BS: Pres. Bush's next four years

Subject: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:01 AM

(actually this is from SUSU's hubby)

What do you think will come from the next four years of the Bush/Cheney administration? One of the things that I'm really interested in is the overhauling of the social security code. I'm actually excited to be able to actually tell the gov't how I want them to invest my SS taxes. Another good benefit to it all is that when I die then all the money that is in my vested account will go to my named beneficiary instead of them only receiving a death benefit of $250.00. To be able to invest in programs that can pay at least double the earnings of what social security is currently paying is very exciting.
The next thing that I would like to see is the complete overhauling of the tax code. Let's put into place a national sales tax so that everybody will pay for what they buy instead of people paying a portion of what they earn. We could exclude everyday items such as food and other qualifing necessities. Let US have all of OUR paycheck and let US decide how we want to use OUR OWN money.
The next thing is to continue the war on terror. We have had a good start. Have we lost service men? Sure we have. But it has been for the greater good. We have liberated 50 million muslims in two different countries and at the cost of 1500-2000 American military lives. People ask why is this necessary? How does this help America? It helps by introducing stability into a part of the world that has known very little. People are saying there is still too much terror in the areas where we are currently continuing to fight. Even after the end of WW II, there were still pockets of resistance being fought in Japan and Europe. It lasted up to several years after the war was officially over. We probably lost as many servicemen in the few years after WW II, due to pockets of resistance, that we did in the first year of WW II. Don't forget your history....if you do then you are doomed to repeat it. Is it a war for oil? Some people claim that it's the ONLY reason. Don't forget September 11, 2001. We lost 3000+ people from four hijacked airplanes on our own soil. They brought it to us. All we did in '91 is help a small nation when they were invaded by a great army (Iraq) from the north. We could have very easily gone on into Baghdad and taken over at that point but was that the objective? The objective was to run the invaders out of a sovereign country. Yes oil has somthing to do with the reasons to go to war. I'm not ashamed to say it. You know why? Because I don't want to pay $6.00 per gallon of gas to drive my vehicle to work. Besides that, petroleum is what drives the world's economy. So if going to war to help liberate people from the grips of tyranny and to continue to secure the way of life that we have become comfortable with and to give other people around the world to have those same liberties isn't the right way to do it, then somebody please explain to me the right way.
   Am I happy with everything that Bush is doing or is trying to do? No, I can honestly say that I'm not. But we can't have somebody in office that we can agree with 100% of the time. We can't even live with somebody and agree with them 100% of the time.(Just ask SUSU!)
Let me hear what you think!

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Teresa
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:14 AM

Nononononononononononononononono.

I heartily disagree.

Bush's attack on Iraq (which has not been proven to be the home of all or even most terrorists) has caused more instability in the area than there has been in a long time.

I would not safeguard my retirement money with corporate institutions that promise to hold onto it. I'd much rather put it nickel by nickel into the slot machines, given a choice.

If we open the door to a "limited" national sales tax, it will be pushed open wider and wider. Look at the VAT and GST systems in the UK and Canada respectively. Would much rather pay my taxes in a lump, and have an idea of how much I'm paying.

And, not to make light of 9-11, but how many Iraqi "civilians" have been killed in this insanity Bush has started there? More than 3000, most likely. Or do they not count?

Well, what I expect in the next four years is more of the same old stuff, and then some. Not a good thing, IMHO.

Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:23 AM

Was he elected? Wow, musta missed that.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:33 AM

Teresa, Teresa, Teresa,

If you don't trust the corporate institutions to handle your retirement money then why do you trust them to handle your day to day living money? They're called BANKS!!! Or are you just one of those who buries your money in a jar in the backyard types?

What happens in war, Teresa. People die. That's a sad fact of it. When countries go to war, people die. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen. To do so would be the ultimate ignorance. Let's look again at the numbers.......50,000,000 freed at the cost of 3,000 of their own and 6,000 of ours. I'd say that a fairly good rate of return.(Although I do feel bad at the thought of losing ANYBODY in a war. I'm very compassionate for the families of the lost.)Are you saying that the Iraqi people would have been better off at the rule of Saddam and his torture and rape rooms? Would the Afghan people be better off with the suppression of the Taliban? I hope that is not what I'm reading into your reply. Please grow a backbone and support your country and what it means. Hopefully it will still be there for our grandkids' grandkids.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:39 AM

You were not one of the number that was killed or wounded, loud mouth. Don't talk down to people. You are entitled to your opinion and you are bloody well entitled to be polite about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:45 AM

Brucie,
You are right. I apologize if I seem to be "talking down to people." That is not my intention. But I have family members that are over in Afghanistan and Iraq right now fighting for the very people that were getting killed and you know what? They believe in their mission and they know what it means to be free and to offer those freedoms to people who have never known it before. If it has to come at the cost of some of those people or some of our people or even ME, then I would consider it worth it to extend that chance to people to experience what you and I and Teresa have.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:59 AM

Thank you. I do not doubt the courage of the men and women who are fighting. I do doubt the foreign policy of the US in this instance.

The remarks you made about Social Security are good observations; however, they do exclude the poor of the US, and that is not accounted for in either your proposal or that of Bush. Sorry buddy, but it seemed to me like "them what's got, s'got. Them what don't, tough." The poor have no escape from their oppression, and the expenditure of a billion a day could be better used fixing that situation first.

If I have misunderstood you or your remarks, then I owe you the apology.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Teresa
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 02:03 AM

Oh, no, it is to maintain what *we* have here, and not for anyone in those invaded countries, that we kill and subjugate innocent women and children. Only a small population of the world, most likely those in the u.S. could live the way we do, by creating sweatshop-based economies like Wal-mart.

Anyhow, I've promised myself that I will only engage in discussions and not arguments, since I get riled up and upset by arguments. I love to have lively conversation with mutual respect. I am going to step back from this and take a few deep breaths and hopefully come back when there are more coherent ways to say what needs to be said.

