President Bush
 

The biggest mistake the president made was giving the WMD excuse for making war. Iraq had to be dealt with, it should have been dealt with 12 yrs ago. They broke the treaty and to me, that's grounds to take care of it.. Hell, Clinton should have taken care of it(they wouldn't let the UN inspectors in during his term). I think the president did what should have been done long ago. Only problem is that he said the reason was that Iraq had WMD. So now they have to prove that there was WMD in the county, which there probably was!!, to justify it to the world. He waited on the UN to make up thier mind and then decided to pay off countries to agree with him that Iraq had to be dealt with, giving time to hide or move WMD. First of all, why are we even in the UN to start with?

President Bush; a strong speaker. I think he really knows how to talk down to a country. I also believe he knows how to take care of the ones who put him in office. The price of fuel is rising for a reason folks. I honestly believe Bush is for the wealth, which most of us aren't. The tax breaks benefit the wealth the most. If he wins this next election it will be because some major flaws are found in Kerry. Other than that, Kerry is a shoe in.. I personally liked what I saw of Dean.

Well man you're all about the hot topics aren't ya...LOL. So here's my $.02. The war in Iraq was completely justified. With or with out WMD. Saddam broke all kinds of sactions and treaties and everything else. Besides the fact that he had WMD. He used them before and could show no proof that he destroyed them. Now I can't say what we found over there or what we didn't find. Or why some of it hasn't been made public. Infact a lot of it has, but instead of making huge headlines you'd be lucky to see it scroll across the bottom of the screen. Iraq is one huge ammo dump. You can go anyplace and uncover just about any kind of ammo imaginable. Hell you can go out and dig up a mig in the middle of nowhere. So if we haven't found WMD there's a lot of places to hide them, and Saddam has had more than a decade to do it.

Now as far a kerry is concerned....this guy is as two faced as them come. Everytime you turn around he's saying something different than the day before. Or denying something he said when they have him on tape saying it. Enough said.

IMO The President is a great leader and an awesome Commander In Chief. I support everything he's done and will do.
-Ryan

I wouldn't want Bush's job for all the money in the world, especially after the events that have happened in his term. Talk about stress and difficult decisions to be made. I voted for Gore, but I'm glad now that Bush won. I don't think Gore would have handled things as well as Bush has. Sure Bush has made mistakes, but with the hand he's been dealt with, I support him and stand behind our president. I will vote for him again. I also believe that action HAD to be taken in Iraq and against terrorism as a whole, unfortunately, more countries do not join the fight.
I do not like Kerry at all, just something not right with him to me. I liked Dean too, but he's out so it doesn't matter.
That's about as political as I will comfortably get. I think being in the bar business for so long and living with the "No discussing politics and religion" motto makes me more of an observer than a political debater.
It will be interesting, though, to see all the different viewpoints here.

I just read where another guy talked about this on another board, and he pointed out that if freeing people, or protecting us and the rest of the world, was really what was important, then we would have gone after North Koreas

How many wars can you start in one term? Let China take care of NK. They created them.

Iraq and the president
 

I agree with Rick that the invasion of Iraq was necessary and fully justified. The fact that Islamic terrorists are pouring into Iraq from other Arab nations simply proves that they are in fear of a democratic Iraq and are fighting for their lives, as it were, both figuaratively and literally. They will be defeated and Iraq will eventually be some sort of democracy (they are all different; France is a democarcy, as is Japan, Germany and so on). In any case, Saddam was a long-standing threat to the region (he started two wars, supported Palestinian terrorists and harbored al-Queda terrorists). Saddam Hussein had great potential to be a threat to the world via his WMD capabilities. I also think that he had WMD's but hid or removed many of them. Every major nation's intelligence forces were flat-out positive he had the weapons and it's almost impossible to fool all of the people all of the time, as President Abraham Lincoln once said. :)

I also continue to be a strong supporter of President Bush. As he said himself in his recent press conference: "I mean what I say". I don't agree with his immigration and Prescription Drug proposals as well as the bloated federal budget but overall, his tax cuts (which the Democrats still howl about) have helped a shaken economy recover and his leadership in the very real War on Terror visited upon us by the horrific events of 9/11/01 hasve been outstanding, against a media tide of criticism generated by the Democrats. Bush staked his re-election on the invasion of Iraq and I truly believe he did it in Americas interest, not his re-election. I predict President Bush will win re-election (Kerry is a joke) and by the end of his second term, Iraq will be stabilized and terrorism, while never gone for good, will have been effectively diminished, thanks to President Bush and the American military.

If you THINK President Bush is for the rich, you need to get your facts straight before making sweeping statements like that.

FACT: This year, there were 14 million more tax filers than last year that paid NO federal tax due to new deductions that Bush's tax plan allowed....and all of these folks are mid to lower class.

FACT: This year there were more families in the history of income tax that paid NO...that is ZERO federal tax than ever before due to Bush's tax reform. This number was over 100,000,000....all of these familes are lower wage earners.

FACT: Most Americans who earned $20,000 a year or less actually received back MORE money from the federal government than they paid out in withholding. In fact, 90% of these filers got back at least all of their money. Yet, when poled, 55% of all wage earners who made less than $20,000 stated that they pay too much in federal taxes. Seems ironic.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. John Kerry does nothing but criticize the President and offers NO solutions. He makes a larger fool of himself with each passing day.

If you want to blame the rising fuel prices on Bush, you are partially correct. The Arabs are trying to run him out of office. Gee, I wonder why? But the main reason why oil prices are high is the shortage of available refineries (down for service) and our failure to allow oil production in the US (coast and Alaska). These decisions were made by the Clinton Whitehouse.

If you think gas prices are high now, wait for five years when they double. You see, there is a huge market in China that is just now begining to open that will significantly tap into the World's oil refining capabilities. There are experts that estimate oil to hit $70 a barrel within 5 - 6 years. I suppose this will be Bush's fault to.

Lastly consider this: Let's go back to September 10th, 2001. What if the government actually were to shutdown all the airports on that day. What if we announced an invasion of all terrorist camps on that day to strike out at the terrorists? What would the world have said about us then? No, it took a disaster to wake up everyone.

When you speak against the war, you are condoning the actions of terrorists all around the world. We are at war and we have been at war for years, it just took 911 to realize that. These people do not respond to reason. They are trained at a very young age to hate US...YOU! They have millions and millions of kids in school who will grow up to be future bombers...they ARE the WMD.

To have a WMD, you must have ability to use one AND the willingness to use it. There is little doubt that the terrorists would use a WMD on us if they had one. For this reason alone, I say that they don't have them in their posession in any real level. But just as soon as they do, we will be the first ones to know. Are you willing to wait for this to happen?

