Saw this in USA Today yesterday.This is so true!

It is impossible to imagine GW.Bush as a young man waiting for a bus to take him to work on a wintry morning. It is equally impossible to imagine an older George W.Bush trying, with some difficulty, to get a family member into an emergency room for treatment because he can not afford heaalth insurance.

Bush has the same problem with the economy his father had. George H.W.Bush once was embarassed by a report that he marveled over a bar code reader because he had never been in a supermarket. Neither understands how most Americans struggle. It is impossible for them to fix the economy because they just don't get it.

Like his father, George W.Bush will promise anything to get re-elected. His insistence on his own magic number for a tax cut, in the face of his party's reccomendation for a lower cut, underlines his arrogance.

-Virgil Busto-
Elgin, Illinois

I don't disagree with either point this letter made ie..Bush can't relate to middle-class every life and that he wants a tax cut...

But seems the two points contradict each other. if he were out of touch with the people and didn't care about them, seems he'd be wanting to raise taxes and grow the other fat cats in DC with him instead of giving the tax-payers a break. Just a thought.


But, in the long run, the tax cuts will generate massive growth and thus more revenue to be taxed resulting in more taxes for the government than if the cut wasn't given. So in a way, I think he might be using the tax cuts to generate more wealth for the beaurocrats. Having an MBA from Harvard, I think he might have a better understanding of how this works than most of the lawmakers in the house and senate.

So, if you don't care about the everyday tax-payer and business owner, why give them a break? ..To generate more taxable wealth in the long run?

Tax cuts won't help. SPENDING cuts would help.

Clinton left us with a balanced budget. After 2 years, Shrub has put us in more debt than his daddy did in 4 years.

Think of it this way: American's like Joe Average with a job and an income. Brother Georgie comes in, gets Joe Average's credit cards, and runs them all up to the limit and then tells Joe to save money and not make as big payments on the credit card bills.

Citizens and states rely on government services and money (keep hospitals and medical clinics open, medicare for senior citizens and the handicapped, repair highways, etc, etc.) Brother Georgie thinks we can generate more money by keeping Federal spending at the same level -- but not collecting the money for the programs from the citizens.

Byrd, Clinton left us with smoke and mirrors and numbers tricks. We weren't in such great shape as we are led to believe, and the economy was heading south long before he left.

Fact of the matter, tax cuts will most definitely help. If you don't think so, just send me the money that we would be getting through the cuts. It'll help me, and I will in turn recirculate it into the economy.

Maybe what you were meaning to say is that all the tax cuts in the world won't help if the government is SPENDINGOUR @#$%! MONEY FASTER THAN WE CAN MAKE IT!!!

A-men sister, I'm with you.
Yeah, I know Congress controls spending, but he has influence, and come to think of it, the Congress is a Republican controlled one. I thought they were supposed to be conservative.

Time to hit the emails again. They need my guidance, I can see.

You really can not focus.You are OBSESSED with Bill Clinton. The topic is about the Moron, George Dumbya Bush, Not Clinton! This crush you have on Clinton is pretty sad.

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by romantico]

History will record Clinton as the scourge of the USA.

Like Ceasar was the turning point for Rome, pushing further along, the decay of the Republic, Clinton has pushed the decay of the United States by trying to make the USA "popular" to the rest of the world, sacrificing US morals that had been in place for centuries.

Then further he cut spending in crucial "republican" areas, to fuel a "zero deficit" that has left the country as rotted out as wood with termites.

While I agree, we need to cut spending, we also need to cut taxes.

I for one don't like being taxed twice on dividends.

romantico I feel deeply sorry for you.

You seem to think Bush is a moron, just because he has a speech impediment. Well so does my dad, and because of it he hasn't been able to progress in the government, because of Clinton's policies, while young girls the age of 19 come in as interns being paid more then him.

Clinton makes me sick.

As I said, History will record the Clinton Administration as the death of America.

Thousands of years from now, Clinton will be a prelude to discussing 9/11 of 2001, in which they will discuss how Clinton helped to set up 9/11, how Clinton supported terrorism by not dealing with it, because dealing with it would have been "unpopular" on the world stage, and how Clinton devestated the USA economy for who knows how long.

Clinton earned his page in the history books, sadly it's probably mostly Hillary's fault, I doubt Clinton came up with half his plans.

But Hillary may very well turn out to be Augustus, the actual destroyer of the American Republic.

And Byrd that's the biggest load of crap I ever read.

It's about as informed as your information on SARS, laughable.

You're right, States are now dependant on the Central Government, and whose fault do you think that is? The Democrats.

The Founding Fathers never wanted to establish a nation where the states were dependant on the central government. It is supposed to be the other way around, with the Central Government only providing for the Common Defense, and the Postal Service, all else the Central Government did was in the way of legislation.

