Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Facts about Bush just facts

GUEST,rarelamb 19 Sep 05 - 10:41 AM
Greg F. 19 Sep 05 - 10:21 AM
Donuel 19 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM
GUEST,rarelamb 19 Sep 05 - 09:18 AM
Peace 19 Sep 05 - 01:02 AM
robomatic 19 Sep 05 - 12:43 AM
Amos 18 Sep 05 - 09:07 PM
Bobert 18 Sep 05 - 08:46 PM
Peace 18 Sep 05 - 08:40 PM
GUEST,Guest 974 18 Sep 05 - 06:29 PM
dianavan 18 Sep 05 - 04:59 PM
Peace 18 Sep 05 - 04:38 PM
Peace 18 Sep 05 - 04:37 PM
pdq 18 Sep 05 - 04:30 PM
Rapparee 18 Sep 05 - 04:00 PM
Don Firth 18 Sep 05 - 03:40 PM
Don Firth 18 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM
John Hardly 18 Sep 05 - 02:50 PM
Ebbie 18 Sep 05 - 02:20 PM
GUEST,Guest974 18 Sep 05 - 01:44 PM
pdq 18 Sep 05 - 12:52 PM
robomatic 18 Sep 05 - 12:41 PM
John Hardly 18 Sep 05 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,H 18 Sep 05 - 12:24 PM
John Hardly 18 Sep 05 - 12:23 PM
Bobert 18 Sep 05 - 12:19 PM
robomatic 18 Sep 05 - 12:18 PM
GUEST,H 18 Sep 05 - 12:14 PM
John Hardly 18 Sep 05 - 11:58 AM
GUEST,H 18 Sep 05 - 11:57 AM
pdq 18 Sep 05 - 11:50 AM
Bobert 18 Sep 05 - 11:33 AM
pdq 18 Sep 05 - 11:12 AM
Rapparee 18 Sep 05 - 10:59 AM
John Hardly 18 Sep 05 - 09:49 AM
Amos 18 Sep 05 - 09:39 AM
Bobert 18 Sep 05 - 09:17 AM
GUEST 18 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM
Don Firth 18 Sep 05 - 02:30 AM
dianavan 18 Sep 05 - 01:47 AM
Ebbie 18 Sep 05 - 01:16 AM
Susu's Hubby 18 Sep 05 - 01:13 AM
Bobert 17 Sep 05 - 11:36 PM
dianavan 17 Sep 05 - 11:21 PM
katlaughing 17 Sep 05 - 11:14 PM
Sorcha 17 Sep 05 - 10:33 PM
Bobert 17 Sep 05 - 10:32 PM
pdq 17 Sep 05 - 10:08 PM
Bobert 17 Sep 05 - 09:53 PM
Rapparee 17 Sep 05 - 09:50 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 10:41 AM

Aha! You procede on false premises my friend. I do blame Reagan and Bush I,II for crazy spending on domestic programs.

As far as the war on terror, I think defense from foreign sources is an apropriate use of tax dollars. I do have problems with the war on drugs though.

What do you say we legalize pot?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 10:21 AM

Or for that matter "The War On Drugs", or "The War On Terrorism" etc., etc.

You'd think by now that the U.S. public would have wised up by now to these bogus political "Wars On [blank]" that soak up billions of dollars & are declared on a regular basis in the absence of an actual domestic or foreign policy simply to keep the voters off balance.

"And play them for the fools they are
Make their steps up for them
A clock that's shaken hard enough
It cannot stay in rhythm."
       -Pat Sky

Which is not to say that "The Greatest Country In The World"[sic] shouldn't be able to insure a decent standard of living/healthcare/education/etc. for its citizens- at which tasks its currently failing miserably.

God Help America.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM

well oh my rare lambs of mercy sakes, oh gosh almighty...

I did not know that Reagan, Bush and Bush v 1.5 (the all time deficit spenders) were liberals.

Oh what unspeakable treachery.

but on the other hand perhaps it is you who got it backwards.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 09:18 AM

I love this quote from poster 'Peace': "Bastard deserves to be bashed, IMO"

Trillions of dollars later and we still haven't won the war on poverty. Let's keep throwing good money after bad. Sweet!

You guys are picking up on the unified budget. The reason for the 'surpluses' is revenue from SS. And yes, like every other major entitlement it is unfunded. Our true debt is in the twenties of trillions of dollars if you include our unfunded programs. Thanks liberals.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 01:02 AM

Ain't THAT the truth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:43 AM

Here's a quote from David Copperfield (the novel by Dickens not the magician) that says it all about the economy:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery."

Everything else is commentary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:07 PM

Speaking oif circles, somehow they always look different from the other end of the diameter....from a friend:

"When the shoe is on the other foot ... or something like that:
All of these quotes were made when Clinton committed
troops to Bosnia. No U.S. soldiers were killed during
the conflict.


"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to
happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15,
maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American
servicemen that may come home in body bags why their
son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . is once again releasing
American military might on a foreign country with an
ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet
to tell the Congress how much this operation will
cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed
forces about how long they will be away from home.
These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.
Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the
world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be
certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal
and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the
beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the
diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History
teaches us that it is often easier to make war than
peace. This administration is just learning that
lesson right now. The President began this mission
with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered
questions. A month later, these questions are still
unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no
legitimate definition of victory. There is no
contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear
funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our
over-extended military. There is no explanation
defining what vital national interests are at stake
There was no strategic plan for war when the President
started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for
the President to explain to us what the exit strategy
is."