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have had their lives put on hold in order to prevent another tragety and hundreds have been killed. Let's not undermine their efforts and sacrifices. This will no doubt be a long war and many more will die defending us. I truly believe that our offensive actions have stopped other potential 911's.

as a 91, gulf war vet, we should have done this then!!!!!!!!!!, i said when we left- we will be back. al gore is a dame idiot, that is all, he would have done the clinton duck & hide, KERRY, do you mean- KENNEDY. ca-ching. mr i'm a nam war vet hero, but i oppose the war, read up folk's, before this war, kennedy, uh i mean kerry, said- i vote to fight iraq, they have wmd, FACT. clinton burned me out on democrat b.s. -- mr clinton, we have a big threat from osma bin laden, -- clinton, - dont bother me now biatch, i gotta sign - NAFTA, then monica will be here l8ter, lmmfao. :eek: :D :D :D :D :confused:

From what I seen on 9/11 you dont have to have weapons of mass destruction to be a threat to America. Two highjacked airplanes seemed to work pretty well.

The fact is Sadaam had 2 months to stash his stuff. We had to take a proactive rather than a reactive stance. If we waited till he actually either built or bought a nuclear warhead it would be too late. He would blow Isreal off the map and then we would be over there anyways.

The job Bush is doing is a thankless one but necessary. A lesser man would have taken the easy way out.

JMO,

I have to disagree with your assumption (and I know for a fact that it is an assumption) that there is no oil production in the US (coast and Alaska). First off, I work in the oilfield industry, and about 90 percent of our work is in the Gulf of Mexico, just off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Second, my stepbrother works in the oilfields in Alaska, and they are very real. I dont know where you get your info, but you should really check it out first.

To hit on the other statement, I dont think that anyone in this country has a problem with the war on terrorism. If so, they dont deserve the freedoms they are granted by the people defending us from the terrorists. That being said, the war in Iraq is a whole different story. We went in to that country on a basis of a regime change, and them having WMD. There is evidence that at one point in time they HAD wmd, but the whole world knows that. Thats no secret. They were using 1 wheelers, oh shit, mobile WMD labs!!! WTF!!! Our efforts would have been better served in other areas of that shithole of a region, defending ourselves against terrorist, which BTW are still running free plotting and scheming because we destroyed Iraq instead of eliminating the real threat. Think of the Iraq war how you please, but dont hide the facts surrounding it.

I am forced to disagree with that Bigred. Refineries have been and are shut down on the coast. Take a good look at Freeport, Texas. Years ago that was a really jumping town, now it's pretty much a shadow of what it once was, its almost a ghost town. Why? Because several of the refineries were shut down and took the jobs that were there. I have some family down there that were involved in real estate, they can't unload anything because everyone left and no one is coming in. It's really sad to go there now and see what has happened. I'm not in the oil industry, but I can see.

I live in Baytown (home of Exxon Mobile), and Ii work on the port of Houston. I see every day the plants and refineries. I also drive in the traffic every day from these plants and refineries. Freeport is one town. A very small one at that. Though it is sad to see a town pretty much shut down because of the industry, there are many, many surviving oil companies. I drive about 20 miles of a freeway every day. All the way down both sides (and Ii am not exaggerating) is nothing but refineries. I smell the results of the ever growing oil industry every minute of every day. It is not taking a dive as many would believe. As technology advances, we are finding more and more oil in deeper water. You see those Kerr McGee commercials that talk about how they can now reach previously un-reachable oil? I had a part in that. There is enough oil in the gulf to outlast anyone on these boards, we just have to get to it. And slowly, we are learning more and more about that process.

PM me some info on your family that is in real estate down there if you dont mind. I have been looking for some land, and freeport has some pretty good surf (compared to Galveston). I would love to look into some land down there, that way we woudnt have to pay the rediculous rental fees just to have a get away.

Blake, who spoke against the war? I'm still looking for that.. I made the thread trying to explain why the war is justified. I hear about folks on the news all the time talking about ending the war and that we shouldn't be there. I've yet to see any one on this thread say it wasn't justified, the way it came about is another story.

As far as the oil.. I think Caymon seems to have a better grasp of the oil refinery in this country than I do, though my dad has been in the oil transport business for better than 30some yrs. Its my understanding that we have quite a bit in reserve as well.. Doesn't Bush have family in the oil business??

I also don't like the 3 yr work pass handed out to the Hispanic immigrants, so they can take American jobs.

I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican, I'm American. I don't subscribe to any set political mindset, I look at what is going on and form my own opinions.

How about these facts... check out the charts at the bottom of the page. Tax plan

Now that we have gone in there, we have an obligation to stay and finish the job (rebuilding what we destroyed), but, I still feel that we shouldnt have gone there this time. I cant see a justification for this war in Iraq.

Ever wonder why hindsight is so great? It is almost 20:20. Where the hell were all the desenters when we went in. There were damn few. So if you were one of them you can now say I told you so. If you were not..... Sounds like the post on gay marriage where everybody is talking about people taking marriage lightly resulting in high divorce rate... As I say hindsight is 20:20 or almost. So I can get married then a year later I say you said you had this or would do that and you didn't or I don't think you will or where is your WMD so now I am out here yata yata yata. Same for Iraq if you were for it or silent going in then shut up and deal with it now. It serves no purpose to look back. Look forward to an endpoint that we can achieve and go for it.

There were probably a lot of settlers who after leaving St. Louis or Kansas City said "you know maybe we shouldn't have stirred up these indians". I think they kept going.

this is my take on this subject, first we needed to take out saddam because he was a threat to us and the rest of the world. and yes he did or still does have wmd, they are most likely in another nearby country or coverd in sand in some camel herders back yard. second the bush tax cut was needed to jump start our economy after the clinton gore receson. and 3rd poor people do not pay taxes. the rich pay the most in taxes. and as for gas prices go the opec countrys are cutting production to make bush look bad and hurt our economy to get him out of office. and further more we would have more oil if we would go and drill in alaska and repair and or build new refinerys, but you cant get it past the tree huggers and the idot democrats in the senate. and another thing people are going to think that everything that is bad with the country is bushes falt if you watch the mainstream media because they are biased. and we are far better off with bush as pres than have that idot john f kerry! and that is my 2 cents!

I'll be the first to say that I was all for it when it happened. You know why? Because I was un-educated on the matter. We were kickin ass and takin names, and I was all for it. I started paying attention to what was really goin on, and researching it the best I could. I now have an opinion on it that is based more on what's happening, as opposed to the fact that we were blowin stuff up and it was cool.

I think the settlers were the same way. The further they got from Kansas City the more they knew. I think they still kept going. Cause it was worth it they thought. Is it worth it or not?

First, I apologize to RBatson. My ealier post was mis-directed, although I do stand by my position. In other words, I may have created an argument where none existed.

