Reason # 18,435 to hate Bush

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/bush.energy.ap/index.html

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Didn't see that one coming a mile away

[Slider]

Next on the list:

Ashcroft out - good!

Alberto Gonzales, who wrote all those justifications of torture, and dismissed many challenges to the death penalty in Texas while apparently not considering the arguments - bad

Trying to fit thins in the unity thing, but can't quite do it.

Slider

[Rych]

That's right drill, Drill, DRILL, we need to keep my 2 SUV's on the road.

[mtbtom]

..hmmm....I think you mean "kill, Kill, KILL" 'cos after all people are being KILLED RIGHT NOW in Falluja so YOU can have access to cheap gas for your fat ass SUV(s). Hope you're thankful for that.

[Rych]

..hmmm....I think you mean "kill, Kill, KILL" 'cos after all people are being KILLED RIGHT NOW in Falluja so YOU can have access to cheap gas for your fat ass SUV(s). Hope you're thankful for that.

I'm thankful for all the work soldiers do. But at this point, Iraq is not worth a sprained ankle to an American soldier too me. We went in, kick the tires, time to get out. I disagree with this nation building business that bush said he would get us out of in '00

[Mad_Scientist]

I already hate Bush for all the other reasons, but we can't really hang this one on him. The reason this is going to happen is in your neighbors driveway. Anyone who drives any of the largest SUV models without a real need for it. Bringing a few pads to a soccer game is not a real NEED. A carpenter who carries lumber needs a truck. Most of us can carry all our toys in a vehicle that gets over 20 MPG. With the recent knowledge theat we have limited oil reserves, you would think people would get that. (and by recent I mean 1975).
BTW I'm not an environmentalist :o

[Rych]

I already hate Bush for all the other reasons, but we can't really hang this one on him. The reason this is going to happen is in your neighbors driveway. Anyone who drives any of the largest SUV models without a real need for it. Bringing a few pads to a soccer game is not a real NEED. A carpenter who carries lumber needs a truck. Most of us can carry all our toys in a vehicle that gets over 20 MPG. With the recent knowledge theat we have limited oil reserves, you would think people would get that. (and by recent I mean 1975).
BTW I'm not an environmentalist :o


I went with a Chevy Tahoe. Ever try to go anywhere with two car seats? If you go out with another couple you need a third row seat, or you take a 2 cars.

[Mad_Scientist]

My Pontiac minivan carries 6 people comfortably or 4 with lots o' stuff. 26mpg average. A large truck to carry a few people still is a waste.

[slapheadmofo]

Not the SUV discussion AGAIN! ::)

[Mr_Cheeze]

..hmmm....I think you mean "kill, Kill, KILL" 'cos after all people are being KILLED RIGHT NOW in Falluja so YOU can have access to cheap gas for your fat ass SUV(s). Hope you're thankful for that.


You bring up an interesting point. I wonder how many of the loudly vociferous anti-Bush people drove to their rallies and the polls in their gas guzzling SUV's. Just another of life's ironies.

[Slider]

Rather than start a new thread....Funny post on the Onion:

"Nation's Poor Win Election for Nation's Rich"

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

..hmmm....I think you mean "kill, Kill, KILL" 'cos after all people are being KILLED RIGHT NOW in Falluja so YOU can have access to cheap gas for your fat ass SUV(s). Hope you're thankful for that.


At least I'm in good company eh?
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=3835&format=

Please let me know where I can find this cheap gas you speak of. Prices seem to be near an all time high in my area and a 44 gal tank is tough to fill. Thanks in advance. And on the brighter side, as collateral damage in Fallujah during our war to preserve SUVs and kill off those pesky Iraqi women and children, we've managed to wipe and/or chase out 1000s of bloodthirsty jihadist types. This may cause irreparable harm to the burgeoning "Indiscriminate Beheading of Westerners" local video franchise, but being a creative bunch, they should be able to take up the slack w/ some well thought out public works sabotage projects and a double-handful of marketplace car-bombings, during which they'll hone their skills for some real fun come election time. All for the benefit of the iraqi people and the peaceful, inclusive world of islam as a whole, of course. That type of mischief just doesn't hold a candle to the evil of driving a pick-up w/ a permanently attached cap to the dump on Saturdays, no doubt. ::)

[Slider]

"we've managed to wipe and/or chase out 1000s of bloodthirsty jihadist types. "

Unfortunately, chasing them out doesn't do much good. Herding cats is more productive. Since the insurgence IS the natives, they just don't go that far. Iraq is in the throes of civil war, not true insurgency. America is seen locally an invasion force, not a liberation force.