I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 02:10 AM

The point about the changes to Social Security is to give people the OPTION of something other than a promise from the government to pay us at a later time, at a rate not related to what we pay in. I do not see how giving a choice is weakening the safety net in any way: Already, I will be getting my benifits under the current system reduced, or at least 2 years later than the system said I would when I started to pay in.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: goodbar
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:17 AM

bad stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:21 AM

Susu - Are you also happy that the U.S. and Britain are using depleted uranium as a weapon of war in Iran. I can just see you jumping up and down with glee as the dust, carried by the wind, settles on your car. I'm sure you will be delighted to find that your child may be born with birth defects and that your husband has leukemia. Whoopie - I think we're a gonna die.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: mg
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:40 AM

I hope we do the tax reform more than the social security reform. I for one never worry about too few workers because we can always open the floodgates of immigration. I hope that tax loopholes are closed up where things exist to lose money etc. I say tax the income like it is with deductions for primary residence, children, dependents, education and medical care. Somewhat of a flat tax with no tax at lower income levels. Tax encouragements for job development in depressed areas, alternative energy production etc. Protect farmland and wilderness. And definitely medical lawsuit reform...not doing away with ability to sue entirely if the doctor shows up drunk and leaves a scalpel in your gut, but safeguards to keep doctors in business. I'm hopeful on Iraq and believe colossal blunders were made that I can't understand...we can't fight a war with the Oregon National Guard, brave as they are. Tyrants the world around are melting like snowballs and hopefully will continue to but it will never be painless getting rid of them. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: van lingle
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:22 AM

If Bush really wanted to "fix" Social Security rather than send billions of dollars in fund maintainance fees in the direction of his constituents in the financial world then he could pay back all the money the federal government has been borrowing from the S.S. trust fund over decades and leave it alone. It was created as a saftey net not a specualtive IRA.
Susu's husband wrote:"So if going to war to help liberate people from the grips of tyranny and to continue to conserve the way of life we have become comfortable with..." I would suggest that we learn to become comfortable with another way of life that would make us less depedent on foreign oil and therefore less likely to indulge in starting colonial wars on false premises.
Incidentally, conservative estimates put the Iraqi civilian dead at a bit over 15,000 so you might want to recalculate your equation.vl

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:51 AM

Social Security:

1.) How about the guy who invests in the next Enron?

2.) Now ya gonna pay to the transition costs?

3.) Have you looked into the number of eledery folks who died in poverty before S.S and compared it to the number of folks after S.S.?

4.) Do you work on Wall Street?

National Sales Tax:

1.) Would you be willing to exempt food, clothing, medical expenses, new autos under $15,000, and housing under $100,000?

2. Do you understand what "regressive tax" means? If so, please explain what it means?

Middle East:

1.) Do you think it is okay to invade countries for no apparent reason other than controling their resources?

2.) How many mpg does you car get?

3.) Do you believe that the oil industry should write out national "energy policy"?

4.) Do you really think that Iraq is more stable now than before the invasion? If so, please explain.

5.) Would you support a Department of Peace? If not, why?

6.) Have you ever been in a fire fight?

7.) Are you aware of the number of woman, old folks and children who have been killed by our military in Iraq?

8.) is not having to pay $6.00 a gallon worth the life of even one child? if so, please explain?

9.) Are you a man of Faith? If so, please explain how killing people who are not a threat to you is justified in your relgion.

10.) Can you identify the nationalities of the hyjackers responbile for 9/11.

11.) Does it bother you that many former Nazis were taken into the Republican Party after WW 2? If not, explain.

12.) Can you tell us what you know about the links between thew Bush and bin Ladens families?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean absolutely no disrespect here but am curious to know the answers to this first round of question?

Then maybe we can get a little deeper...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 10:24 AM

"Please grow a backbone and support your country and what it means. Hopefully it will still be there for our grandkids' grandkids"

It won't be as long as you don't want to pay the dollars for your gas and drive those big guzzlers.The world has about thirty years to get to grips with environmental problems, and now China is growing its economy I see no chance of human beings being able to sacrifice the now for the tomorrow. We're doomed because of our own greed and stupidity.What's the sense of a nation with 3% of the world's population using 25% of the world's energy...and then boasting about it? And then electing a President so dumb he preaches that he wants the rest of the world to be the same?
Doooooooooomed!

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 10:33 AM

Dianavan, and all reading this, this time the post is from SUSU, read the first post again, I did not write those remarks that was my husband, but yes I do agree with him, and you need to really look into what is actually going on and stop watching those bleeding heart liberals and left wing kooks on CNN, instead may I suggest that you read up on current events from a variety of sources. Besides, if I am not mistaken we are entitled to our opinions because of the wonderful country that we live in, and if we do not protect it then we will lose our freedom to do just that! SUSU

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 10:37 AM

"stop watching those bleeding heart liberals and left wing kooks on CNN"
and watch those stone hearted conservatives and right wing lunatics on Fox!

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 10:50 AM

The title of this thread qualifies as the most depressing title ever, just the thought of another 4 war-mongering right wing years of G W Fudd fills me with fear and foreboding.
Giok:~(

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 11:55 AM

Bobert,

Those are very interesting questions that you asked. Did you get those from the Air America website?

I'm not going to get into answering needless questions and get off of the point. The point that I'm trying to make is that these are my observations and this is what I think needs to be done. You can either agree or disagree with me. But one thing I do know.....if we continue down the same road and just put band aids on things that need to be fixed, we are never going to get ahead. All I hear on the left is how the social security program doesn't need to be "fixed". We just need to raise taxes. That sure is a change from four years ago whenever Gore constantly talked about fixing SS and putting the funds in a "lock box". You have to remember that debate. He said "lock box" in just about every answer to every question. It's funny how the problems are there when your guy is in office but when he's not....the problems seem to disappear. Let's have some intellectual honesty then we will be able to discuss the problems and find actual working solutions. We can all certainly agree that the current tax code is confusing and very time consuming. If you enjoy sitting down and wasting 6-8 hours of your life and doing your taxes, then you are a unique individual indeed. I think that the average American would rather be doing something else with their time.
With the war in Iraq; I am a man of faith. I believe in God and in his son Jesus. It is sad when two countries cannot see eye to eye and have to pick up weapons to settle the conflict. But that is what "man" is all about. Settling conflict that has been around since the beginning of time. The only difference now is that we are looking for them and taking care of the problem before they can get to us. This is something that is very appealing to me. Even God warned the Israelites of when they were going to be attacked. Do you think that in all of the wars that Israel has been involved in that no innocent people were killed. It happens. Does this lessen the value of that live. By all means NO! Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that instead of going to war to protect the way of life that you've become accustomed to, it's ok to overlook some of the things that are going on in the world in hopes that politicians can work out the differences? Do you really put that much faith in politicians? Or do you believe that if we just ignore the problem then it will just go away? You have to address the problems. We've been addressing the problems for hundreds of years. The UN tried to address the problems in Iraq from '91 to 2003. The years of talking and trying to search where Saddam would allow them access did absolutely nothing. The talking has evidently done nothing so now we address it in other ways. Let's solve the problems and take away the argument. Only then will the needless killing stop.