Second, bigred there is oil production in the US. I do not doubt this. BUT, there are those in power that want to end that as you are aware of. If certain people have their way, there will no off-shore drilling. My position is WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL!

When we buy foreign oil, we are putting money in the hands of those who want to kill us. Same is true for illegal drug users.

jsams - BRAVO! You said it all!

The drugs I did came from Mexico and Canada. I really dont think either one has the desire to kill us.

We should have gone after Saddam the first time, but we didn't. I didn't agree with going in last year, something about it just didn't feel right to me. But I support our President and we did go in so now we just need to get it finished so the good people there can run there own problem's. I also agree with an earlier comment about the people themselves being the the real WMDs.
There have been alot of discussions about whether Bush lied, or his advisers lied, or about bad and unreliable intel. before we went in. The point is, now in hindsight, it needed to be done and the longer we waited the more at risk we would be. At least this way all the terrorists are going there to fight us instead of here. Yes, I know how selfish that sounds, but they wanted a fight with us and they were making sure they were going to get it, so it was better for us to decide when and where.
And folks before you cast your votes, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, but this time, i can't help but feel that a win for the democrates would be a victory of Osama. Look at Spain, a bomb, an election, he won a battle.

I really don't know where to start.. "The rich pay the most in taxes" I am so sick of hearing that crap! I'm sure they do, they have most of the money. 34% of my wage is taken away before I ever see it! I get back around $2500 so that puts me in the 29% range that I actually pay in. I'll guarantee you the rich don't pay 29%. All I want is for everyone to pay thier fair share. If they were to pay thier fair share.. I wouldn't have to pay so much!! What's $20k to them?? Nothing!! Another thing, I have to pay interest on the money that I borrow from THEM! Credit cards, cars, house.. everything! Why shouldn't they pay thier 29% like what I do? I'd bet there wouldn't be a deficeit if they did.

I remember Mr 5 0 and I debating this back when it was going on and I still don't see where the $300 is stimulating the economy. If you want to get people to spend then all you have to do is make credit card and car interest tax deductible like it was back in the 70s. I'd be hitting the credit card up for everything.. I'd be spending, stimulating the economy. I'd probably even be persuaded to buy a new car. I wonder why they don't?? Well.. Hmm.. the rich wouldn't get a tax cut from that because they would pay cash for anything they got, unless there was a tax break involved. The working class has to finance everything.

As far as the price of oil, we have enought to float us way past the election. Maybe we want to keep our reserve, I understand that but doesn't Kuait have an abundance of oil?? Isn't that why we are in this mess to start with?? Hit Kuwait up!

Its my opinion that we shouldn't have helped Kuwait out in the first place. It was no business of ours. We did, so now we are in it. Iraq signed a treaty that they did not uphold.. NOW we got a problem. Although we shouldn't have helped Kuwait, let them settle it themselves, we have a country not upholding a treaty they agreed to. That is enough basis for force to me. It should have been handled the first time they refused to let the UN inspectors in and I sit and scratched my head wondering why we let it go. Seeing as Bush Sr. saw fit to butt into the region he should have finished it... All of America saw that, it was public opinion that we would have to deal with the crazy Saddam again.

Were we attacked because of our loyalty to Israel or because we let Iraq go on a long leash?? Would we have been attacked if Bush Sr. would have finished the job to start with? From what I heard on the news this morning, alot of countries are pulling out from the war. If we are going to deal with it, I think we should get our men out and deal with it, like we should have to start with.

Well, we ran out of things to talk about.:D

I will chime in on the oilfield debate since I also work in the industry.

West Texas has a whole lot of oilfield activity. The Gulf of Mexico isnt a huge factor in the grand scheme of things.

I have traveled the county going to different oilfields, its part of my job.

I was shocked when I went to the Oxy Elk Hills operation in Bakersfield California, Now thats a huge operation. The biggest oilfield in the US is in Kansas believe it or not.

The high oil prices are a direct result of OPEC cutting back oil production to raise up the price. Nothing more, Nothing less.

clinton had eight years to do something about saddom and what did he do besides play with monica.

What made the war worth it for me anyway was seeing the smiling faces of the kids run up to you. Excited and cheering. I support Bush I think he has done a good job. Not many Presidents have had to deal with as much as he has in one term. The whole purpose of why Bush sent us over there was not on my mind. The only thing I had on my mind was going over there kick some butt and getting back to my family. I hope Bush is president again I will be voting for him. I just can't see Kerry being worth anything and I would sure hate to see what the world would be like if Gore would have won.

As far as WMD they are there.

As far as I am concerned this guys opinion is the only one that matters. He has been in the s h i t, he knows first hand what it is like and he supports Bush.

Thank you for your service to our country.

On taxes, oil and Iraq
 

Originally posted by RBatson :

Quote:

I really don't know where to start.. "The rich pay the most in taxes" I am so sick of hearing that crap! I'm sure they do, they have most of the money. 34% of my wage is taken away before I ever see it! I get back around $2500 so that puts me in the 29% range that I actually pay in. I'll guarantee you the rich don't pay 29%. All I want is for everyone to pay thier fair share. If they were to pay thier fair share.. I wouldn't have to pay so much!! What's $20k to them?? Nothing!! Another thing, I have to pay interest on the money that I borrow from THEM! Credit cards, cars, house.. everything! Why shouldn't they pay thier 29% like what I do? I'd bet there wouldn't be a deficeit if they did.

I hardly know where to start with my reply to your misguided comments here but I suppose we'll just begin at the beginning.

Rick, it's an undeniable fact that latest IRS stats available (2001) show the top 10% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 64.89% of ALL the income taxes paid in the United States. The canard about the rich 'not paying their fair share' is simply not true but sounds good and makes some folks feel better, even if it's quite wrong. Rick, the federal deficit doesn't come from the American people not paying enough taxes, it comes from congress spending more money than they take in. That isn't the taxpayers fault. No one forces anyone to run up debt on credit cards and most people who do know full well about the high interest rates. Car loan interest rates as well as mortage rates are the lowest in modern history so there is no grounds for complaining on that point - if you're being realistic and not simply whining because you pay taxes and have debt.

Quote:

I remember Mr 5 0 and I debating this back when it was going on and I still don't see where the $300 is stimulating the economy. If you want to get people to spend then all you have to do is make credit card and car interest tax deductible like it was back in the 70s. I'd be hitting the credit card up for everything.. I'd be spending, stimulating the economy. I'd probably even be persuaded to buy a new car. I wonder why they don't?? Well.. Hmm.. the rich wouldn't get a tax cut from that because they would pay cash for anything they got, unless there was a tax break involved. The working class has to finance everything.