What has been done by the Democrats is horrible, and the Civil War was fought for less a crime.

Clinton has been so far the fore-runner in this disaster, pushing the States out of the picture more then any other president, and with not one reason to at all. He did it under a guise "I will get us a budget surpluss" what he did was suck up money from States and cut the military and CIA spending, and forced the states onto a more rigid program, and now more then ever the States are begging for Central Government hand outs.

Byrd your credibility is waining swiftly in my view, and I hope it is in other people's views too.

Your information is slightly in the dark, if you'd only turn the page you'd be right on track.

An easy recap:

The states should not be dependant at all on the Central Government.

Question: Should the central government go back to taxing only the states, thus securing the state's authority in the land?

Now on topic...the Bush's can be like us normal people, just because they don't go to your small town doesn't mean they didn't come to ours. And shake us "joe blow's" hands.

Which is more then Clinton did.

Also, your trying to say the Bush's can't be like the "common folk" is like trying to say the "common folk" can't act with dignity, and an "aristocratic" air.

Yeah, well have you ever thought that Bush doesn't act like everyone else who takes the bus, because he's actually a Decent human being, who doesn't murder people for drugs, who doesn't call everyone names.

The common folk put them in their predicament.

It doesn't matter how much money you have, but how you act.

It's time for the common folk to get morals again, and to start treating eachother with dignity, then they'd all be as "noble" as you are trying to make Bush seem.

You try to make it seem as if Bush is on a "high horse" when the "common folk" are simply just immoral and indecent.

Thankfully there aren't many common folk where I'm from, we may all live in town houses or apartments but you'd think us all kings the way we treat eachother.

Don't blame your crappy life on Bush, when it is the Democrats who created that life by not "assimilating" minorities as our country has done for the previous 250 years.

As soon as minorities stopped having to speak english, stopped having to "be american" rather they can just be mexican, or african....is when this country started to become "un-neighborly".

The man at the end of my street is Palestinian but he's lived here for 40 years and you'd never know it.

Know why?

He flies the America flag, he calls himself American (Not palestinian-american) and he speaks english.

He calls himself "Ed" instead of "Ahmed" (his last name). Which is more American. And that is what made good imigrants.

You'll find that the places in trouble, that Bush makes look bad, are the places where one neighbor is named "mazoui" another is named "sanchez" and yet another is named "tzing pa twong".

And none of them recognize eachother as Americans, but "prefix-American".

All of this you have the Democrats to blame for.

The Democrats, are traitors to this Great Nation, and 9/11 was their worst act yet.

Thomas makes sense, even before anyone had thoughts of the 2000 election, Alan Greenspan was warning that the economy was largely based on imaginary money and that the dot com corperations were setting everyone up for a hard fall. In 1995, the Clinton administration laxed the laws on corperate reporting and made it much easier for businesses to overstate their profits and understate their debt..ie ..Enron's "loan" from Citycorp in 1998 which it listed as a "prepay" for services it wasn't going to provide. as a prepay, it looked like a profit instead of a debt which it really was.

Those of us who understand the economic cycle were very concerned as far back as 1996-1999 long before the election was even an issue. the writing was on the wall. No one blamed Clinton but the numbers just weren't adding up. I remember my wife telling me it would never happen and I remember telling her, just wait a little while. She can't deny that now. What is happeneing is an adjustment in the US economy and a hard one too. It had to happen no matter who was elected. It has happened before and will happen again because the economy moves in a cyclic manner. When supply catches up to demand, guess what? Better have your numbers straight.

So, the question of tax cuts...from an emotional point of view, I can see where the same old alarms the Dems throw up about defecits would scare the hell out of people. But the thing is, they need to cut their spending more than any of us. They know the tax cut will generate trillions. I have a feeling that if Bush is ousted in 2004, you're going to hear a different story from the Dems than you are now. They know they have to invest in the economy but they don't want it done on someone elses watch. And really who would? I doubt we'd see any different from the conservatives if the tables were turned.

See, most of us on the board come from a political view and "our side" can do no wrong. But I feel that everything that we discuss in a political light also has a pure discipline and theory behind it just based on it's own mechanisms. The economy is one of those beasts of its own worlds. The government can have effects there is no doubt but its so huge no that once a cycle is started, it takes a long way to shift a turn. Kinda like stopping a train. Takes over a mile once you apply the brakes and takes longer than that to reach full speed once you reverse directions. I love analogies.. So, we have to reverse and give this train some fuel and wait on her to pull that heavy load up to speed. The brakes have been on long enough.