"All for the benefit of the iraqi people and the peaceful, inclusive world of islam as a whole, of course. "

What we've done in Iraq is exactly what bin Laden wanted: We've made ourselves into the enemy of all Muslims, at least in the collective mind. The mire will only deepen.

Slider

[MTBME]

I think it will be some time before we know exactly what is on the mind of the "average" Iraqi. I mean you can't do an interview on the street. They have to be awfully suspicious of being seen talking to any western reporter. The mob mentality response is still the best defense. But what are they really thinking? Are they more fearful of the Americans or the foreign insurgents?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Perhaps if we started passing out grilled cheese sandwiches with images of Muhammad it would solve all of the country's woes.

[TrailBate]

from Bush's "home state"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/17/school.dress.ap/index.html

[jaime]

Please let me know where I can find this cheap gas you speak of.


For cheap gas prices, check your local gas station. While the rest of the world has been paying $6 per gallon for years, here in the US we've been using gov't subsidies to keep pump prices equivalent to what they were in the '60's. That's your tax dollars hard at work for you (oh and a little bit of covert ops to topple middle eastern governments we couldn't browbeat into agreeing with our point of view back in the 50's. "Shah" of Iran, anyone?).

[TrailBate]

Bush given permission to waste more money at your expense.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/congress.spending.debt.ap/index.html

but what does Greenspan know?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/index.htm?cnn=yes

[TrailBate]

..and for whoever it was that argued with me about Afghanistan's drug production.....



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/11/19/afghan.opium.ap/index.html

[Phresh]

I went with a Chevy Tahoe. Ever try to go anywhere with two car seats? If you go out with another couple you need a third row seat, or you take a 2 cars.


Uhhhh, car seats can come out you know...

[mtbtom]

At least I'm in good company eh?
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=3835&format=

Please let me know where I can find this cheap gas you speak of. Prices seem to be near an all time high in my area and a 44 gal tank is tough to fill. Thanks in advance. And on the brighter side, as collateral damage in Fallujah during our war to preserve SUVs and kill off those pesky Iraqi women and children, we've managed to wipe and/or chase out 1000s of bloodthirsty jihadist types. This may cause irreparable harm to the burgeoning "Indiscriminate Beheading of Westerners" local video franchise, but being a creative bunch, they should be able to take up the slack w/ some well thought out public works sabotage projects and a double-handful of marketplace car-bombings, during which they'll hone their skills for some real fun come election time. All for the benefit of the iraqi people and the peaceful, inclusive world of islam as a whole, of course. That type of mischief just doesn't hold a candle to the evil of driving a pick-up w/ a permanently attached cap to the dump on Saturdays, no doubt. ::)




Blah blah blash...Fill a 44 gallon tank of gas up in some other country, then report back on much $$$ it cost you...

As far as your other points: Anyone who thinks this war in IRAQ and our policy in the Middle east isn't at least partly about ensuring the flow of cheap oil is living in dream-land.

Sidebar: Everybody's got a friggin data point - and in reality, it's not what you drive, but how much gasoline you consume. But contrast the growing size of SUVs and thier decreasing fuel economy against drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and wars in the Middle East and you start to think that something is seriously F'ed up !

[MissJean]

It is not just the large SUVs & trucks; there was an article in the Globe (yes, yes, liberal media ::)) about the cost of heating & cooling those ridiculous McMansions that are so popular. It use to be that a 2,000 sq ft house was enough, now it seems that everybody wants a 4,000 – 5,000 + sq ft.
Because of my work, I go into these behemoths on a regular basis and often it is just a couple or family with 1 kid that is rattling around in these 4 & 5 bedroom houses. All of these houses have 10’ – 12’ ceilings and 2 story foyers & “great rooms”. That is a lot dead space than needs to be heated & cooled.