(Susu's Hubby)

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:09 PM

Settling conflict that has been around since the beginning of time. The only difference now is that we are looking for them and taking care of the problem before they can get to us. This is something that is very appealing to me. Even God warned the Israelites of when they were going to be attacked.

Your last sentence explains your logic. It is all the scarier because of your beliefs. Nobody appointed your country as the world police. The rest of the sane thinking world recognise the US's dangerous policies. 3% of the worlds population are using 25% of the worlds energy. Address the problems at home before you take your brand name murder to those who can't fight back.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:13 PM

I have no issues in addressing problems, hubby, and even sitting down and dicussing solutions. I have and continue to me quite involved in my own community.

I do have a problem with folks, like yourself, who say they want to sit down and work out stuff on one hand while limiting the discussion to just those areas that you define. That's not sitting down and finding solutions because you you, in your own admission, want that discussion limited to your agenda...

I asked you about 15 question and chooze to answer only 2 or 3 thatt *you* deemed were relevent.

You have no interest in democarcy, just lecturing people on what you think...

I would hate to be on a committee with you, hubby. I can tell that you are one of those my-way-or-the-highway kinda people. I don't mean this to sound disrespectfull, just an observation so don't get all righteously indignant over it.

But if you really want to discuss stuff, fine. Discussion is dialogue. Not monologue. I don't think it's unfair to ask you gor your thoughts on issues related to the programs that you want inacted. You are the one who asked for a discussion...

If you do, yer gonna have to defend your positions and not say they are out of bounds...

Peace,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:54 PM

Gleefully launching wars in order to achieve a final solution to a long-term problem? Sounds pretty hop-headed to me!! The hidden premise that the invasion of Iraq in some way protected this country (the U.S.) strikes me as the ultimate in bizarre rationalization. Nobody in California reported being shot at by Iraqis, that I recall. What qwas it we were being protected from by the invasion??

OH!!I forgot about Condi's mushroom cloud thesis.

I forgot most of Winnie the Poo, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:22 PM

Susu, here's the problem. There's no decent way out of Iraq.
We don't belong there. You can't force democracy at the point of a gun. If Bush goes into Iran, there will be more American casualties.

Regarding banks, you can close your account if you don't like the service. No option here given for Bush's plan.

Social Security is a treasury bond. It's a safer investment there than in the mercurial stock market.

Many people are not acquainted with the intricacies of making a proper investment in the market. Many would be hurt. Bush making that investment for them by isolating the stocks that would be available would put Social Security recipients at the mercy of his judgement. His track record in business is not good. Elderly people need to be protected from the abuse of bad decisions.

Also, many people who have paid into the system through FICA would be shortchanged for the future by those who invest in the market.

Finally, there is no reason to reform Social Security. It is not a problem regardless of what Bush would have you believe. The present administration wants to get their hands on Social Security income to finance furthur political agendas such as future wars. The Congression Acounting Office has gone on record saying that the Social Security is solvent until 20042 and after that minor adjustments would be made. It is...I repeat emphatically..not a crisis! The Bush figures are skewed for political reasons. It's fuzzy math.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:27 PM

Oh c'mon Amos. You still wear your Winnie the Pooh underpants.

Ah, another day of Amos the doper radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Consistancy
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:58 PM

Let's put into place a national sales tax so that everybody will pay for what they buy instead of people paying a portion of what they earn. ... Let US have all of OUR paycheck and let US decide how we want to use OUR OWN money.

Those two statements are contradictory, you notice? Let's assume you really mean the second. So you are quite happy that anyone who does not support the war in Iraq can keep their share of the money used to pay for it and the round-about-half in favour of the war should pay round-about-double what they do now? Or do you mean that people don't have a direct say in how it is spent (so the second statement isn't true) and all you want to do is alter the way in which they pay it? Well, read about regressive taxation as recommended above, but if you manage to avoid that issue all you have done is use a bit of smoke-and-mirrors to alter the time at which you pay, not what you pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 04:35 PM

Banks are bigger crooks than Pretty Boy Floyd or Billy the Kid. Wall Street manipulates stocks and futures. You want to sleep with this trash?

You seem to be very liberal with your accusations. You know not one damned thing about me or my views. You are entitled to your views. Very much so. But mudslinging don't cut it in argument. So far all I have heard from susu or hubby is a whole lotta me, me, me. This world is a big place. You have not spoken the the bank scandals in the late 1990s, Enron, etc. It's like they never happened. And you propose that 'investment', which you think is infinite, is the answer to YOUR problems. Well, invest, and quit whining about it. I could give a rat's ass what you think of left-wing, right-wing or moderate types. You have demonstrated that your concern is yourselves. Good for you. Why tell others about it? Go invest. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 06:12 PM

Hmmmm?

Looks like Hubby don't wanta play no more since he's found that the Catbox ain't filled with a bunch of wooses just waiting for yet another Bushite lecture...

Fine. At least he hasn't resorted to calling folks names so he gets credit for that...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 08:46 PM

National Sales Tax?

That's the worst idea anybody's had since Hitler's father said to Hitler's mother, "C'mon, Brünhilde, let's go upstairs and make whoopee!"

I live in a state where there is a 6.5% sales tax, and the local communities add their own percentage to that. In Seattle, the total sales tax is it's 8.8%. Which is to say, whatever the list price is for something, you have to add 8.8% to that price. People here don't like it much and want the state to levy an income tax, provided they repeal the sales tax. But so far, no politician who advocates a state income tax wants to do away with the sales tax, so whenever the issue comes up, the voters say "No way!" Not unless the sales tax is done away with.

Think!

To those whose income level is way up there, sales tax seems negligible. If you're able to shuck out $75,000 to buy the kid who's going back East to an Ivy League college the Jaguar XK he says he needs, the extra $6,600 in sales tax isn't going to bite that much. But those with the lowest income are the ones who pay the largest percentage of that income in sales tax because they have to spend most or all of it just to survive. Discretionary income? They don't have any. And that extra 8.8% bites like hell.

And as far as a National Sales Tax is concerned, the figures being bandied about range from 23 to 56%!! That means the price of everything goes up by around a quarter to a half. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But that seems to be the whole idea of a National Sales Tax.

Taxes don't get much more unfair and regressive than that!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 08:50 PM

However, Don, that kind of tax looks fair to those who HAVE money, and fairness doesn't seem to enter into too many of these equations, IMO.

Brucie (from the land of the GST at 7%).