--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:46 PM

Ain't stats wonderful???

All we need is enough statastcians and maybe we can somehow convince the American people that Katrina never happened???

Yeah, Seems a couple folks here have used government stats, without the staistical interpretation and those make Buish look, ahhh, not too good...

But then we hot the usual cut-n-pasteres who drag these op-ed-statsticans/magicans up who make verything that Bush has ever done was successfull and wonderful...

Who to believe... the Census Bureau or that GAO... or a op-edster???

And, BTW, speakin' of which, pdq, heck with Confusis, Bobert says that one winged duck flies in circles... Kinda reminds me of the last 5 years... I don't see the United States moving forward but flyin' in circles...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:40 PM

"Racism and classism are not due to George Bush in the rest of the world are they?"

Absolutely not. However, a measure of a leader is the amount he or she changes those problems to make life better for all his or her citizens. Bush just ain't done too good a job. IN FACT, he's made things worse. Bastard deserves to be bashed, IMO.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,Guest 974
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 06:29 PM

The reason I posted the info on Ireland is that I think it is important to see the problems other countries are having.I think it is especially important to see what their situation is compared to ours because some of them continually Bash the US.This info comes from a site that is supposed to be the best site for UK Stats.
   Home   
    Indicators & Graphs   

Summary
Summary
Reports
Reports
Income analysis
Income analysis
Links
Links
What is New
What is New
Contact NPI
Contact NPI




Key Facts

Income

The most commonly used threshold of low income is 60% of median income. In 2003/04, before deducting housing costs, this equated to ££200 per week for a couple with no children, £122 for a single person, £291 for a couple with two children and £214 for a lone parent with two children

In 2003/04, 12 million people in Great Britain were living in households below this income threshold. This represents a drop of 2 million since 1996/97. It is, however, still much higher than in the early 1980s.

The proportion of children and pensioners who live in low income households has been falling. In contrast, the proportion for working-age adults without dependent children has remained broadly unchanged. A third of all people in low income households are now working-age adults without dependent children (3.7 million people).

Disabled adults are twice as likely to live in low income households as non-disabled adults, and the gap has grown over the last decade.

The level of Income Support for both pensioners and families with two or more children has gone up much faster than average earnings in recent years, but that for working-age adults without children has fallen considerably behind.

Half of all people in social housing are on low incomes compared to one in six of those in other housing tenures.

Inner London is deeply divided: it has by far the highest proportion of people on a low income but also the highest proportion of people on a high income.

Around half of the people on low incomes live in the most deprived fifth of areas. The other half live outside of these areas.

Child poverty

The number of children living in low income households was 3½ million in 2003/04. This represents a drop of ¾ million since 1996/97.

Children are one and a half times more likely to live in a low income household as adults.

A half of all lone parents are in low income, two-and-a-half times the rate for couples with children.

Almost 2 million children live in workless households.

The Government's short term target for child poverty is to reduce the numbers by a quarter in the period 1998/99 to 2004. Achieving this will require a fall of 400,000 in the year 2004/05 (data to be published in April 2005).

Work

In 2005, there were 2.3 million people who wanted to be in paid work but were not. This compares with 3.4 million a decade previously. This rate of reduction is much less than the rate of reduction in ILO unemployment because the numbers who are 'economically inactive but would like work' have reduced at a much slower rate than unemployment.

One in five adults with a work-limiting disability are not working but want to. This compares with one in fifteen of those with no work-limiting disability. At all levels of qualification, the proportion of people with a work-limiting disability who lack but want paid work is much greater than for those without a work-limiting disability.

Around ½ million young adults aged 16 to 24 were unemployed in 2005 (around 10%). Numbers have reduced by a quarter over the last decade but young adult unemployment rates are now three times as high as those for older workers.

Two-fifths of those getting work are out-of-work again within six months. More than a quarter of temporary employees would like a permanent job.

People without qualifications are three times less likely to receive job-related training compared with those with some qualifications.

Low pay

5½ million adults aged 22 to retirement were paid less than £6.50 per hour in 2004. Two thirds of these were women and a half were part-time workers.

Almost a third of all employees aged 25 to retirement earning less than £6.50 per hour work in the public sector.

The lower a person's qualifications, the more likely they are to be low paid. For example, more than half of those with no qualifications earn less than £6.50 per hour.

15% of workers earning less than £6.50 an hour belong to a trade union compared with 40% of those earning £9 to £21 an hour.

Around 14% of working-age households are now in receipt of tax credits. In total, more than three times as many people are now in receipt of tax credits as were in receipt of Family Credit a decade ago.

Education

11-year-olds: The proportions failing to achieve level 4 or above at key stage 2 in English and Maths have fallen substantially in recent years but children in schools with relatively high numbers on free school meals continue to do much worse than other schools.

16-year olds: In 2003/04, 12% of pupils obtained less than 5 GCSEs and 6% got no grades at all, both figures being unchanged since 1998/99.

Most 17-year-olds with 5 or more good GCSEs go on to achieve further qualifications, but most 17-year-olds without such qualifications still lack NVQ2 or equivalent at age 25

One in four 19-year-olds still fail to achieve a basic level of qualification (NVQ2 or above).

10,000 pupils were permanently excluded from school in 2003/04. This represents a fall of a fifth since the peak in 1996/97.

Health

(Note: most of the statistics below relate to the year 2003, the latest year for which official data currently exists).

