a letter to those who voted for Bush

Page 5 of 10  
Jim Yanik wrote:

Hi, I am sure really sure she has at least more brain than Dubya. Couldn't be worse, could it? Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Hwang wrote:

You haven't been paying any attention to her at all over the last 10 - 12 years, have you?
--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don\'t know
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Any reason why you copied this and didn't give the original author credit?
http://www.michaelmoore.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I thought it sounded like his brand of drivel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bush thought that FEMA was a calvary division.
Bush has such disdain and contempt for the American people it's sickening..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We haven't been attacked again and I have plenty of gas for my car, albeit not cheap gas. At least things are getting done, unlike the Dems just raising taxes with no feasible plan to use the funds. Any party that has a main strategy of "getting the votes of the angry poor by sticking it to the rich" has no place in power. Let them come up with some ideas rather than criticisms and maybe they'll get a chance
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sticking it to the rich? Dear God almighty, I think you actually believe that.
The largest transfers of wealth -- from the poor to the rich -- in the history of the world occurred under Reagan, and is now occurring under Bush, with equally catastrophic consequences for our economy: http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your liberal banter is very entertaining! Do you actually believe that paying down the debt by taxing the rich will make the lives of the poor any better? And your article fails to mention the RECORD GDP. The national debt grows every year, just as I pay more taxes every year, because my income grows. Its how things work.
The reason the "gap" is growing is because the economy is booming. Those with investments, such as owning a home, prosper, those will nothing stay poor. Bush's idea is an "ownership society", which at least addresses the issue. Maybe you don't like his ideas, but at least he has some. Which is more than I can say for the opposition. Taxing the rich is a way to get votes from angry poor people. Its not a solution to anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And your "so what" attitude is precisely what will drive this nation into eventual bankruptcy. Our national debt is approaching EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS, and Americans are already working three hours of every 8-hour workday just to pay INTEREST on this debt.
Read the article I cited in my first response. We're impoverishing ourselves and our grandkids.

It's "booming" with shit service sector jobs. Real wages are and have been on the decline.

So you'll need to explain the record number of home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies since Bush's "home ownership" ruse. Personal wealth isn't increasing; mortgage lending standards are simply being thrown out the window to give the illusion of more home ownership. The fact is, as interest rates edge up, most of these people are going to lose "their" homes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

I'd say such things are a function of people living beyond their means. It's not anyone's fault except the person who took out a loan they couldn't pay. People who bet that they will never be out of work are sometimes wrong. People who can afford a 200K house routinely buy 350K houses. Its not the goverment's fault. Its the fault of people who want to own things that they can't afford.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Give us a break. In your wonderful Bush "boom economy", 55% of American families are living from fucking paycheck to paycheck. Actually "living" is not the right word for it. Surviving or subsisting are more accurate descriptions.
Credit card debt is at an all-time high, and savings are at an all-time low. There's the bottom line on your "boom economy".

To the contrary, when lenders throw standards out the window and start lending money to people who they know will likely be unable to pay it back, they're as guilty as the borrowers. In fact moreso, because it's simple human nature to try and live according to (and often beyond) one's means. Just look at our current federal government for a perfect example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

The problem with your complaint/analysis is that giving these "people" a $300. tax cut is not going to change their plight. The economy would certainly not be better under democratic rule; you'd just have more hand-outs to poor people. At least now they're trying to find work. The best chance for poor people is to create jobs, which you do by giving people more money to spend.
When is the "middle class" going to figure out that you lose when you try to take down your bosses? As a business owner, you raise my taxes and I'm going to cut my costs. That means laying someone off. Hiring part-time people instead of full-time. I'll be less generous with raises. I'll get a health plan with lesser coverage. You complained under Clinton that the "jobs" weren't good jobs. You just don't get it, maybe because you just need to be angry with someone. Anyone.