[MTBME]

I don't know why nobody builds "afforable" ranch style homes these days. Everything is cut from the same mold. Most of these big spreads are right on top of each other. No land to speak of. They start to look ridiculous.

[Coolriding]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/bush.energy.ap/index.html


Watch this: http://www.oilonice.org/watch/watchtheshort.php

[Rych]

I went with a Chevy Tahoe. Ever try to go anywhere with two car seats? If you go out with another couple you need a third row seat, or you take a 2 cars.


Uhhhh, car seats can come out you know...


Unless you actually want to bring the kids. Do you have kids? Do you know how to install a seat...it's not a qwick change. Plus you're actually suppose to have your locally trained safety
police/fire personal correctly install the seat. My guess is you don't have kids or/nor do you have clue. When you have a kid these days, and you go out you pretty much end up bringing them with you. It's funny how things change, when I was a kid, we rolled around in the back of a pick up. Now a days you'll get dirty looks if you put your dog in the back of your pickup.

BTW when ajusting for inflation gas is cheaper now than it was in the 50's.

[Slider]

Gas is still cheap here, compared to Europe or our own past. I say add a $2/gallon tax and use it to fund R&D of alternative transportation. We'll very quickly see 50MPG Hybrid SUVs and the like. We bikers should benefit, too. And we can stop looking for oil-rich countries to invade.

Of course, we'd have to find a way for Bush's oil industry pals to get a big chunk of the revenue, or it will never happen.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Typical lefty solution. Raise taxes and hope for the ideal consequences.

Ok, then what happens with all of those trucking companies that have to either drastically cut their Teamsters Union workforce because the cost of diesel is prohibitively expensive, or greatly raise their trucking fees to cover the hundreds upon hundreds of miles the gas guzzler semis must roll to transport the goods that you and I take for granted? Probably the latter is more likely, which means those goods... foods, clothes, furniture... whatever, all of it rises in cost. Are you ready for inflation? Is your employer going to give you a raise to make up for the higher cost of living? No, because the cost of doing business is higher across the board.

This isn't Europe.

[Slider]

Mere details. We can exempt any class of vehicles we want, or provide deductions for specific types of travel.

Aren't righties that flexible?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Details, more like corporate tax breaks for fuel usage, since they would have no other options to haul their goods other than using highly pollutive, diesel engine vehicles. Of course, every Democrat in Congress would protest such a solution loudly, while their poor, inner city constituants suffer from the rise in the cost of living. Their solution? Tax the rich more heavily because it's the only way they know how to solve difficult problems.

But hey, that's not to say that the Republicans don't raise taxes at some point to cover their asses for the increasing trade and budget deficits. We're probably screwed either way.

[Slider]

I'm assuming that we agree that the core problem is the overconsumption of fuel. Cutting non-commercial consumption by half would be a great start towards that aim, and we have the technology to do it now.

The real problem isn't SUV's, but instead is 350 horespower SUV's. Make them all diesel hybrids, and drop the HP to 150 or so, and let 'em be as big as anyone wnats.

Hitting folks in the wallet seems to me to be the ONLY way we have to influence this change. A big tax boost seems like a no-brainer to me. If not taxing fuel used for non-commercial purpose, what alternative would you suggest?

Slicer

[Mr_Cheeze]

For starters, how about huge tax incentives for people who use alternative fuel technology? Buy and own a hybrid, annual deduction. Using wind or solar power to supplelent your farm or home energy also deserves a nice, juicy deduction. Incentives as opposed to tax penalties which affect everybody.

[Phresh]

I went with a Chevy Tahoe. Ever try to go anywhere with two car seats? If you go out with another couple you need a third row seat, or you take a 2 cars.


Uhhhh, car seats can come out you know...


Unless you actually want to bring the kids. Do you have kids? Do you know how to install a seat...it's not a qwick change. Plus you're actually suppose to have your locally trained safety
police/fire personal correctly install the seat. My guess is you don't have kids or/nor do you have clue. When you have a kid these days, and you go out you pretty much end up bringing them with you. It's funny how things change, when I was a kid, we rolled around in the back of a pick up. Now a days you'll get dirty looks if you put your dog in the back of your pickup.