Scotland has by far the highest proportion of premature deaths for both men and women.

Adults in the poorest fifth of the income distribution are twice as likely to be at risk of developing a mental illness as those on average incomes.

Almost half of adults aged 45-64 in the poorest fifth of the population have a limiting longstanding illness or disability, twice the rate for those on average incomes.

Children from manual social backgrounds are 1½ times more likely to die as infants than children from non-manual social backgrounds.

Babies from manual social backgrounds are 1¼ times more likely to be of low birthweight than those from non-manual social backgrounds.

Teenage motherhood is seven times as common amongst those from manual social backgrounds as for those from professional backgrounds.

5-year-olds in Wales and Scotland have, on average, twice as many missing, decayed or filled teeth as 5-year-olds in the West Midlands and South East.

Crime

Both burglaries and violent crimes have halved over the last decade.

Households with no household insurance are around three times as likely to be burgled as those with insurance. Half of those on low income do not have any household insurance compared with a fifth for households on average incomes.

Housing

5% of people live in overcrowded conditions. Overcrowding is four times as prevalent in social rented housing as in owner-occupation

190,000 households were accepted by their local authority as homeless in 2004. This compares to 160,000 in 1997. It is households without dependent children where the numbers have been rising.

Although poorer households remain more likely to lack central heating, the proportion who do so is now actually less than that for households on average incomes in 1999/00.

The number of mortgage holders in serious arrears is at its lowest level for fifteen years.

Ethnic minorities

More than half of children in Pakistani and Bangladeshi households - and a half of the children in Black households - are in low income households.

People of African, Bangladeshi, Caribbean and Pakistani descent are all twice as likely as White people to be out of work but wanting work.

Although the rate of permanent exclusions for Black Caribbean pupils has halved in recent years, they are still three times more likely to be excluded as White pupils.

Black young adults are seven times as likely as white young adults to be in prison.

Black adults are twice as likely not to have a bank or building society account as the population as a whole.

Older people

The proportion of pensioners in low income has fallen from 27% in 1994/95 to 20% in 2003/04. All of the fall has been among single pensioners rather than pensioner couples. Pensioners are now less likely to live in low income households than non-pensioners.

In 2002/03, around two-fifths of pensioner households entitled to Council Tax Benefit were not claiming it, and a third of those entitled to Pension Credit were not claiming it

The proportion of people aged 75 and over who receive support from social services to help them live at home has almost halved over the last decade. County councils and unitary authorities support far fewer households than either urban or Welsh authorities.

Racism and classism are not due to George Bush in the rest of the world are they?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:59 PM

You're right about that, Peace.

He is a horse's ass but the Premier of B.C. kisses everybody's ass.

The well-being of every citizen should be equated by every politician and every member of the voting public because that is the only legitimate measure of successful government.

Anybody can cut taxes. Thats the easy way out and requires no creative problem-solving.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:38 PM

PS Oil is now somewhere near $70 a barrel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:37 PM

We have had a Premiere in Alberta for what seems like forever--the same one.

In the eraly 1990s he gutted education, helath care and social services. In the intervening years he has made Alberta debt free. Many folks think of him as the 'savior' of Alberta's economy. I think he's a horse's ass.

In 1990, oil was selling at $17.50 per barrell. He predicated the debt payment on that. Oil has done nothing but go up ever since. Hell, that alone solved Alberta's debt. I have no idea how to factor in the cost in human misery, but it seems that people like him don't care about that.

Don't know what this has to do with Bush or Clinton, but I don't think y'all have had a President worth a damn for decades. And that includes the 20 watt bulb who's in the office now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:30 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Harry Browne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's still the economy, stupid!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com


Now that Bill Clinton is no longer our president, does this mean we've heard the last of the Clinton myths about the economy? Probably not.

I'm talking about those great legends, told and retold by the Clintonites and the press, of the wondrous savior who rescued the U.S. economy from depression, enacted a courageous budget plan, brought down interest rates, ended the deficits, and put us on the road to paying off the federal debt.

According to the legends, whatever you think of Clinton personally, you must agree that his reign was good for the economy.

But the legends are as fictitious as the one about George Washington and the cherry tree. And if the press and public continue to recirculate the legends, they will make it more likely that the Bush administration will pursue the wrong economic policies.

Rising/falling interest rates
Take interest rates, for example. The legend says Clinton's tax increase ended the budget deficits, bringing to an end 12 years of high interest rates. But it doesn't happen to be true.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the interest rate on short-term Treasury bills was 11.4 percent. By the end of his presidency in 1988, the rate was down to 6.7 percent. It continued downward to 3.4 percent in 1992, when George I lost the presidency.

As soon as Bill Clinton sewed up the election, interest rates started moving upward -- and they never returned to the low levels Clinton inherited. In fact, the average Treasury bill rate in 2000 was 5.8 percent -- two thirds higher than when Clinton was elected.

Despite the legend, Bill Clinton didn't bring down interest rates. If he had any influence on them at all (which he probably didn't), he pushed them upward.

The legendary surpluses
Then there's the federal budget.

The good news: The politicians say we have big budget surpluses.

The bad news: They're lying.

The first surplus supposedly occurred in 1999, but the federal debt actually rose that year by $127 billion. They tell us we had a surplus of $87 billion in 2000, but the debt went up by $23 billion. And this year the surplus is supposed to be $68 billion, but the government estimates the debt will increase by $82 billion. How can the debt rise when you're running a surplus? Anyone with a family budget knows it is a deficit, not a surplus, that causes debt to increase.