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:02 PM

OK GUYS! ONE MORE TIME! I realize that everyone has thier opinions about my husbands point of view, but for those of you who continue to address your comments to SUSU (ME!) are the ones who IMHO do not get all the facts correct in the first place, and therefore appear as someone who doesn't know enough about something to comment to it in the first place, but I digress that is IMHO! Susu

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:02 PM

In B.C. we have GST at 7%, PST at 7% and Provincial and Federal income tax. But guess what, I do not mind at all if I know its going to the less fortunate, medical care and/or education. What I don't like is when it goes to higher salaries for the bureacrats and politicians. I also do not like it when it is spent for weapons of war and/or war, in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:06 PM

IMNSHO, susu, I will quote YOU:

"I did not write those remarks that was my husband, but yes I do agree with him".

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:12 PM

Yo susu,

I don't see where too many folks are directing comments at you. The fact that "hubby" chooze to post under your name means that the thread is in yer name... By posting to the thread doesn't mean that folks are posting against ot for you... You've compalined twice and now taken it to the level of telling folks that if they can't figure out this little ball game that you and hubby got going that they don't qualify in your book as being intellegent enough to carry on a discussion???

Give me a break...

I think you and hubby are a perfect match. Both overly judgemental and filled with little rules... I'm sure its a ball living around you folks...

Bye.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 05:36 AM

Well before they start forcing an alien concept called democracy on what are mostly fuedal countries, perhaps America ought to try it themselves. I don't mean the gerrymandered boundaries, and I don't mean the large "Donation" [or are they bribes?] paid by commercial interests to get friendly legislation. I mean 1 man, 1 vote, and everybody's vote is counted. For a start, why doesn't federal law make every state use the same voting system?
No offence guys, it's just the way it looks from here.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:18 PM

We have a three way mix, these days. One part democracy, one part socialism, and one part corporatism. Unfortunately the current administration is pouring resources into the third area to the detriment of the other two.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 01:22 PM

W said at the inauguration that he will continue to push for an ownership society. That means 'privatize' everything.

If you own a factory in another country or if you have enormous land holdings, you will be alright and pleased with ultra privitization.

What is privatized so far?

1. the election process and vote casting and vote counting machines.
2. white house jounalism. Armstrong Williams, Novak etc.
3. soldiers of fortune/private contractors in our war zones.
4. 1/4 of government research.
5. HMO monopolization of the "health industry"
6. soon social security so Wall St. types can take their cut.
7. countless more examples of corporate fascist monopolies.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushprivate1.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 01:28 PM

TAKE A LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE. THIS SOULD BE THE WAY THAT ANY TAX SYSTEM SHOULD WORK. I SAY ABOLISH THE IRS. EVIDENTLY, FROM WHAT I HEAR, BUSH IS CONSIDERING THE PLAN LAID OUT BY THIS WEBSITE.


WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 01:44 PM

You go Susu's Hubby!

Finally, someone who has a little sense and knowledge and puts his view up to be criticized. I think he has more guts than all of you do for putting his ideas up to be lamblasted. It's easier to confront if you have an army of conformists behind you but when you start attacking somebody for presenting different options to plans that have the history of NOT WORKING to begin with then it shows your true colors. I applaud him. Keep on preaching brother.
You ask, why hasn't he responded lately? He may be out working his ass off for his family trying to make it for him and his family. He may not have the time (unlike some people posting on this board) to just sit around and respond to the endless list of idiots that spout the talking points offered by the DNC these days. He has obviously done his research and was hoping for a little lively discussion and all he gets is socialists spouting the teachings of Marx and Lenin. At least he is offering new ideas instead of the old and tired ideas that have been tried and tried and result in failure every time.

Susu's hubby.......I may not agree with everything you say but so far.........I applaude you! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:28 PM

Gee, no need to get all strident.

The FAQ for the Fair tax movement can be found here. It makes an interesting and persuasive argument, with few exclamation points or unnecessary capitals.

I am not sure what Guest is talking about, but I am not going to go into his blather until she gets a name by which it will be recognized.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:38 PM

Hey guys! This is Susu, I wish the guest who posted the previous text would have put their name or something to let us know who you are! I appreciate the encouragement you gave to my husband, so let me say THANKS! Susu

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 03:31 PM

3% of the worlds populatins uses 25% of the energy- but produces 43% of the worlds GNP (time magazine) and 50% of the worlds R & D. I say that is a pretty good use of resources.    Compare that with Africa or China.

Bobert feels sad for the people who invested in Enron.   I feel sad for all the people who have their money in savings accounts that only pay them 1% return, and all the rest of us who are forced to keep our money in Social Security with a 1 1/2 % return.    I would switch in a heartbeat and take my changes with my finanantial investor who have averaged a 10% incrase over the past 20 years.

For those of you who would rather pay $6 a gallon than be in Iraq- you obviously have not thought about the effect that would be on our economy- trucking, air travel, vactions, etc.    That would put us in an instant depression.

Here is some more depressing news (for you progressives and demoncrats)    Economists are projecting the GNP to increase by 4% in 2005 and this healthy economy has decreased the projected deficit from 2.1 trillion to 1.1 trillion during the next 10 years.   While you guys and gals were counting votes in Ohio, the economy increased by 1 trillion dollars.   It just doens't get any worse for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 04:11 PM

In truth, Larry, the economy had no place to GO but up.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 05:28 PM

SuSu: Many people who contribute to this forum use "Guest" instead of their real name, or even their real Mudcat moniker because they know they will be ridiculed if they support something other than the "party line."

I think your husband presented some legitimate ideas to consider but don't expect anything other than attacks on this forum if you even hint that Bush might have some good ideas too.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 05:33 PM

No, Larry, I don't feel sad for the folks who invested in Enron as much as I do about a systwm that prevented those who did from cashing out while the big shots cashed out as Enron went down. Yeah, that is a sad state of affairs.

And I would also be saddened if some hard working guy, who knows his job and does it well, opts into Bush's scheme and uses the money to invest in stuff he knows little or nuthin' about and ends up either having to work until the day he dies or dies in poverty.

And looks as we finally got confirmation that the reason fir the US invading Iraq was oil! It's about time. Thanks, Larry, but I hope you checked with Karl Tove before letting the cat out of the bag... Last I hear he was working on some *new 'n improved* excuses for attacking Iraq for 2005 since all of the prior ones turned out to be lies. Thanks again...

And thanks fir that rosey prediction. Is it from the same folks who predicted all those jobs that the tax cuts to the wealthy were gonna create? Or are they the ones who have a plan for reducing the deficit by 1/2 over the next four years?

