever (especially within units in Afganistan and Iraq).

Basically Colon Gangrene, all I get from you is, if everything isn't perfect, everything sucks. Well, all that tells me is that you are a piss poor leader, a lowlife human being and just not much of a person in general. With all your great accomplishments, you haven't learned crap.

drmiler Clinton did not ATTACK Iraq!

You are also a lying lump of gorilla feces, since you know darn well that, under Clinton U.S. Jets fired on targets in the North and South No Fly Zones, you know that Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on targets in Iraq. You knew this, and you chose to lie about it. If it were merely a matter of your opinion, I'd let it slide, but you knew the truth and chose to lie about it.

The funny part is, we don't know yet whether Libby lied or not, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOU Sir, are a liar. Have you ever seen the opening sequence for the old TV show "Branded". That is what should be done to you and the uniform you wore with no honor or pride.

drmiler Clinton did not ATTACK Iraq!

You lying little dirtbag! Guess AGAIN oh clueless one! From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

Link

eh, oddly enough I must have missed your articles on democratic spending, Col. In my experience the only time you even acknowledge it on "Bush Truth" *cough* is when you have it shoved down your throat, and then only in small print down in the commments.

Don't for a second try to pose this as ME being overly focused. Feel free to compare our blogs to judge. The fact is, without wasteful spending, there wouldn't be a deficit. IF you are the kind of person who blames their paycheck and not your luxury spending, then you'd make a good Democrat. Most sensible people strip out the fat before they start hitting up their frineds for a loan.

The answer to our Federal money problems isn't throwing more money on the fire...

Drmiler You are an ASS

ParaTed2k

The budget was balanced in 2000 per the the Treas of the United States.

Unless security exists in Iraq, the votes mean nothing.

The issue with the storm damage is how do we deal with it now. We have GIVEN Iraq over $20 Billion to rebuild that country and Bush and the conservatives in Congress insist that the Americans repay the federal help to rebuild our country. The truth is the many of the people in the Gulf area as well as the local and state governments have no money to repay anything. Please explain why the tax payers should GIVE Iraq money to rebuild and expect Americans to repay the money to rebuild our nation? We GIVE Billions in Foreign Aid EVERY year and want to have Americans repay the help the Fed gives them.

Drmiler You are an ASS

I "may" be an ass! But I'm a "CORRECT" ass. And you're once again proven wrong.