The Bush tax cuts have manifested tax savings in the range of $2,500. or a family of four wiuth a middle-class income. The cuts also stimulated the economy by freeing up investor funds by taxing profits on capital gains at a lower amount. That's how jobs are ultimately created. I'm always a bit amused by people who seem to hate 'big business' but love jobs, as if 'jobs' were created by some kind of magic. Your idea that if credit card interest was deductable on the 1040, everyone would charge more and thus,, stimulate the economy is flawed. Right now, per capita (American) credit card debt is the highest in history. What makes you think that 'the rich' don't use credit cards and finance cars? Maybe Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump don't (who knows, really?) but most millionaires use credit cards, just like you and me but with much higher limits. It can be economically wise to finance a car, even a luxury car for $70,000., because the money paid back over three years may be worth less than the cash you would pay, today and the interest can sometimes be negotiated down to almost nothing. Ever see the 'zero interest' car ads? Those finance plans are available for 'the rich' as well as for us.

Quote:

As far as the price of oil, we have enought to float us way past the election. Maybe we want to keep our reserve, I understand that but doesn't Kuait have an abundance of oil?? Isn't that why we are in this mess to start with?? Hit Kuwait up!

Saudi Arabia has promised top keep oil supplies flowing to the U.S. from their huge reserves. Of course, the minute they said this the Democrats snarled that President Bush was in some sort of collusion with the Saudi's in order to get re-elected, which was nonsense. So, if we have less oil and higher gas prices the left complains and blames President Bush. If we have plenty of oil and lower gas prices the Democrats complain and find a way to blame President Bush for something he didn't do. No wonder so many people don't take Democrats seriously anymore.

Quote:

Its my opinion that we shouldn't have helped Kuwait out in the first place. It was no business of ours

That comment demonstrates an ignorance of the history and events leading up to 'Desert Storm' in early 1991. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on the pretext that as it was once part of Iraq (under the Ottoman Empire) it should be again. Of course, what he really wanted was the Kuwaiti oil. Iraq made short work of the Kuwaiti forces (they were near-defenseless) and was poised to invade neighbor Saudi Arabia. The Saudi monarchy, also with few serious military defenses, was frightened and begged the U.S. for help. We responded because at that point, Saddam Hussein controlled over 20% of the region's oil and if he invaded and defeated Saudi Arabia (easy job) he would control over 40% of the oil fields in the middle east and that kind of power (and money) in the hands of a madman who at the time had Weapons of Mass Destruction, was simply unthinkable. We had to act - and we did. No one else was going to do it, certainly not the joke armies of europe (Great Britain excluded). As the greatest military and economic power on earth it was America's responsibility and in our national interest to repulse Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were unable to defeat Iraq and were ripe for conquest. That could not happen. President Bush (41) understood that and didn't let it happen, to his everlasting credit. Now, as thanks, all he gets is griping from the 20/20 hindsighters about not removing Saddam Hussein in '91. Another case of: damned if you do and damned if you don't. Democrats, some who voted against the Gulf War in 1991, (like John Kerry) always want to have it both ways. Too bad. Life doesn't work like that.

Quote:

We did, so now we are in it. Iraq signed a treaty that they did not uphold.. NOW we got a problem. Although we shouldn't have helped Kuwait, let them settle it themselves, we have a country not upholding a treaty they agreed to. That is enough basis for force to me. It should have been handled the first time they refused to let the UN inspectors in and I sit and scratched my head wondering why we let it go. Seeing as Bush Sr. saw fit to butt into the region he should have finished it... All of America saw that, it was public opinion that we would have to deal with the crazy Saddam again.

You seem to forget that, unlike now, we had a U.N. mandate to invade Iraq in 1991. That mandate did not include removing Saddam Hussein and although many people wished we had, even before 9/11, President Bush (41) feared a huge world outcry and charges of 'imperialist' if we went ahead and removed Saddam and his party from power. I can bet that the same Democrats who NOW say we should have removed Saddam would have had President G. H. W. Bush's head if he had tried, 13 years ago. In addition, then as now, American forces were not prepared for a long-range occupation in Iraq and we wouldf have had some of the exact same problems then, had we invaded Baghdad and removed Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

Were we attacked because of our loyalty to Israel or because we let Iraq go on a long leash?? Would we have been attacked if Bush Sr. would have finished the job to start with? From what I heard on the news this morning, alot of countries are pulling out from the war. If we are going to deal with it, I think we should get our men out and deal with it, like we should have to start with.

U.S. support of Israel was a factor in the Islamists attacks but not a large one. In any case, America doesn't allow thugs with bombs to tell us who we'll support, do we? I think not, Rick. The U.S. troops will be in Iraq as a stabilizing presence for many years but once the Saddam loyalists and imported thugs from Iraq and Syria are defeated, as they will be, the country will fully stabilize. 75% of Iraq is now back to near-normal but the network news never bothers to mention that fact, of course. No fun there and they can't play the Prophets of Doom. Invading Iraq was a necessary military action and once the insurgents have been eliminated time will show that it was a very good move to make. Have some faith in our military who are serving and performing brilliantly, Rick. Meanwhile, don't believe everything you see on TV regarding Iraq and the war. It's going much better than you think and we are not going to cut and run, as we mistakenly did in Viet Nam, no matter what the liberals and naysayers want. We now have a real leader as our president and he isn't about to abandon the millions of Iraqis who have bet their lives on America's word. We will not go back on it, nor should we.

That was the most deressing and dissapointing post I have ever read on the net.

It blows my mind that when a country led by a mad dictator invades a peace loving country some people say so what it isnt our problem.

What if we would have minded our own business with Hitler?

Being a coward never pays off it just delays the inevitable.

I agree, I think I mentioned Clinton should have done something.

About time..
 

What took you so long?:D

As I said earlier, they have most of the money. They should be paying more than 64.89%. Let's not talk about what percentage of the American tax bill they pay, lets talk about what percentage of thier personal income they pay. Did you look at the link I posted?

How some folks mishandle thier money is not the issue.

Jim, mortage rates are not the lowest in modern history because things are going so great, its because things are going so bad. People are out of work. The car companies are enticing people with low to no interest rates because they are trying to sell cars, cars that would otherwise just sit on the lots.


While I stand to benefit from the capital gains tax cut, who do you think benefits the most from it? The folks with the extra money to invest. The little bit I'm saving is nothing compared to the savings that those who really own America get. You know, the folks that own your house and car... not you specifically.

I'm not against big business except when they get away with not paying thier share of taxes(loopholes), are screwing someone out of thier retirement, or unnecessarily polluting the environment that we have to live in. Maybe I do have a couple issues.

I don't know any millionaires, that I know of. The only way financing a car makes since to me is if its a zero rate. Financing anything that you can pay cash for makes no sense to me .

Unless the interest rate is less than what you could receive on the money in an investment, I can't understand that. I'm still going over it in my head.. it will bother me until I understand.