And as fir yer stats. Stats are crap. Ant good stat professor will tell his students that the 1st day of class.

Using yer GNP stats one might ask why in a country that is responsible for 43% of the world's GNP...

1. has its students ranking 21st in science scores among developed nations?

2. Or why it has the highest murder rate?

3. Or 1 in 4 of its kids living poverty?

4. Or 1/4th of its African American males who will be incarcerated at some time in thei life?.

5. Or, for that matter, the highest incarceration rate in the world?

Just fir starters...

Your stats are squewed because the upper 1 % is so wealthy that it brings up the per capita income for the entire population.

Maybe you need to get out of your ivory tower and volunteer at a soup kitchen for a day 'er two and then come back and tell us how everything is peachy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 05:34 PM

I'll always use my Mudcat name to show that I don't support the doper left wing fanatics who hang out here.

I also think they were good ideas susu's husband.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 05:52 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the GW Bush presidency is a dead end, a lame duck.

Politics is built upon the premises that you reward your friends and punish your enemies, and that all politics is local.

George W. Bush cannot run again -- it's the end of the line. Cheney has already said that he won't run, and I doubt that he could win if he did. Jeb Bush won't run, and like Cheney I doubt that he could win. Rumsfeld couldn't win.

Who's left to continue GWB's legacy? Condi Rice? Karl Rove?

In the last few days leading legislators of the Republican Party are starting to make noises about disagreeing with Bush's proposals. They are coming to the realization that they could very well be there long after GWB is gone -- and that they, not Bush, will have to answer to the people that elect them.

So if a Senator -- say, one that was elected or re-elected in 2004 -- come to realize that they don't have to stand for re-election until two year AFTER GWB is gone, or a Representative realizes that he or she only has to survive until the 2006 re-election....

Bush can reward friends and punish enemies, true, but it's become a whole heckuva lot more difficult and in some cases damned near impossible.

As the troops under orders to 'Nam used to say, "What are you going to do? Send me Vietnam?"

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:13 PM

Like Mister Gibson, Mister Bush specializes in trashery, and then seeks high-flown explanations as to why it is a good thing. But abuse and destruction, which they are both fancy experts in, are better off named for what they are.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:16 PM

"Don't forget September 11, 2001"

I never will. Ever.

That said, I don't see the connection between that and Iraq. However, I am willing to listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,el stupido
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

OK I am trying to follow this. Could someone please answer my two really dumb questions?
GNP = ?
R and D = ?

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

Don't forget September 11,1973 either.

Equally, if not more, important to remember.

Especially as the former- the mindset that produced it- was largely responsble for the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Mike K.
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:30 PM

"And I would also be saddened if some hard working guy, who knows his job and does it well, opts into Bush's scheme and uses the money to invest in stuff he knows little or nuthin' about and ends up either having to work until the day he dies or dies in poverty."

If i'm not mistaken, isn't this where a little personal responsibility needs to be brought to the table? If you are interested in just getting the 1 to 1 1/2% that SS offers then fine. But at least have enough sense to realize that some people do their homework and if they don't know about something, you know what they do? They ask somebody who does. This is what you call learning. If you're not smart enough or have the fortitude to do some legwork and find out the different options available to make your life a little more comfortable then don't come complaining to me and want to raise my taxes when your favorite type of bologna goes up to $6.95/pound.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:42 PM

In economics, GUEST, the GNP = Gross National Porduct and is 'sposed to represent to total *value* of all the good and services that are created. It's also a bunch of stat BS and doesn't take into account the value of one's currence against the curriencies of other nations. Even if it were, it's 90% smoke and mirrors...


R & D = Research and Developement, mostly used by the drug companies to justify their ripping off the American people. They want you to think that *they* spend this much money developing drugs. That's a big lie. Lots of drugs out there were developed by folks working for teaching/medical schools/colleges. Lots are developed by NIH. Lots are not unique at all but copy-cat drugs qhich are basicly ripped off from other folks... But the drug company lobbiest stanf right there and tell the $900M story every day as if it has anything to do with reality...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,not so el stupido
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:56 PM

Thanks Bobert you are a gentleman.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 07:22 PM

Just for the record, suppose for a moment that the symptoms of dope-use (various kind sof drugs) were inaccurate thought, wrong-targeting, assumptions of hostility, exaggerated concepts of one's own rightness and others' wrongness, and sometimes a reversion to prepubescent, puerile vocabulary and humor patterns. Possibly paranoiac delusions of persecution and antagonism not warranted by current circumstances.

Looking over the various threads, I would hazard to say that Martin is the probable doper in these parts, based on those criteria.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:04 PM

well, susu & hubby...you need to remember that 48,000,000 people did NOT happily anticipate 4 more years....and there is MUCH doubt how many of those who did vote for him really liked his tax policies, or war policies, or were just supporting one of many other special interest issues he played to.

Whoever is president is supposed to look after the interests of ALL the people, and many Republican presidents have at least tried, whether I agreed with all their efforts of not....but I, and many others, see mounting evidence that THIS president's agenda is different.....we shall see, hmmmm?

Let's see what you think when the current deficit is doubled, seniors are having SS cut by ¼ because funds are going to Republican money 'managers', our reputation in the rest of the world is at rock bottom, and we are STILL losing 4-5 soldiers a day in Iraq...and who knows where else.

maybe you never read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Nietzsche...in which and old woman is heard to say...."Of course it was a just war, my son died in it!" ...too many people are using that sort of logic to support this idiocy these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:06 PM

Give it up, Amos...

Yer playin' at his level & we need ya fir the real stuff...

Martin is just an entertaining side show. Nuthin more than the purdy girl that walk around the ring in a bathing suit between rounds at a prize fight...

Ya gotta let Martin go...

Think of him as a toy top. Anytime you want to wind him up you can but, geeze, not every time he might want to be taken out fir a spin...

But you still da man in mah book, fir sure...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:11 PM

Great one, GregF, and now it's happening in the USA, but much more

s l o w l y.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:08 PM

Hello all.....hubby here again.

I don't know who this "guest" is but I wish I knew where he/she was so I could send them a check. HAHAHAHAHA. I'm glad that we have a place to come to and "discuss" the issues when they need discussing. Even though Bobert and Brucie and Teresa and I will probably never see eye to eye, I'm glad that we can come together and say what we're thinking without having to watch out for somebody to come and throw us in jail. (Don't start with the Rummy or Ashcroft jokes). At least we can "discuss"? our ideas and SHOUT when we need to to get our point across and appreciate the self defecating.....deprecating (oops) humor that each of us has so profoundly displayed here. Even if we don't agree.....we at least are thinking.