Every year the politicians take money from the Social Security trust fund (you know, the fund in the lock box), and issue new government bonds to replace the money. The politicians count the money they take as revenue, making possible a budget "surplus" -- even as they go deeper in debt. So the surpluses are just another myth, and the U.S. government is still the world's largest deadbeat.

A debt-free America?
And that brings us to the most outrageous myth of all. In his farewell address Thursday evening, Mr. Clinton once again said, "we're on a path to pay off the entire debt by the end of the decade."

The current federal debt is $5.7 trillion. To pay it off by 2010 would require an average surplus of over $600 billion a year for the next nine years. Since there isn't a current surplus of even 98 cents, and since the politicians absolutely will not reduce government spending, such surpluses would require raising every American's taxes by one third. How likely is that?

One other myth should be noted: Bill Clinton and the Republicans argue over who's responsible for the reform that supposedly "ended welfare as we know it." But did you know that federal welfare spending has continued to rise every year -- and is now 33 percent higher than in 1993? That's some reform.

They tell us there are fewer people on welfare now, but they don't explain why that costs us so much more. Lets hope they don't get everyone off welfare -- as that might increase welfare spending to $1 trillion a year or more.

Are you better off?
Returning to the Clintonian saga, if he hasn't brought down interest rates, and if there are no budget surpluses, why is the economy doing so well?

Maybe it isn't.

For the first 70 years of the 20th century, the yearly economic growth rate -- averaging in good times, depressions, and wars -- was 3.5 percent. From 1947 through 1970, the growth rate was even better -- averaging 3.9 percent a year. Then the big-government Great Society programs and regulations kicked in -- and economic growth has been anemic ever since.

For the first seven years of the Clinton administration (the only figures available now), the growth rate was only 3.0 percent. But Mr. Clinton claims we have the greatest economic growth in American history.

If you're so much better off now than you were eight years ago, why was it necessary for Mr. Clinton to spend 45 minutes at the Democratic convention trying to convince you of that idea? He went on and on with statistics and anecdotes. But if you were significantly better off, you'd know it without him telling you so.

If a Libertarian had completed only one term as president, you'd know the difference without prodding. His farewell address would take a mere two minutes. He'd have to say only, "Do you remember when the government was so large that you had to pay income tax? Remember when Social Security was eating up your retirement funds, and they wouldn't let you out of it? Remember when the drug war was tearing up your city? I rest my case. I'm going home now and watch TV."

But since Mr. Clinton never even considered improving the economy by making you free and unleashing the productive talents of the American people, we've had to settle for a basket of Clintonian myths.

And they aren't likely to go away, I'm afraid -- even with Bill Clinton out of the White House. By maintaining the legend of Savior Bill, the Democrats and the press can make George Bush seem a failure by comparison -- and keep the pressure on him to emulate the Clinton economic policies.

Where's the opposition?
Unfortunately, we don't have a major opposition party in America. The Republicans don't debunk the fanciful tales about the "booming" economy, about interest rates, about the fictitious surpluses, or about welfare reform -- because they are co-conspirators in maintaining these illusions. They play the same games, and so they jumped on Bill Clinton only for doing things they hadn't gotten around to yet.

Thus the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying about having sex "with that woman," but not for lying about the economy -- which is a lot more important to you. The Republicans didn't try to impeach him when he stood behind Janet Reno as she took responsibility for incinerating 85 men, women, and children at Waco -- or when he bombed innocent people in the Sudan and Afghanistan to divert attention from his legal problems -- or when he confiscated millions of acres of Western lands "without due process of law," in violation of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The Republicans aren't interested in debunking legends because they have some fantastic stories in their own repertoire -- including some incredible myths about Reaganomics and Republicans standing for smaller government. But we'll leave those for another time.

Suffice to say that, while Bill Clinton is perhaps the most engaging and talented liar ever to occupy the White House, he doesn't have that field all to himself.

And if we let the lies go unchallenged, we are setting ourselves up to have the chains of taxation and regulation made ever tighter around us in the name of fictitious economic achievements.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:00 PM

Let's take the name "Bush" out of the equation, just for a minute.

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the only years between 1962 and 2004 in which the federal government DID NOT spend more than was taken in were 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

FACT: According to the same source, revenue derived from personal income taxes have fallen every year since 2000, and for 2004 was approximately what it was in 1997. Revenue from corporate income taxes in 2004 was, with the exception of 2000, greater than any year since 1962.

FACT: According to a report released by the Census Bureau in August, 2005, an average of 12.4% of Americans were living in poverty during 2002 to 2004. (That would be about 1/8the the population.)

FACT: The same source reported that in 2003, 44,961,000 Americans were without insurance. In 2004, that number climbed to 45,820,000. (If the population of the US is 280 million, that about 16.3%.)

FACT: The same census report states Median household income was
$44,389 in 2004, unchanged from 2003 in real terms. Median household income was also unchanged in real terms between 2002 and 2003. Compared with 1967, the first year for which household income statistics are available, real median household income was up 30 percent.

Real median household income was unchanged between 2003 and 2004 for all race groups...and for households with Hispanic householders (who can be any race).


FACT: According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the inflation rates for the five years beginning in 2000 have been 3.4, 2.8, 1.6, 2.3 and 2.7 percent.

FACT: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual unemployment rates for the years 1995 to 2004 have been 6.1, 5.6, 5.4, 4.9, 4.5, 4.2, 4.0, 4.7, 5.8, 6.0, and 5.5 percent.