I'm going to throw one that you like to use back at you.. How do you know this? The media?(Rush maybe?):)

Why do the Republicans always point the finger at the Democrats and vise-versa? I don't take offense either way because as I've said before, I'm neither. I make up my own mind on issues.

When was the last time anyone complained about gas prices being low? I must have missed that..


Alot of people think we are crazy so I guess its ok if China sees fit to start bombing America because we are invading another country or because we have WMD. I guess my main question is, 'When are we going to stop being the world's police?'.

Hindsight? I don't know anyone who didn't think we should have finished what we started, back in 1991. I do know people that didn't think we should have been involved in the first place, at the time. To tell you the truth, I'm actually glad people have opposing views.. it helps us see things from all angles.

It wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad back then as now. As far as there being an outcry, people demostrate in other countrys now.. they didn't want us there to start with. I realize there is evil in the world but I have a problem with the idea of us knowing what is best for everyone. Thinking our way of life is right and forcing it on the rest of the world, I don't understand that. Maybe its right for us but who is to say its right for everyone else? That being said, I believe we live in the greatest country in the world.

Why would they say that if they knew the UN mandate didn't include removing him? Because we should have or because we pretty much do what we want anyhow?


I agree

I have full confidence in our military, I know we can handle it. Anyone who doesn't is delusional, in my opinion. I thank the military for the job they are doing and think they are doing great!:)

Jim, your hatred for Democrats is apparent. When was the last time you, yourself, ever agreed with anything a Democrat said or did? I'm just curious.

I understand your patrotism but this comment makes no sense to me.

Sorry you feel that way.

Some think we are lead by a mad dictator.. maybe they have the right to attack. Oh wait, they did attack. Because we are mad or because they want us to let them take care of thier own problems? As I remember it, its because we don't mind our own business. The first thing they asked for was for us to leave the region and quit taking sides.

I personally don't see it as the same thing with Hitler and if it was... why were so many countries against it?

How is it being a coward? We're not afraid, it was a conscience choice.

RBatson- Our views are so vastly different that i dont even have time to discuss it here at work.

But expect a damn reply when I get home:D

LMAO!
 

I get the feeling that Jim is bringing the tar and you are bringing the feathers.. or are you guys going with hot coals and a rake? :)

I guess I've got something to look forward to tomorrow.

Re: About time..
 

Originally posted by RBatson :

Quote:

What took you so long?:D

Real life sometimes interferes with the time I have to spend posting on the net. :)

Quote:

As I said earlier, they have most of the money. They should be paying more than 64.89%. Let's not talk about what percentage of the American tax bill they pay, lets talk about what percentage of thier personal income they pay. Did you look at the link I posted?

Yes. The usual leftist skewing of reality. Rick, the top marginal tax rate is now at 39%. That's the U.S. government taking, by force of law, almost 40% of a man or womans income - right off the top. We're not even counting the FICA tax here, which is 7.65%. That's legal robbery. Then, a majority of states have some state income tax, usually around 5% and the big cities, such as New York, have a city income tax, not to mention the property taxes every town and city has in place and of course, state sales tax in many localities. Most of these taxes cannot be escaped and a high-income person could well pay 50% of their income in taxes. Still, you think that's 'not enough?. You're dead wrong. If you think socialism is a great idea then you may favor this kind of taxpayer abuse but most of us know better. It's punishing success.

I'm not surprised that you don't want to talk about how much of the total income tax bill the rich actually pay as it undercuts your premise that the middle class 'pay all the taxes' while the 'rich' pay little. That's hogwash and always has been but the socialist/liberals in this country have been selling that class-envy routine for decades and many folks - who should know better - eat it up, as it makes them feel put-upon and gives them an 'enemy' to resent (the rich). Too bad it's based on false assumptions.

Quote:

How some folks mishandle thier money is not the issue.

Neat sidestep Rick but you're not getting away that easily. It's me, remember? You complained about the fact that banks (who, I assume, represent 'the rich' to you) charge interest for loans and you seem to be saying that they shouldn't? That's absurd Rick and you know it. Banks today are mostly owned by stockholders, ordinary people for the most part, who simply want to make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word, Rick. It drives the fabulous American economy, the envy of the world. What you want is socialism. Oh, you may not say it or even realize it but your animus toward the wealthy makes it clear that you want others ('the rich') to pick up your tab and you want to call that 'fair' to make it seem better. It isn't. We have a progressive tax system and the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. The 'rich' pay plenty. Trouble is, congress spends more than we can pay. That isn't the fault of 'the rich' You seemed to want to just ignore that fact.

Quote:

Jim, mortage rates are not the lowest in modern history because things are going so great, its because things are going so bad. People are out of work. The car companies are enticing people with low to no interest rates because they are trying to sell cars, cars that would otherwise just sit on the lots.

That's another absurdity. Where do you get this gloom-and-doom nonsense from? DU? Mortgage rates are the lowest in history because the economy is expanding rapidly, interest rates on bank funds is low and plenty of money is available to loan for homes and cars. The U.S. median income for a family of four is a bit over $42,000. The U.S,. is doing great and you try to pretend as if it's the Great Depression. That may play with the uninformed here Rick but you're simply wrong and on this 'declining economy' pose you choose to adopt. Very wrong.

Quote:

While I stand to benefit from the capital gains tax cut, who do you think benefits the most from it? The folks with the extra money to invest. The little bit I'm saving is nothing compared to the savings that those who really own America get. You know, the folks that own your house and car... not you specifically.

Yes, people with big incomes see more savings when tax rates are lowered. You've found us out! Duh! Really, Rick, your class-envy is rather sad. Capitalism works beautifully and even the 'poor' in America are far better off than the poor in any other country. We have a huge middle class, living a life of luxury that other nations can only wish for and we have a large wealthy population,, the majority of them self-made people (not inherited wealth). Yet you want to whine that you have to pay taxes and that the 'rich' don't pay enough, even at 39%? That's unrealistic in the extreme.

Quote:

I'm not against big business except when they get away with not paying thier share of taxes (loopholes), are screwing someone out of thier retirement, or unnecessarily polluting the environment that we have to live in. Maybe I do have a couple issues.

More than 'a couple'. You look at America: land of the free, home of the brave and one of the richest countries on earth and see nothing but 'problems'. How sad for you.

Quote:

I don't know any millionaires, that I know of. The only way financing a car makes since to me is if its a zero rate. Financing anything that you can pay cash for makes no sense to me . Unless the interest rate is less than what you could receive on the money in an investment, I can't understand that. I'm still going over it in my head.. it will bother me until I understand.

Most people don't have $20 - 25,000. or more in cash to lay out for a new car. I didn't say that it always makes sense to finance but with the very low-to-no interest rates on car loans, one would do well to take advantage of the deal. Millions have.