Susu's hubby.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:20 PM

Amos can't let me go. I have become his naval. Gazing at it, fascinated with it, pick at it, stick your finger in it and smell it.

I don't use drugs, Amos. Did for a while, but quit years ago. And let's say I do know what effect they have on people. I read your crap and it's obvious.

oooooooooh my name is Amos and I'm so abused by President Bush and Martin Gibson on Mudcat. ooooooooohh. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! They are both out to get me! They are the establishment and I can't fit in to it so I whine about it every single day hoping some one will listen. Ooooooooooooohh! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:23 PM

Too late, fir me, susu's hubby. You have alreadly demonstratede that you ahve no interest in discussing anything except those thing on *your* agenda... Answer the questions I have allready asked and we'll talk, Until then count me out of yer monologue, thank you... If I wants be preached to by a right wing idealogue I'll drive a couple hundred miles south of here and listen to Jerry Falwell, thank you...

Like I said, answer my questions an then lots of us will play but not until then... And I know I'm speaking fir a lot of folks here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Biskit
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:44 AM

susu & susu's husband,
RIGHT ON! however, trying to talk sense to Bobert is hopeless, he is convinced that his way is the only way and if he repeats the same thing over, and over again (that he heard someone else say) eventually it will become true. I appreciate your views, and the courage to print them in this forum. but don't expect to change his mind.
Peace! Through Understanding
~Biskit!

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Kaleea
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:31 AM

Loved the "Iraqco" cartoon! If you know anyone in the oil business, you may know just how close to the frightening truth that is. Except the name on the sign should read: "BushOCo."
    So when Bush was not 'zactly elected the first time, I told my coworkers that we would be in "all out bloody hell war in a year or two tops. How many trillion $$$$ has the war cost the American taxpayer so far?    How much is that national debt now? You know, the one that was reduced significantly in the 4 years before W. took the oval office. After he took office the 1st time, he decided to rob social security of a bundle of $$$ to give million$$ tax rebates to the very rich.    So he's just now figuring out that there are problems with Social Security. Hmmmmm.
The next 4? God help us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:15 PM

OH NO! WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITHOUT BOBERT'S SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE?

If anyone has noticed, he has now, TWICE, tried to change the subject by asking irrelevant questions on something that I started and said that these are my OPINIONS. I brought up three issues and stated my opinions on them and what I would like to see happen. Quit changing the subject. If we wanted to talk about your issues then go start your own thread and we will join in and STILL tell you how wrong you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:58 PM

Welcom to the small and very narrow world of leftest commie pinko Mudcat politics, susu's hubby. that usual cast of characters of peudo intellectuals shoots themselves in the foot most every day.

Hope you get as much a charge out of it as I do. Stick around to see great features from them like:

changing the subject
everyday suffering in America
imagining what it's like to appreciate living in America
hating everything corporate
promoting socialism
ridiculing nationalism
ridiculing people with religious beliefs
believing everything they read on the Internet
plenty more.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:34 PM

Normally I don't take Bobert seriously enough to respond to, but I thoughts his questions would be a good learning tool.

The question was "how could the US have 43% of the worlds GNP" given the problems Bobert mentions.

The answer is simple.   FREEDOM.    The USA is the freest county on the planet.   The best and the brightest from other countries (Canada, India, UK, Pakistan) come to the USA because of the freedom to succeed.   Here are the specifics to the Bobert challenge.

1.   How can we rank 21 in science- teachers union prohibiting students from learning while protecting bad tearhers, and no vourchers for parents in bad school districts.   Fortunately, freedom and US ingenuity overcome this.

2. Highest murder rate- mostly limited to urban city and gang violence.    Murders rates in rural areas very low.    Most states bordering Canada have lower crime rate than in Canada.

3. 1/4 of people in poverty-   low income people in USA live better than most general populations in world.   According to study, the majority of people living in poverty in the USA have tv's, stereos, cars, houses, air conditioning, vcr's, expensive sneakers, etc.   The average low income person in USA has larger living quarters than the average person in Paris or London.   

4. 1/4 afro americans in jail-   That is an easy one.   Because they committed crimes.   The real question is why are they committing crimes.   I would contend that the 70% out of wedlock birth rate has a great deal to do with the poverty and incarceration.   That and voting democratic which should be a crime.

5. Higest incarceration rate in world-   because we put criminals in jail.   In other countries they put criminals in office and consider corruption the norm.   Were Sadaams sons ever arrested for rape and murder?

6. Upper 1% bring up the GNP- The upper 1% in USA make 20.8% of all the income and pay 37.4% of all the taxes.   Clearly they are paying too much.   We must begin to tax the poor their fair share.

In the words of Suzanna Goodfreind (wife of former CEO of Solomon Brothers on Wall Street) "it's so expensive being rich"

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:21 PM

"4. 1/4 afro americans in jail-   That is an easy one.   Because they committed crimes.   The real question is why are they committing crimes.   I would contend that the 70% out of wedlock birth rate has a great deal to do with the poverty and incarceration."

That, sir, is disgusting. Thought you were a much better man than that, Larry. I don't agree with your politics, nor do you with mine, but don't you find this type of scapegoating a bit tasteless--even though you are trying desperately to make a point?

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:28 PM

What do you find disgusting about it, brucie? I think those are fairly verifiable statistics, more than half of which were offered up by Bobert, not Larry. Are you disgusted with Bobert's stats or Larry's? If Larry wonders whether out-of-wedlock births has negative societal imlications doesn't it make more sense to refute that assertion than to be indignant? There was no racist edge to Larry's contention -- only that of assuming consequenses to out-of-wedlock births in such great numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:42 PM

I agree. it has nothing to do with being racist.

More Afro-Americans come from that type of background.

They as a whole, I sure know it also.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:54 PM

Guys, I do not think Larry is racist, and that is why I was surprused. Poverty leads to crime. The real question is, Why are so many people from a single race incarcerated? We have a similar situation in Canada in terms of Native people. Similar questions being asked here, too.

When you steal a million, you can afford lawyers to fight the charges for you. When you steal a few hundred bucks, you don't have enough to hire a lawyer to get you off or staal the case so long that eventually someone makes a procedural mistake and screws the case.

Implied in that statement is that certain races 'breed' and so bring upon themselves a high crime stat. Sorry, but I just don't buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:58 PM

As I have said before, there is a certain amount of truth in most sterotypes. all of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM

That's as may be Martin. BUT, without doing the resaerch, I would posit that Black Americans do NOT have the same PCI as the average American. Why might that be, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:02 PM

I see.