NOW, talk from these facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 03:40 PM

That should read "can't afford afford the astronomical cost of the premiums."

And don't say something like "Then why don't they get a job where health care is covered?" That would really indicate the fogginess of the view from the top of the ivory tower.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM

You have health insurance, "There are 43,000,000 people in this country who have no health insurance at all.' . . . Why are you not in the group that DOESN'T have it?

Because, GUEST at 18 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM, I am retired, not necessarily by my own choice, but my wife works at the Seattle Public Library, and since, technically, she is a city employee, she—and her spouse, which is me—are covered by the City of Seattle employee group health insurance. I'm damned lucky this is the case because otherwise I would never be able to afford to pay health insurance premiums.

Of the 43,000,000 people in this benighted country who do not have health insurance, the vast majority of them are working, but their employers don't offer a health insurance program, and on what they're getting paid, they can afford the astronomical cost of the premiums.

I swear, some of you "compassionate (!) conservatives" really live in an ivory tower.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:50 PM

"...and I'm no better than the other guy."

Oh, I've met the other guy. You're way better than him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:20 PM

And what has this to do with the issue of poverty in the United States of America?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,Guest974
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:44 PM

This column is from the Green Party Web Site.
23 Feb 05 Statistics on Poverty
Colm Ó Caomhánaigh
Thursday 24 February 2005

119. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the opinion of the charity Barnardos that 66,000 children here currently live in consistent poverty. [6076/05]

121. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which he intends to respond to the findings of the recent EU-SILC survey, which shows that children, women and older persons have a greater risk of poverty than their counterparts in other European Union countries. [6070/05]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 79, 84, 104, 119, 121 and 125 together.

The results from the 2003 EU Survey of Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC, released last month by the Central Statistics Office, CSO, are a valuable addition to the research already undertaken into income, living standards and the extent of poverty in Ireland. The new survey identifies groups at risk of poverty including families with children, especially lone parents and large families on low incomes, those with disabilities, the long-term unemployed and the elderly, especially those living alone.

Considerable progress has been and is being made in alleviating poverty. This progress, however, is masked by the fact that incomes generally have been increasing substantially as a result of the high levels of both economic and employment growth achieved in recent years.

Despite major increases in social welfare payments and improvements in public services generally, those who are not in employment, such as the elderly, or only in a position to secure low paid or part-time employment, such as many lone parents, have not been able to share fully in the fruits of the increasing prosperity.

A key target of Government policy under the national anti-poverty strategy has been to reduce to below 2%, or eliminate fully, consistent poverty, which measures deprivation of goods and services considered essential in today's Ireland. Significant progress has been made with levels of consistent poverty being reduced from 15.1% in 1994 to 5.2% in 2001, and in the case of children from 15.3% in 1997 to 6.5% in 2001.

A somewhat different methodology and approach was adopted for the EU-SILC survey which resulted in higher percentages for those experiencing consistent poverty, reversing the trend of recent years. Both the CSO, and the Economic and Social Research Institute, which conducted the earlier surveys, have assured me that the outcomes of both surveys are not comparable. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude from them whether the rates for consistent poverty went up or down or remained unchanged.

There is certainly no reason to believe that there has been a worsening in poverty levels in recent years. Between 2001 and 2005, spending on social welfare has increased from €7.8 billion to €12.2 billion. During the same period the lowest social welfare rates have increased by 40% while the consumer price index has increased by just over 13%. As a result of Budget 2005, welfare payments have increased by three times the expected rate of inflation. The real improvement resulting from these developments is commented on in the EU- SILC report.

The EU-SILC survey shows, as in previous surveys, the groups who are most vulnerable to poverty. The main route out of this vulnerability for those in the working age groups, especially in households with children, is employment.

A major ongoing priority will be to remove the obstacles to employment for those groups and work to provide the incentives and supports they need to obtain employment such as education, training, help with job search, and child care.

In relation to income support, serious consideration is now being given to the introduction of a second tier of supports - in addition to the child benefit and other support entitlements - aimed specifically at addressing those children most at risk. Linked to this particularly are the vulnerable circumstances of many lone parents, who are mostly women. The existing support systems will be scrutinised over the coming months and changes considered that more adequately reflect the needs of this group in a 21st century Ireland. My Department is also involved in efforts to develop a strategy to eliminate obstacles to employment for lone parents.

Among those no longer able to work, especially the elderly, we need to give priority to identifying and providing support for those who are most vulnerable, especially those living alone.

The National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion, NAP-inclusion, provides a clear strategic basis for making progress in all these areas in a coherent, planned way.

Progress on the implementation of the plan was reported in the First Annual Report of the Office for Social Inclusion, OSI, which I launched last December. A report to the European Commission evaluating the implementation of the plan will be prepared by OSI for submission in June 2005 and publication shortly afterwards. These reviews and evaluations, together with the ongoing annual survey results from EU-SILC, will help to inform the development of the next NAP-inclusion, which is due to commence in 2006 and will apply up to 2009.

Tell a friend

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

The Green Party: 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: +353 (0)1 6790012, Fax: +353 (0)1 6797168, Email: info@greenparty.ie
Green Party / Comhaontas Glas 2004


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:52 PM

Bobert, you need to adjust your autopilot.