Quote:

I'm going to throw one that you like to use back at you.. How do you know this? The media?(Rush maybe?):)

It was in all the papers and on TV just days ago, Rick. Try to keep up. :)

Quote:

Why do the Republicans always point the finger at the Democrats and vise-versa? I don't take offense either way because as I've said before, I'm neither. I make up my own mind on issues.

Because the two parties represent two very different political philosophies. When one party is in power, the other wants to find fault and blame it for anything negative in order to convince people that the party in power is wrong, corrupt and/or dangerous and must be replaced. That's partisan politics.

Quote:

When was the last time anyone complained about gas prices being low? I must have missed that..

Apparently you miss a lot. The Democrats were trying to infer that President Bush is using increased Saudi oil exports to the U.S. to keep gas prices low so he'll be re-elected. Of course most Americans have no problem with that, only Democrat politicians.

Quote:

Alot of people think we are crazy so I guess its ok if China sees fit to start bombing America because we are invading another country or because we have WMD. I guess my main question is, 'When are we going to stop being the world's police?'.

You seem to be ignoring the reality of the dire situation in Kuwait that I described. Rick, wake up. Please. America was attacked by Muslim terrorists on September 11, 2001. Almost 3,000 innocent people died. Since then, the Bush administration has been fighting back and doing so on many fronts, the invasion of Iraq being only one of them. The notion that we invade countries because we feel like it or want to play 'policeman' is ridiculous. America responded to an attack. What part of that do you still refuse to get?

Quote:

Hindsight? I don't know anyone who didn't think we should have finished what we started, back in 1991. I do know people that didn't think we should have been involved in the first place, at the time. To tell you the truth, I'm actually glad people have opposing views.. it helps us see things from all angles.

Yes, hindsight. The same people who now claim that they would have supported taking Saddam Hussein out in 1991 were many of the same folks who lobbied against invading Iraq in 2003. "Oh, but that's different" they claim. No way. As for opposing views, yes, they help define issues and in Ameriac, we're free to express them. Works for me. :)

Quote:

It wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad back then as now. As far as there being an outcry, people demostrate in other countrys now.. they didn't want us there to start with. I realize there is evil in the world but I have a problem with the idea of us knowing what is best for everyone. Thinking our way of life is right and forcing it on the rest of the world, I don't understand that. Maybe its right for us but who is to say its right for everyone else? That being said, I believe we live in the greatest country in the world.

Glad you think so but I still believe you want socialism in America, even if you don't realize it. In any case, this 'forcing our way of life on the rest of the world' line is bogus, Rick. Really. The vast majority of the world's countries are non-democratic. Many are run by dictators or communist thugs (China, Cuba, Viet Nam to name just a few). Democracy is a rare commodity in most of the world. In case you missed it: the U.S.-led Coalition is planning to turn the Iraqi government back over to Iraqis on June 30th. We do not covet land or 'force' democracy on anyone. When we bailed out on South Viet Nam in 1975, 2 million Vietmanese later died at the hands of the communist dictatorship we left intact. Somehow, I doubt the 2 million dead would have objected to democracy in their homeland. If Iraq doesn't want democracy, they will ultimately go back to a dictatorship, rape rooms, torture chambers and mass graves. Feel better? I hope not. Democracy represents what speaks to the heart of mankind: freedom. With real freedom (and a form of capitalism) the world would be a much safer and freer place, Rick.

Quote:

Why would they say that if they knew the UN mandate didn't include removing him? Because we should have or because we pretty much do what we want anyhow?

We should have but we didn't because President Bush had no U.N. mandate to remove Saddam Hussein, only to drive the Iraqi army from Kuwait, which we did. That fact alone cuts down your premise that 'we do what we want, anyhow'. The liberals didn't think we should have been in Kuwait in the first place (Senator Kerry voted against it, remember?) and as the Democrats then controlled congress they would have made big problems for President Bush if he had sent our military into Baghdad to remove Saddam. Should we have? Of course. Few disagree on that....now.

Quote:

I agree

Good. There's hope for you, yet. ;)

Quote:

I have full confidence in our military, I know we can handle it. Anyone who doesn't is delusional, in my opinion. I thank the military for the job they are doing and think they are doing great!:)

I agree.

Quote:

Jim, your hatred for Democrats is apparent. When was the last time you, yourself, ever agreed with anything a Democrat said or did? I'm just curious.

1968, when LBJ declined to run for a second term. :)

Seriously; I find the liberal wing has taken over the Democrat party, they are becoming very leftist and I think that bodes poorly for America should a Democart be elected president again. They want ever-higher taxes, hate tax cuts (always 'for the rich') and seem to like to punish success. They try to solve every social 'problem' in sight and make most things worse when then try. Democrats vigorously supported a corrupt, lying (under oath) president - Bill Clinton - and still do. They are anti-capitalistic and want a socialist government in America. The Democrats are weak on defense and seem to actually be embarrassed at Americas wealth and military might, which I find ridiculous - and frustrating.

I could go on but you get the point, I trust. While I actually 'hate' no one, I believe the Democrat party is bad for this country should they ever attain power again, which is doubtful. Their leftist tilt has turned off many Americans; Democrat voter enrollment is declining (Republican enrollment is up) and I think we're headed for another four years of a Bush administration. Thank God.

When you calculate the % take out the social security and medicare thoes are "pay roll" taxes not income tax. I think you will find after taking those out your percentage goes down. Unless you are making $200k+/year you are not paying 29%. If you are, you need to get a new person to figure your income taxes.

Pay roll taxes are not income taxes. Giving folks a break on those is how the Dems give "income" taxe returns to people that don't pay income tax.

If you are making 70k to 100k, you might be paying 20% income tax, maybe.

People making $200k are paying the payroll tax plus 28% income tax. If they are getting paid a salary, there is no way to hide it from the IRS. It gets paid (withdrawn). You can lie about deductions and get it back but the penalties are substantial if you get caught.

Also, why should the people that have the money give it to those that don't have it? Because the ones that don't have it want it? Thats cool. That is what I hear you saying when you say the rich should pay more.

One more thing. When I hear people taking about "fair" or "feelings" these days I start running. Saying something isn't "fair" or they are not paying their "fair" share is a dead end argument. It is not logical and the argument won't be decided on rationality.

I hear this more and more by folks that don't have a leg to stand on other than to say its not fair or it is hurting someones feelings or self image. Last ditch effort to throw up an emotional barrier to hold back the entire crowd. Lets not have an honor roll cause it will leave someone out. Yeah like who?

Lets get the rich to pay their "fair" share. Which is all they have? If their are no rich who will pay more then? Sounds a bit socialist. When there is no incentive people don't succeed. Look at waht was found in East Germany compared to the west when the wall went down. Same genetics but a totally different outcome. Great experiment comparing socialism and capitalism and waht can happen in just 30 years of "fairness".