Shelby Steele has long contended that the racism of governmental intervention has so significantly contributed to the illegitimacy rate among one race in US society that, quite the contrary to assuming the weakness on the part of the subjugated race (subjugated by governmental "kindness") -- they are merely the "canary in the mine" warning society as a whole of the dangers of removing familial resposibility. He contends that any race (because it has nothing to do with race) that is subjegated by subsidy of government will soon do the same -- act antisocially.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:12 PM

Larry K. you soon will learn that Bobert is not easily confused by facts.

Your points are well taken even if they will not be accepted by most our friends here.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:01 PM

oil

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:38 PM

"5. Higest incarceration rate in world-   because we put criminals in jail.   In other countries they put criminals in office and consider corruption the norm.   Were Sadaams sons ever arrested for rape and murder?"

We put poor people in jail. I believe White-collar thieves spend less time in jail per dollar stolen than car thieves. We put wealthy criminals in office and consider corruption by campaign donations the norm. We jail drug users and go lightly on drug dealers, and lighter still on those who launder drug money.

"4. 1/4 afro americans in jail-   That is an easy one.   Because they committed crimes."

Not quite. Just read in the paper today California statistics show blacks get more severe sentences for the same offenses than whites. And there's plenty of evidence that this holds true across the country. Hell, being convicted of "DWB" has become a cliché.

"The real question is why are they committing crimes. I would contend that the 70% out of wedlock birth rate has a great deal to do with the poverty and incarceration.   That and voting democratic which should be a crime."

Because they're black bastard Democrats, eh?

For shame.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM

Yeah, Hubby et al are not able to grasp the simple questions that I asked and cooze instead to answer the question they wished I'd asked.

The point is not rocket surgery here. If we're so friggin' wealthy then why is there sucha high rate of poverty?

And why is that countries that aren't so wealthy, seesm to do a much better job in distributing their wealth so that their people have decent health care, educations and standards of living...

Freedom?

Is that your final answer?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:42 PM

...and I quote the great Bobert....

"And why is that countries that aren't so wealthy, seesm to do a much better job in distributing their wealth so that their people have decent health care, educations and standards of living..."


Distribution of wealth? That's the scary part. Why should I give MORE of my money from the money that I EARN from my own business that I have worked my ass off for and watch it go to a welfare crack whore with six kids or to somebody that has failed to plan on what to do whenever they lose a job or for just when times get tight? If they can't save any money for those times then they have way too many expenses and they need to stop living beyond their means. People need to stop trying to keep up with the Jones' and keep up with their own NEEDS. NOT WANTS. If I want to be benevolent and just GIVE the money to someone, then let me decide who that money needs to go to. I think that I can find somebody a lot more worthy and would actually appreciate it a ton more that somebody who EXPECTS it to be there because their congressman or Senator has signed a bill that actually rewards people for being lazy. Bobert, get a clue..........

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:42 PM

The thing to know, Bobert, is that the redistribution of wealth has three four drivers. One is mandate by law as in Federal programs or socialist programming. The second is through crime -- stealing from the top to feed the bottom. The third is market-driven, starting small businesses that provide something the holders of wealth need and employing the poor. Think McDonald's. And the fourth is human compassion, organized into charities or what have you.

Under the current standing of things "one"is out because we are reducing all them liberal damn laws. Three is a lot harder than it useter be because the hired poor are not paid enough as a whole to make a family survive on the efforts of less than three people. The fourth is taking up as much of the slack as it can, but the truth is that those controlling the purse-strings are not highly compassionate people in many cases; and the government's tax plan will remove any incentive to support charities for tax cuts. That leaves part of three and a little of four and a lot of two, crime.

That's the answer to your question about prisons.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:47 PM

Yup.

The freedom to starve in the midst of plenty. The freedom to live in substandard housing. The freedom to go without decent health care. The freedom to watch more money being spent to kill Iraquis than is spent on education in a decade. The freedom to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than the rich do. The freedom to be spied on by your government at their whim. The freedom of senior citizens to survive by eating dog food. Etc.

Amerika sure looks to be the "free-est" country in the world, all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:50 PM

Okay, hubby...

I know you have taken the 5th ammendment on 12 of the 15 questions I have allready asked you but maybe youwould like to explain to me your concept of "creation of wealth"? Is that asking too much? Like, where does wealth come from? Capital or labor? Please think this one thru before going off on one of yer "privleged few" rants, okay?

Bobert

no, make that "the great Bobert", wherever that came from (ahhh, BTW, where'd you come up with that, if I might ask?)

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:53 PM

"...and I quote the great Bobert...."

susu, I don't see where that type of remark supports your argument. Thare ARE many great things about the Bobert. One of them is his compassion for people. I will take compassion over an extra three percent anytime, anywhere. I agree with Bobert that people are infinitely more important than money. I think that's pretty great of him to have said.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:19 PM

Hah, nothin great 'bout me, bruce... My mother raised me as a commie...

But you, on the other hand, had to fight thru to get there so...

...tou be the "great" one far as I can see...

An' *aww shucks, I meant commie in jest, folks*.....

Geeze

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:03 PM

"…a welfare crack whore with six kids…"

Just curious; how many of those do you know? I don't know any, though there is probably at least one somewhere. I hear her referred to a lot, anyway. But if she exists we can ignore her and let her take care of herself. Malnutrition and sickness will take care of the kids. No prob'm.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:10 PM

Greg F

The freedom to practice any religion you want to.

The freedom of speech.

The freedom to move about this land at will.

The freedom to tell you that you are an ungrateful idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:03 PM

ANd you, that you are an abusive one, who doesn't understand what he reads.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:13 PM

"Pres. Bush's next four years"

On the lighter side, it ain't four no more.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:54 AM

"Too many Republican senators allow Bush's top aides "to get away with lying," said Sen. Mark Dayton, a Democrat who opposed the war and will face reelection next year in the swing state of Minnesota. "Lying to Congress, lying to our committees and lying to the American people. It's wrong, it's immoral." The only way to stop it, Dayton said, is to keep the administration from promoting officials "who have been instrumental in deceiving Congress and the American people, and regrettably that includes Dr. Rice." Wasg. Post.

Someone stepping out of line? Is the whole Liar's Pack going to take a tumble? If we really revert to family values, as some mugwumps said, does that include charity and truthfulness? Because these Reds don't have a lot of practice in either.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:42 AM

Bobart,

"The point is not rocket surgery here. If we're so friggin' wealthy then why is there sucha high rate of poverty?