Above is an example of the influence of politcal thought on the economic structure. How can we begin to understand this machine if we are forbidden from studying the actual growth, peak, decline , and trough of the US economic structure? I don't think anyone can bring a good understanding of these processes out of comments like that and I urge you all to research for yourselves rather than listen to political activist...in fact I think we should ban political activist from impacting issues of basic education of science, medicine and economics...but then again thats just my politics...

Romantico, am I and everyone else here to take it that you think all evil comes from republicans and all good comes from democrats? Are you unwilling to attribute any mistakes to the democrats nor any successes to republicans? Do you think we should just mark the point between good times and bad times economically at the point where Clinton left and Bush came in rather than looking overall at the economy and its response to the various extreme stimuli it has been subjected too? I'm not faulting you for your opinions so don't feel attacked...ie no need for personal slamming. Just curious to your opinions on the above questions and I will read them objectively.

Tax cuts don't generate money. The argument that tax cuts will revive an economy is debatable. A very risky strategy to play, and when you couple it up with a huge increase in spending you see the bizarre sort of policies that lead to problems in the future. But as with all politicians, as it'll be someone elses problem, Bush doesn't really care about that.

The other thing about the tax cuts, although I haven't studied them in depth, I understood that they're much more of a cut for the richer members of society, but are worth far less (as a percentage) to the poorer members of society. If that is the case then something's going a bit wrong. The gap between rich and poor in the US is huge, making that gap bigger isn't going to help anyone much (except the rich guys, that pay for all the campaign contributions... aha... now I get it).

Romantico, just because you are so incredibly idiotic and do not see the connection, just because you are an imbecile, does not mean there was no relevancy in my post.

Fools? Simple minds? The fact that you are of that opinion gives me great hope that I am on the right track; if one such as you agreed with me I'd immediately stop and reevaluate my position.

Dom, it only makes sense to me that cutting taxes, that is, giving me back MY money, thank you, is the right thing to do.
I am not rich by any means and it'd mean about a hundred dollar a month payraise or so. That'd make a considerable difference in housing, vehicle, vacation, savings, wherever I'd use it.

As far as it making a bigger difference to the rich, if you've studied taxes in depth, then you realize the rich pay the vast majority of taxes. It'd make sense they'd getting a proportional cut, right? If they reinvest in business it means growth, and growth means jobs. Don't ask me for a job, I'll ask you if you need a trip to the mental ward. No, the evil rich are the ones that create the jobs we totally innocent people fill.

Reagan proved this is not theory. The idea actually came from JFK, didn't it?

Cutting taxes does generate money two steps later into the idea, and that's where the government actually gets more revenue. Significant tax cuts for those who'll use it right will increase business growth. This means there are more jobs, not only entry level but higher as well. This creates a bigger and better paid tax base, which brings more money in for the government to squander.

Which, once again, brings us to the other side of your coin, and you are absolutely, 100% right on target. Those idiots up there are spending money that isn't there's. They steal my money, and yours, and then throw it away.
Forget the tax cuts. They don't deserve the serious increase in revenue.
Maybe we need a constitutional monarchy. Maybe that'd be less costly.

Actually Dom, I believe you are wrong. Reagan’s tax cuts actually brought in more money to the government, something along the lines of tripling government revenue. ALL politicians like to spend, that on top of the cold war spending and you quickly realize where all that extra revenue went. I guess the key is tax cuts and, at the very least, a spending moratorium, or of course spending cuts.

(TC would probably better state what I am trying to say there )

Tax cuts effect those who pay taxes; people that don't make a lot of money simply don't pay that much in tax. In the U.S. Dom, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of income taxes - so, obviously, the lower 50% pay so little taxes to begin with they wouldn't be targeted. (Not to mention the other entitlements one gets by not making much money, but that’s a topic for a different discussion)

Spun, that reads: tax cuts are for the rich.

Though, not rich AT ALL, I would be considered rich to those that use that lie. Lincoln said something like 'you can't strengthen the weakening, by weaken the strong' - so, would the left stop calling me rich and let the president cut my freckin' taxes already!!!


[Edited on 14-5-2003 by Bob88]

Well, there isn't much to add to what the last two posters said. It isn't a theory and has proven itself to work time and time again. Yes, Thomas, I believe JFK was one of the first to prove this idea followed by Reagan.

The term Tax Cut by definition has to apply to tax payers. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a tax cut but welfare. I'm not rich either but I understand what the tax cut will do for the whole country. Heck, I work for the state and if the Dems are successful, I might get a big raise...but once we permanently kill our tax base, where does any money for any program come from? Good question huh? If I get my taxes cut and someone else who pays more gets theirs cut more, if they pay more why should I care? Its the same class warfare thats been preached to us from day one. I might succeed to that level one day...do I want punished for it when I get there? Hell no, I want rewarded and I want to be motivated to achieve not be satisfied to have what I'm given from someone elses achievments.