Remember, Confucius say:

         "Duck who fly upside down quack up."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:41 PM

John:

In general, I try to steer clear of calling a kettle black with the pot at my back. No glory in that, and I'm no better than the other guy. But it's been my impression that just as 'W' ain't no conservative by any definition of the word I know, Clinton was no candy store liberal and he and his retinue had a 'sense of place' about the US in the world that I find missing here. And Clinton was fiscally much more responsible, from what I am aware of.

So I see that all that is happening here is a 'stirring of the pot' without an advance of the plot, in the end we will have the same problems, further disasters, and less wherewithall with which to deal with 'em.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:27 PM

Yeah, I get your drift.

You're not reading the thread to which you are responding. Furthermore, in the thread that you are not reading, but are responding to, you are merely chucking cliche'd mudballs ("bushite", caught with pants down, etc) at people whom you percieve (without having read what they wrote) as disagreeing with your preconcieved notions.

Close?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,H
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:24 PM

"Get my drift here?"

No, but quack, quack anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:23 PM

I agree with most of your post, robomatic. I would just add that it is as it ever was. I grew up around exactly the same doom and gloom rhetoric about rising national debt. It's just that, at that time, a Democrat House and Senate held the purse strings and so it was they who were bringing on our demise and it was the Republican rabble who was in the role of Chicken Little.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:19 PM

Hey, I have never said that Clinton balanced much of anything except two womenz... And didn't do that to well... I'll I'm doing is pointin' to the facts that pdq has presented right here on this thread and made some interesting observations about the debt that the gfederal governemnts carried under Clinto compared to the debt under Bush...

As fir pdq being a Bushite? Well,. if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...l

Get my drift here???

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:18 PM

I have noticed two points in common from the Bush administration's responses to 911 and New Orleans.

1) Failure of government entities to respond accurately and appropriately to real warning signs from people paid by the government to notice and alert authority to just such warning signs. In the case of 911 it was FBI and in the case of New Orleans it was FEMA. In both cases 'underlings' sent messages up the chain of command and the top level officials ignored them.

2) The government response in both cases after the disaster was to increase the bureaucracy, obscure the chain of failure, and spend huge amounts of money without increasing taxes. Therefore our children and our grandchildren are going to be paying this money back.

In the real world, when you borrow money you are ostensibly going to increase the value of something or the production of something, so you can pay the money back and hopefully increase your own income. What I see here is a total abandonment of this principle, which means our children and grandchildren will have to sell off some of their country in order to make the debt good. It will probably mean a greater overall proportion of Americans in poverty.

I think the causes and cures of social irresponsibility are arguable and have their roots in many administrations and because of many of our preconceived notions and wishes. But the fiscal irresponsibility of our elected leaders is on a scale that beggars the imagination.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,H
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:14 PM

The diatribe from Bobert indicates his pants are down all the time.

In order to nice, however, I am going to believe he has dyslexia and not entertain any other potential problems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:58 AM

Bobert,

The issue of Clinton "balancing the budget" was not brought up by pdq. Not having been brought up by pdq, neither was it brought up for the sake of "pulling his (political) pants back up".

The chart offered by pdq proves (quite elegantly) the point he was making -- that the National debt still went up during the Clinton years. He said nothing else. Maybe it is admirable that the Gingrich House came closer to balancing the budget than the Wright House -- but that is not the point that pdq was making, so you'll have to forgive him that he chose not to make that point in addition to the discussion in which we were already engaged.

Oh, and did pdq mention having voted for Bush? If he did, I missed that. oh.......that's right......."Bushite" is a catch-all for anyone with whom you disagree.......kinda like calling someone a "doodyhead".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,H
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:57 AM

How can Clinton really be blamed? He did nothing but party - remember the extra tents on the White House lawn to handle oveflow crowds. Your tax dollars at work.

Nothing you said makes think a stake has "been driven through the heart of that personal responsibility crap".

I was taught 'PS' by my parents and the New Orleans disaster is a perfect example of that. The ones who depended on the Government for their existance were the ones left behind. (mainly to wait for their Government dole on the 1st of the month.)

While the ones who accepted "personal responsibility" were able to leave on their own and have, as of now, received zip from Uncle Sammie.
Okay, okay, come on back with your excuses regarding the 1st of the month gang.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:50 AM

The title of this thread includes the word 'fact'.

It seems like a good opportunity to discuss 'facts' and leave out some of the oft-repeated rhetoric.

Barry Finn said "Fact is after having a record surplus when Clinton left office after 8 yrs we're broke now in near half the time..."

Since he brought up the subject, it is fair to respond to it. I said:

"FACT: Every year Clinton was president the federal government spent more than it took in. Deficit spending. The first year Clinton is responsible for is 1994 when he ran a 281 Billion dollar deficit. In 2001, under the last budget that Clinton signed, he ran a 133 Billion dollar deficit. Not one year in the Clinton presidency did the US see a reduction in the national debt, which, by definition, will occur if there is a surplus."

I have listened to discussions including expert economists and they agree: the "Clinton surplus is a myth". Period.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:33 AM

Well, pdq, wasn't it yer handy little chart that showed that in the last 4 years of the Clinton administration the debt increased by 1/2 a trillion dollars as compared to over 2 1/2 trillion dollars over Bush's first 4 years...

Its kind mind boggling that you would ingnore this "fact"... Unless the chart from the governemnt is, ahhhh, wrong...

I do find it interestiong that evry time the Bush camp gets caught with their pants down that it's Clinton's fault... I think this horse has been dead long enough for you Bush apologists to try another tack... It's really beginning to weasken yer arguments since it is such a juvinile and worn out tactic... You all may not see it that way but if you were to take a look at it from our perpsective, you'd be downright embarrassed...