Oh and lets let the rich pay more so the folks on welfare can get a cell phone so their self image won't be damaged by not having one. What would you do with all this tax money from the rich?

I've seen the light!
 

As far as the tax discussion..

I just got off a 13hr shift and really should have gone to bed but I just have to check the internet first, for some reason. I started making searches on the Bush tax plan and I find the whitehouse site and the "Citizens for Tax Justice" site. They both have figures up.. some the same, some different. I study it for a little while and try to figure out what each is trying to hide. I found it.. the truth. It hit me in the face like a brick!

Here's the truth: The rich do benefit the most. The republicians are trying to hide the fact that the rich will benefit the most from the tax cuts and they will be saving more than what "The U.S. median income for a family of four" makes in a year. Actually the top one percent, folks who make over $373k, will be saving an average of $53,123. While those making between $15-27k are saving an average of $364. That's what the CTJ is proclaiming and its the truth. Its a hard pill to swallow for the general public, seeing as the general public is the working class. I personally will be saving 14.5% while someone in the top 1% will be saving 37.6%. That is what the Republican party is trying the hide. The white house site shows the top percentage as anyone making over $166,500. That's close to what my parents bring in and they are far from what I consider rich, my friend.

What the Democrats are trying to hide: That those in the top tax bracket pay more of a percentage in taxes than the rest of us. The folks making over $297,350 pay 39.6%, they try to side track us from this fact. After the tax cuts the folks who pay over $166,500 will still be paying 33% of thier income(on average). For some reason the Republicans have that as the top tax bracket.

I'm not done but I'm tired as hell.. I guess I could try to debate the rest with ya.

And yes, I do think you are close minded and set in your ways. I don't think I could change your mind with a gun to your head.

Re: Re: About time..
 

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Wrong Jim, The mortgage rate is low because consumer confidence is low.. was low. Its picking back up now and rates will follow soon.

I'll tell you just how bad it is Jim.. Many folks are out of work and out of unemployment benefits. The home market is hopping right now. One reason is because the mortgage rate is low, that is why its low.. to stimulate homeownership. Many folks have lost thier home and that contributes to the home sales frenzy as well.

Personally, my retirement has gone to hell. It happened just last November. My benefits suffered as well. Know why? Because the economy is so bad. You can't deny it Jim, Bush doesn't. Do I need to post a link? I was looking at retiring at the age of 52 and now I have to work until the age of 62.. That's 43 yrs to get my retirement Jim. I'd have worked for UPS from the age of 19 to the age of 62. What the hell am I going to do at the age of 62 Jim? Go surfing?

When was the last 16hr day that you pulled? I can go out and buy things but "lap of luxury"... I don't think so.

Why is that sad for me? Everyone has problems.. sad that I notice we have problems? I still live my life the way I want, don't feel bad for me.

You hit that one on the head.. most of us don't. Evidently the ones getting the $55k tax cut do. I don't begrudge them either. Hell, I'd hate to think I busted my ass to make over $400k and I got killed in taxes.. How do I get to that point Jim? You guys hiring??

LOL, I get it bro, I get it! I know something had to be done, hell give me a weapon(I actually had a dream about it). Its how we got to this point I have the problem with.. We shouldn't have gone in back in 91 but we did so.. we should have finished it and we didn't so now we are where we are.

I don't know any of these people.


While being open to new thought.. It really pisses me off to be called a communist.

Who called you a communist? Socialist maybe. Most of Europe is socialist. I can't see that it has done much for them.

I am still wondering what you are going to do with all this extra tax money from the rich. Are you going to pay less personally? Give it to someone who makes less than you? Let the government doll it out to whoever has a good story about how burdened they are having to pay all those bills especially since they put so much down the slot machine last night.

It sure sounds like you are unhappy with what you are paying and want someone else to pay it for you. Its not fair that those rich sobs can affort a better car when we are all struggling to make notes on a V6 Mustang.

I think the people that know how to make money know a lot more about how to spend it wisely than the goverment does. Ever work with a nonprofit group to raise money? Guess who not only pays the most taxes but also gives the most to chariety. Maybe we ought to close that loophole too.

It makes a great campaign speech to sock to those rich B*st*rds but until someone has a better idea of what to do with the money other than to redistribute unearned wealth. I am for letting the ones that know how to make it spend it on earning more and if they get a better car than me, a better house, better doctors, etc. out of the deal they earned it.

The town I live in had two or three very very wealty families. They made their money in oil, timber, etc. and were definitely not taxed as they would have been today. They built a couple of large churches, an art museum full of the some of the worlds best art, a first class theater for the performing arts, one of their placial homes is now part of the local university and serves the public in many ways like wedding receptions, etc (my kid worked there). They built two country clubs with golf courses that are open for memebership today. They created a park in the middle of the city that is about one hundred acres and a county airport. They left a foundation that is still very well off that funds a number of beneficial functions. All of this employs workers and brings visitors to the area.

Lets tax the hell out of these type folks... It just ain't fair not to mention the devistated self esteem of all those folks who have to look at this and feel inadequate because they can't do it too.

Yeah we ought to break this up and dole out the money to those who really deserve it. Those rich sobs were only paying 39% when it should have been at least 80%. I am sure the government would have done all this for the community had they collected more taxes.

Oh yeah and I forgot they opened a savings and loan and funded many peoples mortgages, including mine. Sure they made money off of it but again employed many people at the bank over the years.

Money is like energy. It can really do things when it is concentrated. The question is where should it be concentrated. In the government or in the hands of individuals. I vote for individuals for the most part. If all us working folks want to get together and fund our own retirements and medical coverage with some left over for defense and roads that fine. But look what happens to us when the government collects that money and manages it for us. Social Security is a good example. Nearly bankrupt. We would have been better off letting some rich banker manage the money and make some for himself while he was at it like everybody does with 401 K and IRA money or would you have the goverment manage that too.

I will get around to Bush and Iraq when I get back from a trip I am going on. Hope by then you will have decided what to do with all the extra tax money you want to collect from those rich sobs only payng 39%.

Re: I've seen the light!
 

Where did this come from? Sounds like you are giving up. It just ain't fair is it. Hows your self esteem? Feelings hurt?

We got a lot more to talk about. Like the perception that foreign labor is just cheap and that is why it is taking our jobs. In my mind it is tied in to the other post on gay marriage. If you aren't bored with this conversation, I will tell you why I think that.

First, I associate socialism with communism and if I misunderstood you and Jim, I need to apologize.. I apologize.