BTW when ajusting for inflation gas is cheaper now than it was in the 50's.


I have two kids and I drive a Passat Wagon. I will never own an SUV, and not because of their pitiful gas mileage, it's because they are inherently unsafe for their passengers due to their propensity to roll over and to other motorists due to their size, weight and bumper heights. Personally, I'd rather take two cars on the five days a year when it's necessary rather than drive a truck around for 365.

[MTBME]

I would never own a Volkswagon because historically they don't prove to be very reliable. (Check the latest statistics from Consumer report). Quite a few of the "small" SUV's on the market today are built on car frames and their gas milage is not that far off from your Passat.

[Slider]

We already offer large tax incentives for hybrids. Doesn't seem to be working. Besides, the point is to make all vehicles more fuel efficient, not simply some small subset of a manufactuer's product line.

But I am unclear on why a tax break on low-consumption is superior than a tax on fuel. With the huge and growing deficit, we will have to make up the lost revenue a tax break would cause. We would, be sure, have to raise taxes elsewhere. Doesn't it make the most sense to take the money from those who use the fuel?

Slider

BTW - I love my Jetta Wagon, and had only one minor warranty claim in 65K miles. The VR Six gets less than turbo-diesel mileage, but still lots better than any SUV.

[Phresh]

I would never own a Volkswagon because historically they don't prove to be very reliable. (Check the latest statistics from Consumer report). Quite a few of the "small" SUV's on the market today are built on car frames and their gas milage is not that far off from your Passat.


So what's the point of your post? I should buy a small SUV with better reliability than a VW so I can roll over in that instead? I'll pass thanks. As I stated before, it is not about mileage as much as it is about handling dynamics and active safety. BTW, small SUVs built on car platforms are ... tada ... station wagons!

[PutAwayWet]

It is not just the large SUVs & trucks; there was an article in the Globe (yes, yes, liberal media ::)) about the cost of heating & cooling those ridiculous McMansions that are so popular. It use to be that a 2,000 sq ft house was enough, now it seems that everybody wants a 4,000 – 5,000 + sq ft.
Because of my work, I go into these behemoths on a regular basis and often it is just a couple or family with 1 kid that is rattling around in these 4 & 5 bedroom houses. All of these houses have 10’ – 12’ ceilings and 2 story foyers & “great rooms”. That is a lot dead space than needs to be heated & cooled.



Right you are. And most disappointing is the poor quality with which these houses are built. People are paying $600k for pieces o' Crap just cause they think they have to. Check out

http://www.connollytimberframes.com/

Quality timberframe homes for the same price as your McMansions. Better built, better insulated. That means you can actually save money by lowering your energy costs (both capital cost for equipment and O&M for fuel). Would you rather have a big piece of crap or an adequately sized masterpiece????

[PutAwayWet]

[/quote=Rych]BTW when ajusting for inflation gas is cheaper now than it was in the 50's.


Does that price include the associated costs of cleanup, military force to protect our oil interests, and increased healthcare costs due to air quality related illness?

[MTBME]

"So what's the point ... small SUVs built on car platforms are ... tada ... station wagons! "

That's it! That's my point.

It's just packaged a little differently than a convertional station wagon. In a free market economy people have the right to choose. What makes sense to you might not be the right solution for somebody else. Most people would find it easier getting car seats in and out of a small SUV than a Passat.

[PutAwayWet]

Slider and Cheeze - you guys are both right. A good compromise can be found in two books put out by the Rocky Mountain institute. The first, Natural Capitalism by Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins talks about the same things you two were advocating. Rather than increase taxes, promote a gradual shift in the 'tax targets' to promote business' transition towards alternative energy. We obviously can't say "Ok, fellas - on January 1 we're gonna put in a $4/gallon tax on fuel. Get those Electric 18 wheelers ordered!" But at the same time, we need to gently coax our society in that direction. Otherwise, we'll be invading Alaska with Abrahms tanks to remove the caribou. The second book I'm recommending is the result of a joint study between the Pentagon and the Rocky Mountain Institute - Winning the Oil Endgame, also authored by Amory Lovins. For conservatives - this is funded by about as right a group as you'll find. For non-conservatives - The RMI is a world leader in alternative energy and sustainability. Both books can be found at the link below:

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid385.php

I hate Bush as well, but I think the only (and probably best) solution lies some where in between what "lefties" and 'righties" argue so fiercely about. Put aside the foolish pride, and you never know what will happen.