BTW, one nice thing about you Bushite's getting caught with yer pants down is that it's purdy much driven a stake thru the heart of that "personal responsibility" crap that Rove had you all chanting like drunk parrots...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:12 AM

Roll on, John!!

Again, during every year Clinton was president, the US government spent more money than it took in.

The only way that can call that a 'surplus' is if you redefine the word 'surplus'. "It depends on what the meaning of 'surplus' is". "It depends on what the meaning of 'budget' is". It depends on what the meaning of 'spending' is"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 10:59 AM

John H., I am outraged by anyone lying under oath, whether it be the President of the United States, Oliver North, or you.

I will say this about the Clinton thing, though: how many married men would stand up next to their wives and admit to gettting a bj? I am not disturbed by his lying in that circumstance; as a minister said to me, "That's human nature." There are times, however, when you must tell the truth, and being under oath is one of them -- or invoke your rights under the Fifth Amendment.

For whatever it's worth, I do not consider myself a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, or any other label. I consider myself a thinking American, and I'm disgusted with the namecalling here and elsewhere by both sides.

I've learned one thing, in my sixty years of living, and it's this: there is ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION more than one cause, and there is NEVER a simple and easy solution.

As they say in the computer world: Good, Fast, Cheap -- chose two of three.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:49 AM

pdq is right. The debt has grown every year. The only point that pdq was answering was the constantly made point that mistakenly gives Clinton credit for "balancing the budget" -- a term that, anywhere but in Washington, would mean that the government spent no more than it took in. That's just a flat-out political device created (one would assume) to purposely confuse the issue...

When it is to political advantage, any poliician who dares suggest that perhaps because $$ is tight, that we shouldn't grow at as fast a rate as projected, is accused of slashing the budget (...and killing our children, our poor, etc). In reality, in a "budget cut" more would be still be spent because more is always spent.

The only thing that a balanced budget meant (in Clintonian terms) was that they didn't get called for slashing the *arbitrary* budget. Had it been a Republican administration, rather than being praised for "balancing the budget", it would have been excoriatiated for "slashing the budget and killing people". Clinton, being a Democrat, was said to have "balanced the budget". But the "budget" was(is) nothing more than an arbitrarily set rate of government growth of spending.

"Thank you Don Firth...ok, ok...he was impeached for lying. But WHY wa his private life/sexual conduct anybody's buisness but theirs????"

It was about lying under oath. But if one were to concede that it was actually about sex, in retrospect, are you equally outraged at Anita Hill's (unsubstantiated) accusations against Clarence Thomas to try to keep him from being confirmed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:39 AM

"t was back in 2000 that Mr. Bush, in a debate with Al Gore, bragged about his gubernatorial prowess "on the front line of catastrophic situations," specifically citing a Texas flood, and paid the Clinton administration a rare compliment for putting a professional as effective as James Lee Witt in charge of FEMA. Exactly why Mr. Bush would staff that same agency months later with political hacks is one of many questions that must be answered by the independent investigation he and the Congressional majority are trying every which way to avoid. With or without a 9/11-style commission, the answers will come out. There are too many Americans who are angry and too many reporters who are on the case. (NBC and CNN are both opening full-time bureaus in New Orleans.) You know the world has changed when the widely despised news media have a far higher approval rating (77 percent) than the president (46 percent), as measured last week in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Like his father before him, Mr. Bush has squandered the huge store of political capital he won in a war. His Thursday-night invocation of "armies of compassion" will prove as worthless as the "thousand points of light" that the first President Bush bestowed upon the poor from on high in New Orleans (at the Superdome, during the 1988 G.O.P. convention). It will be up to other Republicans in Washington to cut through the empty words and image-mongering to demand effective action from Mr. Bush on the Gulf Coast and in Iraq, if only because their own political lives are at stake. It's up to Democrats, though they show scant signs of realizing it, to step into the vacuum and propose an alternative to a fiscally disastrous conservatism that prizes pork over compassion. "


Frank Rich, NY Times


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:17 AM

Well, Hubby, somewhere 'round this construction site called home there is a box labeled "Bob's Box" and in it are hundreds of articles I've cut out of variuos places.. This particular fact is found in an op=ed column from the Post whcih occured last winetr sometime... Actually it was written by a Bushite who was trying to debunk an argument that health crisis were the source of most of the bankruptcies in the US and in his/her righteous indignation provided the numbers that showed that medical crisis were *actually* only the seconf leading cause...

But eventually I'll find "Bob's Box" and will, be more than happy to give yuou the name of one of your Bushite buds...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM

You have health insurance, "There are 43,000,000 people in this country who have no health insurance at all".

Why are you not in the group that DOESN'T have it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:30 AM

Susu's Hubby, you don't live in the real world, do you!?

"ya'll talk about wanting the government to take care of you when you get the sniffles."

Sniffles indeed. Five years ago I wound up in the hospital with a severely broken left femur. The surgery alone cost $24,000. And I had to stay in the hospital for close to four weeks while I recuperated and had physical therapy. What the hospital stay and the PT cost, I'm not sure. Other than being told what the surgery cost, I never saw a bill. I'm covered by my wife's group insurance at the Seattle Public Library. Thank God for that!

There are 43,000,000 people in this country who have no health insurance at all.

But what the hell! Let 'em lay there and bleed!