Second, I think you didn't get my point on the tax issue. After looking at both sides I've come to the conclusion that folks making over $166,500 are paying too much tax. One problem is that the president says the tax breaks are giving the poor and working class some much needed break, while the Democrats point out that the rich are benefitting the most. They are and they are paying too much of a percentage. Just don't say its in place to help the poor. If you don't want someone to call you on it. The poor are only saying 0.9% but they don't pay much(if any) taxes to start with so how are they going to save. The problem is.. its kind of hard to raise a family on $25k a yr.

I also agree with you on the welfare issue. Some folks get it that don't need it.

The main reason I usually don't get into discussions about religion and polotics is because it seems to explode and folks get upset and no one comes away with anything.. usually. I still consider Jim a friend and probably always will. That being said, I think its time for me to take a break from the internet.

Re: Re: I've seen the light!
 

It comes from 7 yrs of knowing someone.

My self esteem is intact, thank you. My feelings aren't hurt either.

Are you trying to antagonize me?

Re: Re: Re: I've seen the light!
 

Not at all. Just trying to illustrate how the fairness argument doesn't work for me. If all the discussion is about is whether something is fair or not then to me it is not a discussion of issues but of emotions.

I think we are reaching some common gound. Yes it is damn hard to raise a family on $25K but more subsidy, more wealth transfer, via the tax code is not the answer.

Our only way out is education, real education. Not gay day and cultral studies or books like King and King or it takes a village to raise a child. Science and math and business education along with a dose of political science or what used to be called civics.

Our jobs are going out of this country not just because the labor is cheap but cheap and SMART. The cheap part will work itself out ovre time as the standard of living improves around the word. The smart part is up to us. And as long as we let the education system be used as a tool for driving political correctness and reaching the lowest common denominator we are doomed. Vouchers are a great idea. Let people choose where they can get relevant education. (maybe they could teach me to spell).

To me this is how the gay marriage issue ties in and a multitude of other immorale themes. They are not productive and are not things the competition is focusing on. Put them on the back burner and lets get on with staying competitive from a strong fundamental educational base.

And we have not even touched on morales and how this keeps the rich in line and causing them to want to do good things as opposed to rip us off because they are smarter than we are.

But this is a Mustang site after all and maybe we ought to stick to that.

Re: Re: Re: About time..
 

Originally posted by RBatson :

Quote:

Wrong Jim, The mortgage rate is low because consumer confidence is low.. was low. Its picking back up now and rates will follow soon. I'll tell you just how bad it is Jim.. Many folks are out of work and out of unemployment benefits. The home market is hopping right now. One reason is because the mortgage rate is low, that is why its low.. to stimulate homeownership. Many folks have lost thier home and that contributes to the home sales frenzy as well.

You are misinformed, Rick. Home sales were up 9% in 2003 and were up in 2002, 5% over 2001. New home starts are booming and the average new home price is $170,000. Consumer confidence is fine and millions are buying new homes and cars and refinancing their existing homes to cash in the equity. This year, inflation may creep up and increase the mortagage interest rates a bit but to claim that the rates are low because no one can afford a home and then see home sales climbing beyond any previous numbers is to ignore reality, something you are free to do on your own, but don't try to sell it here. The thing is that in some areas of the country you'll see a real employment decline and some people lose their homes to foreclosure - but other areas are doing great. This is typical in a nation of 290 million people spread over 51 states. Not every area is going to be equal. Another factor is that many folks simply live too close to their income with little to fall back on and when their job ends they are about a month away from real financial trouble. That is more a result of poor money management and the fact that we pay so much in taxes that we have less every year to actually spend, much less to save, even though inflation is next to nothing, then 'consumer confidence'.

Quote:

Personally, my retirement has gone to hell. It happened just last November. My benefits suffered as well. Know why? Because the economy is so bad. You can't deny it Jim, Bush doesn't. Do I need to post a link? I was looking at retiring at the age of 52 and now I have to work until the age of 62. That's 43 yrs to get my retirement Jim. I'd have worked for UPS from the age of 19 to the age of 62. What the hell am I going to do at the age of 62 Jim? Go surfing?

I feel sorry for you Rick - really - but blaming your financial troubles on the president of the United States is absurd. Of course the economy has been in a decline - since late 2000 in fact - and the events of 9/11/01 exacerbated the problem but the U.S. economy has been on a steady incline for the past few months and will be back to normal soon. The Bush tax cuts didn't do all of it but they certainly helped make the current economic recovery possible, something you seem to ignore - while blaming Bush for the loss in your retirement funds. That's not logical or even fair, Rick. In any case, I hope your retirement funds recover but if you're in a 501k then you'll always be somewhat dependent on the stock market and the many variables that affect it. That's the inherent risk in investing - in anything. It should go up but it can always go down, too.

Quote:

When was the last 16hr day that you pulled? I can go out and buy things but "lap of luxury"... I don't think so.

Rick, I was simply comparing the standard of living in the United States to almost anywhere else on earth. We're spoiled. We have a great life, materially, and when we have to sacrifice something we cry and carry on like babies about how hard we work. This country is flooded with immigrants who would kill to have the material life we all take for granted here. Not that I begrude anyone anything but with a median family income of over $42,000. per year I don't think we can complain too much.

Quote:

Why is that sad for me? Everyone has problems.. sad that I notice we have problems? I still live my life the way I want, don't feel bad for me.

Your outlook is pessimistic when optimism is called for. You live in the greatest, freest, richest country on the face of the earth and you are unhappy. You see 'problems'. I see a world of opportunity and freedom to do as we wish, something few other nations can offer in anywhere close to the same measure, including socialist Europe.

Quote:

You hit that one on the head.. most of us don't. Evidently the ones getting the $55k tax cut do. I don't begrudge them either. Hell, I'd hate to think I busted my ass to make over $400k and I got killed in taxes.. How do I get to that point Jim? You guys hiring?

You choose to do what you do and to work where you do, just as everyone does. There are a plethora of reasons why some do better than others in life. Missed opportunities and self-limiting actions are the bulk of it. In any case, I'll remind you again that the top 1% pay over 36% of all income taxes. One percent of the (top) income taxpayers pay thirty-six percent of all the income taxes. I think that's beyond fair, Rick. Your personal situation may be clouding your judgement here, i suspect.

Quote:

LOL, I get it bro, I get it! I know something had to be done, hell give me a weapon(I actually had a dream about it). Its how we got to this point I have the problem with.. We shouldn't have gone in back in 91 but we did so.. we should have finished it and we didn't so now we are where we are.

Hindsight is still 20/20.

Quote:

I don't know any of these people.

I do. Many of them are Democrat congressmen and Senators.

Quote:

While being open to new thought.. It really pisses me off to be called a communist.

I didn't call you a communist, Rick. I said that you favored socialism, often a forerunner to communism but not the same thing. France is socialist but it's still a democracy. China is communist and it's a dictatorshiop, as all true communist governments are. You appear to favor socialism. Too bad.