Perhaps they are, but its the people who make the choice to overextend themselves. People take drugs, don't blame the dealers. People borrow too much, don't blame the banks for trying to make money. People buy SUVs that get crappy gas milage, don't blame the automakers. People have more kids than then can afford, don't blame sex-education. Blame people. People are stupid. That you can write down. Some "people" in this shitty house with a broken down car on my way to work just put in a $2000 stained glass door. Do you think they NEED that to live? No, some woman "wanted" it. Stupid people. I'm sure they'll be filing for bankruptcy (and making the taxpayers pay for their nice door) as soon as the economy turns.
The mantra in the US seems to be "Carpe Diem". Those are the people with the problems; the biggest whiners of all. Because they didn't plan for their future. Too bad for them. I'm not responsible for paying for their irresponsibility.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey, Bush loves the poor people so much he's intent in making more of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You people are so misguided!! Reagan and Bush made us poorer???!!! HMPH!!! Bill Clinton do anything for me either! You can't blame it on the Democrats OR the Republicans!
When will you learn that the president has absolutely nothing to do with the economy. It all falls on the shoulders of Alan Greenspan.
So blame a Jewish President for our economic woes! I mean, wasn't it Abraham Licoln that appointed Greenspan?????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you knew your history you wouldn't need to ask that question.
In 1986/87 a proposal to amend our corporate tax code, which would have taxed income from foreign production was dropped at the insistence of Ronald Reagan. The outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing jobs started immediately thereafter and has been steadily increasing ever since. The so-called "boom years" of Clinton were almost exclusively a result of the high-tech/dot com bubble. All other manufacturing sectors continued to export jobs throughout the 1990's.
Our federal government rewards U.S. corporations for exporting as many manufacturing jobs as possible. Had Reagan removed the economic incentive to outsource back in 1986 we wouldn't have experienced such a massive loss of manufacturing jobs, in fact it's highly probable we would have had a net gain of these jobs.
The end result of this policy has been catastrophic. One-third of manufacturing jobs have disappeared from many states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, and been replaced with shit service sector jobs. Personally, out of the 100 or so people I know, the number who are making as much or more than they were 4 or 5 years ago can be counted on one hand. Everyone else is making much less (in many cases, one-third to one-half) what they were 5 years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe you should have been a computer programmer instead? They've been telling you for 30 years that manufacturing jobs were on their way out, so why haven't you moved into something else? I do something completely different that what I did 10 years ago. If you don't adapt to the environment, you wither away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hope he's NOT a computer progammer. If so he has my sympathies since computer programming jobs went to India, the Philippines & Ireland a coupla years ago.
Liz

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Liz wrote:

Another uninformed liberal (sigh). Unlike your "manufacturing" jobs, computer programmers have quantifiable skills. If you are a REALLY bad programmer, you may lose your job to outsourcing. But there are a lot more jobs than there are good programmers. I know many programmers, almost none of them I would call "good", and most of them make a lot more than you can make working a manufacturing job. In fact, to me most of them are patently incompetent.
Again, if you are bad at your job, you have no reason to believe you can keep doing it. Thats what's wrong with the manufacturing union model; the concept that everyone is the same and worth equal pay for the same job is simply anti-competitive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Liz wrote:

Another uninformed liberal (sigh). Unlike your "manufacturing" jobs, computer programmers have quantifiable skills. If you are a REALLY bad programmer, you may lose your job to outsourcing. But there are a lot more jobs than there are good programmers. I know many programmers, almost none of them I would call "good", and most of them make a lot more than you can make working a manufacturing job. In fact, to me most of them are patently incompetent.
Again, if you are bad at your job, you have no reason to believe you can keep doing it. Thats what's wrong with the manufacturing union model; the concept that everyone is the same and worth equal pay for the same job is simply anti-competitive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, you are so wrong!
And what makes you think I'm involved in a "manufacturing" job? I was sympathizing with the OP, not discussing my own occupation (in which I excel, BTW).
Liz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.