This is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a national health care service. "Shining city on a hill?" I think not!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:47 AM

Susu's Hubby -

Good government does not take care of you when you have the sniffles but it does educate you as to how to prevent them. National healthcare does not preclude personal responsibility.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:16 AM

Let's hear it for Ignorance! Rah, rah, rah!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:13 AM

"The lack of nationalized health care in the US is a major factor in the high number of bankruptcies in the US..."


Come on Bobert....since you were demanding sources at the top of the thread....please show us where you found this gem.


It's funny....ya'll talk about wanting the government to take care of you when you get the sniffles.

But remember, according to all of you, this is the same government that drags its heels when there is something that NEEDS to be done.

Can we all say "inconsistent"?



Hubby


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 11:36 PM

The lack of nationalized health care in the US is a major factor in the high number of bankruptcies in the US...

Yeah, may not be perfect, but, hey, the US is the last industrialized nation that doesn't think it's workers deserve it...

Hmmmm?

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 11:21 PM

Guest974 -

Have you ever lived in a country with socialized medicine?

Why are you so afraid of it?

I think its great that when you are truly sick or injured, it doesn't put you in the 'poor house'. If I had to pay for all the medical care and drugs that I needed in the last five years, I would be homeless. Luckily, the govt. paid for my medical expenses and I am back to work and living a healthy life.

I am truly grateful for a compassionate government system that doesn't let the pharmaceutical companies gouge us when we are in the most need. I am also grateful for the doctors and nurses who truly believe in healing the sick and aren't consumed by their love of money.

I gladly pay taxes that help pay for the medical care of all citizens. I am expecially grateful that my tax dollars are not used to create war and death and destruction. Its really just a matter of priorities and its obvious that your priority is not the health of your nation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 11:14 PM

Conservatives and the GOP wasted 8 years and untold millions of dollars    Clinton bashing for a blowjob and now they are upset because we detest the shrub and his posse for what they have done to our country?

BTW, socialised medicine is better than no medical coverage at all. Hillary was right all along on that.


Kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:33 PM

Thank you Don Firth...ok, ok...he was impeached for lying. But WHY wa his private life/sexual conduct anybody's buisness but theirs????

FDR did it, Eishenhower did it, JFK did it...and probably others as well...

Doh...WHAT do alpha males do best????
And why is it any of MY buisness?

Incometence running my country is.

See Pat Robertson's latest? (Katrina was Ellen Degeneres fault)
Seen Michael Moore's letters to the President?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:32 PM

Well, I reckon this is a wonderfull segway into the "agree to disagree"... I'm gettin' a little sick of hearing this little Karl Rove concocted reply...

Every time that the Bushites are pushed into a hopeless corner where there is no escape we here this same mantra...

As far as I can see it's a lottta bull... When yer wrong, ya' say, "Hey, I'm wrong" and you quit whatever dumbass policy that ain't workin' fir ya... But no, now its full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes...

See, agree to disaggree ain't workin' fir me as long as dumbass stuff is being done...

And there's plenty of dumbass stuff being done by the Bush adminsitartion and I have figgured out exactly why... They don't want any second opinions... You can bet that if Bush himself was diagnosed with some strange ailment and given 6 months to live by Doctor A, he's be on the phone to Doctor B in a heartbeat...

But the trivaial stuff, like attacking Iraq or killin' off Social Security??? Heck with a seconf opinion!!!???!!!???...

Like, that's what the historians will say about him (should the US survive these guys)... Yeah, they will say that the man had no interset in anyone elses opinions...

So now the US taxpayers are going to be asked to pay $200B to rebuild New Orleans so we can come back and do it again in three years???

Like where are the discussions beeing taken place???

(Corporate boardrooms, Bobert, that's where...)

Yeah, but who is going to get richer as a result of Katrina???

(The rich?)

Danged right and I'll go out on a limb with yet another prediction here if I haven't allready made it... Should the Bush adminsitration give the American taxpayers the "bum's rush" on rebuilding New Orleans, that when all is said and done it will be a model gentrified city with Trent Jones golf courses and a a population of predominently white folks in their 40's and 50's with SUV's in every driveway and guess what???

I will have paid fir it... This is what I have been trying to tell folks about the new push to resdistribute income to white people who support the Republican Party...

I'll even guarentee that this will be the modle if sainer minds don't get into the conversation about what to do with N.O...

And how can they...

Officespeak, you know...

(But isn't that how we got into Iraq, Bobert???)

Yeah, that's exactly how we got into Iraq...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:08 PM

I will not concede the point Rapaire and Bobert, but do not choose to press it either. We agree to disagree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:53 PM

Plus, pdq...

Don't take the Wes Ginny Slide rule and yer figure's to realize that under the last 4 years of Clinton the debt went up a little less than a trillion dollars but under Bush's first 4 years it wnet up over 5 times that at about 2.7 trillion./..

Ya' gotta be carefull when you throw them facts out... These haven't helped Bush one darned bit...

Like,I'd invite anyone to take a hard look at those numbers in pdq's post and tell nme that the current guys are fiscally responsible people...

If it were on a baord of directors of a major company, I'd fire the current CEO and rehire the last one... Numbers don't lie...

Thanks fir the link, pdq...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:50 PM

The United States financed much of World War II with bonds. Ditto for World War I. IF the US is at war (and no such thing has been declared since 1941), why not finance it with bonds? Ditto for the Gulf Coast restoration. Government bonds are, after all, tax-free....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 23 April 9:52 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.