And why is that countries that aren't so wealthy, seesm to do a much better job in distributing their wealth so that their people have decent health care, educations and standards of living..."

Have you ever visited other countries? Try going to the slums on the other side of the mountain from Acapulco THEN tell me that the US has a high rate of poverty, or that other countries do so much better. I understand that the situation is the same in many countries, but can only comment on what I have seen, unlike some people here.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:13 PM

Acapulco, BB? Why not Brazil? You can find lots of countries around the world where poverty is worse than it is in the United States. But these are also countries that have no social safety net programs. Now, Denmark, or Norway, or Sweden are nowhere near as rich as the United States, but due to their concern for all their citizens, not just the very rich, you will not find people who have to sleep in back alleys there.

The United States is the richest country in the world. But that wealth is so poorly distributed, that you have tent cities and Hoovervilles tucked away in major cities all over the country. They don't make the national press because that would be admitting that we have a problem, and that's bad for business. And politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:20 PM

Amos, you've snapped.

I am not President Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:27 PM

Martin, when did you think you were? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:48 PM

Delighted to hear your self-recogntiion has improved, Martin. Neither am I, and thank God for both of us.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:10 PM

There is this other guy called Bobert in Pocatello, Bobert, and he's a nasty, mean-minded little neocon pissant with a bad attitude. He's the "lesser Bobert", and that is why what's-iz-name referred to you as "the Great Bobert". That's my theory on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:12 PM

Actually, there was one embarrassing moment today. A reporter asked President Bush if he thought of his inauguration being a gala event, and Bush said, "As long as none of them try to get married."


Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan says that a president's second inaugural speech usually refers to the accomplishments of the past four years. So, the good news is it should be a really short speech.


An article in The New Yorker magazine says that the next place the Bush administration is planning to attack is Iran. Boy, that seems like a mistake, doesn't it? Shouldn't we go after the Neverland Ranch first? Free those people?

(Leno)

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:17 PM

brucie: Your remark about Bobert, and his penchant for compassion, compells me to ask:if you are such a champion of compassion, why are you so opposed to compassionate conservatism?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:30 PM

Because it is neither compassionate nor conservative?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:07 PM

Ok this is from "The Susu" just a question Bobert, do you think that the high school drop-out who flips burgers at McDonalds should make the same amount of money as the cardio-vascular surgeon who saves your sorry butt after eating too many of those Mickie-D's?

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:12 PM

As a socialist, I'm sure that he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:13 PM

Susu --

How unreal do you think Bobert is? Really, you reflect poorkly not on his intelligence, but on your own, posing such a question. I mean no offense, but Bobert deserves a decent amount of respect as an articulate and thinking human being.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM

Well, gol danged nice to have folks 'round to come to my defense while my boney butt and the other anatimical parts connected to it are out making a gol danged living but...

As for BB, that's about what I expected of him. He prolly couldn't find Europe on a map. When I mentioned that other countries with less resources did a better job of redistributing them, I wasn't thinking 3rd world counties, gol dangit. Only you would wonder off in that direction where probably about 99 % of others would automaticly think of more deveoled countries that compare closer to the US...

And don't worry about the susu hubby, Amos. He is a longwinded Martin Gibson. Nothin. more and nothin less. But far less entertaining than Martin who ya gotta admit, is a hoot. Hunny isn't a hoot, Just another angry white guy who won't answer any questions that you ask of him yet says he wants to have discussion... So he goes about having one... Porblem is is that it is purdy much with himself... But he certainly would like all of us to snap to attention, hear out his monologue and sign on *his* Bushite dotted line.

As for my ol' pal, Dougie's comment? He knew that someone would come back with the compassionate conservatism is neither remark becuase, like a crossword puzzle word, this one has a few laps under its belt. But I guess if having out percentage of elderly folks and kids living in poverty higher each year since Bush took office is compassion, that tells ya something about compassion. Not to mention the 100,000 people who have been "liberated" from *the living*...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:59 PM

What a sap.

"Why should I give my money to (expletives deleted)"

....

Because a safty net for a society, like the graineries of ancient Egypt, protect us all.

PS While the Constitution protects the rights of our KKK sap, it is good that FDR's social security protects life itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:37 PM

Bobert:

Capital OR labor?   The only wealth that comes from capital alone is from money changers. The only wealth that comes from labor alone is from artisans, artists, or mom and pop operations. To seriously add wealth you have to manufacture which requires management , administration, and capital. All these things add value and help make something happen.

It's doing them badly that causes the problems you are protesting, not the use of capital. It's MISmanagement, not management.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:52 PM

Well, you know very well my position on *creation of wealth* but...

(pssst, amos... Shhhhh... We got some lives ones and we don't want scare 'um off to soon so I'm just tryin' to reel 'um in until I can get a net unner 'um... But lets jus' keep this between us... Okay, pal?)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 01:18 AM

Hello Doug,

Regarding your remark:

"brucie: Your remark about Bobert, and his penchant for compassion, compells me to ask:if you are such a champion of compassion, why are you so opposed to compassionate conservatism?"


Before I deal with that question, would you please provide some answers you talked about providing first? See the thread entitled "Good News in Iraq."

I will be pleased to address your question after you attend to that pressing matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: susu
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 08:30 PM

Donuel, the statement "PS While the Constitution protects the rights of our KKK sap, it is good that FDR's social security protects life itself." Are you insinuating that my husband is a member of the KKK? and if you are, what in the world would make you think such a thing? Actually, he is a wonderful Christian who loves everyone the same, and actually is more tolerant than most people on this website. While he was extreme with the view of people on welfare he did not actually mean that he thought that all of them are on crack or tramps. It is just we have seen alot of people abuse the system. I cannot tell you how infuriating it is to see someone who drives a caddilac, wears designer clothes and carries a $1500 Prada purse using a foodstamp card and saying why should she work when the govt will pay for her to sit at home. Yet when a friend of mine lost her job and they were not making the amount of money to put them above the poverty level, they were denied assistance because they happened to have qualified for a new vehicle that they needed not wanted a new payment, prior to her job loss. The system stated that their car was too new. So there needs to be reform in the system. So before you start calling people members of unsavory organizations, get the facts first, it's called making an informed comment. Susu! (not my hubby)

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 09:44 PM

Susu, yes some people abuse the system, just as some priests and ministers abuse children.

Subject: RE: BS: Pres. Bush's next four years
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 09:56 PM

You never hear of a Rabbi doing this though.