The fact is even the 750 billion dollar tax cut is a mere drop in the bucket next to the 128 trillion dollar budget(both projected over a 10 year period). But, it would give people a moral boost to see the flow going in a different direction.

[ ..and before we start the Robin Hood rob from the rich and give to the poor stuff, lets remember that Robin took back from an over-taxing government and gave back to the rightful owners.]

If the Dems are successful in staving off the cut and gets Bush ousted, they are going to have to enact one too if they want the economy to come back under them. I personally don't give a rat's ass who does it as long as its done but I hate that politics is holding up a stimulus package and all the while businesses are leary to invest and people stay out of work. its not a political principle, its an economic principle..taught in even liberal universities as part of the basic understanding of the theory.

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes

October 23, 2002 The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.



*Data covers calendar year 2000, not fiscal year 2000 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security



Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay: Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.

Well back to the topic..I doubt most politicians can relate to the public.Most live sheltered lives.They have drivers,drive them to wherever they need to go,they do not do there own shopping,fly 1st class or on private jets.
So why pick on Bush,he is not doing anything differant from any other President has done.

is indeed quite sad!!

So you won't listen to us liberals, maybe you'll listen to a life long republican... my Dad. He also disliked Clinton but thought he did a good job at getting the budget issue taken care of and doing it within his 2 terms. No other president has ever done that...EVER!!!!

My Dad also voted for shrub, and has since then wished he could take it back. Shrub has totally gutted every institution that this great union was founded on and has done so in less than 3 years. The tax cuts, both of them, benefit only one small group of super rich Bush family cronies. My Dad has recently registered democrat for the only the second time in his life, (he is 70 years old) the last democrat he voted for was JFK.

How much did you get on the last tax cut check?
the average Joe Middle-class American got between $200 and $400.

The Bush crime-family netted a cool $1.5mil+ each, as did thier cronies. They no more care about you or I than they do for a common street person or a migrant worker.

Wake up and smell the coffee because you are being scammed in a major way my rightwing friends. Don;t believe all of the propaganda, the republicans & the feds will do whatever it takes to put more cash in their own pockets.

To hell with public schools, hospitals, social security, and permanent jobs for all Americans. We will all be working as temps within a few years and all of our good paying American jobs will be gone.... just like the American dream!

Well, I suppose we'd be better off under liberal leadership? Gray Davis should be out of job soon - perhaps he'd like run for president also.

God no!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't even joke about that.That SOB has bled this state(CA) dry.

"How much did you get on the last tax cut check?
the average Joe Middle-class American got between $200 and $400."

I honestly can't remember the last tax cut. I think it happened in the 80s before i joined the work force. I did get a refund on 2001's return due to over taxing. I got 600.00 as did almost everyone who was over-taxed unless they owed a debt to the government which was a little stipulation placed in there by the Dems but I guess that was fair.

"The Bush crime-family netted a cool $1.5mil+ each, as did thier cronies. They no more care about you or I than they do for a common street person or a migrant worker. "

Well then thats not what the refund was all about. Lets get some proof other than just say so and impeach him. But we need to see if the numbers you quoted were a direct return from the government or made up of other forms of income and stock dividends first.

"Wake up and smell the coffee because you are being scammed in a major way my rightwing friends. Don;t believe all of the propaganda, the republicans & the feds will do whatever it takes to put more cash in their own pockets."

I know how they feel. Thats why I'm up every morning at 5 am to go to work. I do everything I can to put money in my pocket too...and I do smell the coffee every morning

"To hell with public schools, hospitals, social security, and permanent jobs for all Americans. We will all be working as temps within a few years and all of our good paying American jobs will be gone.... just like the American dream!"


If the government is so bad under Bush, why are you arguing to let them keep more of American's money than they need? Jobs mostly come from the businesses that you don't want to have tax cuts. We do have national health care for the poor, medicare and it gets more funding every year. Why must we jump on political sides when discussing economy? Unless we are ready to turn to socialism, more money for the government isn't going to do our system any good. With all the talk about the government being too powerful, how can you argue to give them more in the form of money to waste? Money is power. When money stays with people, they keep the power. When the government is allowed to tax too much, power is with them. Its a simple concept and has not a damn thing to do with Clinton, Bush or any other ego-maniac that thinks it centers around him or her.


For God sake, forget your politics, pick up a used econ 101 book at the local university book store and try to get an understanding of its principles. Its not politics. If taxes aren't lowered, we aren't coming out of this decline. Thats the bottom line. Everything else has been tried. All sorts of social programs designed to spark growth and keep power with the government . They have never ever worked( look at the Soviets). The only tried and true method is returning the power to the businesses and workers in the form of the money they work for everyday. For the love of Pete, it was designed by a democrat.

Again, if Bush is so evil make him give our money back!!