[Rych]

I went with a Chevy Tahoe. Ever try to go anywhere with two car seats? If you go out with another couple you need a third row seat, or you take a 2 cars.


Uhhhh, car seats can come out you know...


Unless you actually want to bring the kids. Do you have kids? Do you know how to install a seat...it's not a qwick change. Plus you're actually suppose to have your locally trained safety
police/fire personal correctly install the seat. My guess is you don't have kids or/nor do you have clue. When you have a kid these days, and you go out you pretty much end up bringing them with you. It's funny how things change, when I was a kid, we rolled around in the back of a pick up. Now a days you'll get dirty looks if you put your dog in the back of your pickup.

BTW when ajusting for inflation gas is cheaper now than it was in the 50's.


I have two kids and I drive a Passat Wagon. I will never own an SUV, and not because of their pitiful gas mileage, it's because they are inherently unsafe for their passengers due to their propensity to roll over and to other motorists due to their size, weight and bumper heights. Personally, I'd rather take two cars on the five days a year when it's necessary rather than drive a truck around for 365.


The rollover factor is something to think about, but since I've got this truck, zero speeding tickets. I’m aware of the possibility of roll over and it’s really slowed my driving down. As far the safety of other drivers, I’ve been in 3 major accidents in the last 15 years all three involved me stopped at a red light. I’d drive a tank if they’d let me.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Typical lefty solution. Raise taxes and hope for the ideal consequences.

Worked with smoking...


Ok, then what happens with all of those trucking companies that have to either drastically cut their Teamsters Union workforce because the cost of diesel is prohibitively expensive, or greatly raise their trucking fees to cover the hundreds upon hundreds of miles the gas guzzler semis must roll to transport the goods that you and I take for granted?


You're wrong, gas and diseal are independent products. Tax gas, you won't affect the trucking industry.

Of course, you could say "stop highway spending, start public transit spending." Eventually the highways would get so crowded that people would take PT just to avoid traffic. Let the egomaniacal elitest that feels like taking PT makes them less of a person sit in traffic.

You want another solution? Go to any college and pester the college kids that drive a quarter mile to class everyday. Seriously, some of these kids are so lazy that they'd rather drive down the street to avoid 5 minutes of walking. If you turn something into a vice, people will stop doing it. Remember, for a time, cigarettes were trendy. Now people look down upon smokers. If the government started spreadheading a P.R. campaign to make people feel bad about driving, you'd see a similar effect. Sergeon Generals warning on cars? Sounds ludicrious to think it, but I've heard people discusssing it as a serious solution.

Personally, I am not sure I'd advocate any of these solutions, but it is something to think about.

[EVIL BOTA]

I have on of those giant SUV'S ,But I have 3 kids and a 140 pound dog.If we all go somewhere we need the space.The wife and I are pretty lucky we both work fairly close to home (within1/2hr).Who ever is home with the kids keeps the PIG and the other drives the little 4 banger to work..We do under 30,000 a year btween the two. I guess my point is u can own a SUV and still be somewhat Economical.

[Rych]

I have a solution! Require by law that all new vehicles sold after 2006 get less than 12mpg, and all vehicles that get more than 15mpg must be scraped by 2008. Why? Simple. Lets use up all the oil as fast as possible.
Benefits:
1.The Middle East becomes irrelevant. The Saudi royal family can go back to being farmers.
2.We’re forced to develop new fuel technology
3.Our struggling automotive industry will get a sales boost
4.Ok we’ll have pollution for a few years, but once the oil in depleted the environment will recover.

The question is what to do with the drivers who refuse to migrate to the 12mpg by 2008? It will be every driver’s right and moral obligation to run these cars off the road.
Only the government can save us from ourselves.

[splat]

We already offer large tax incentives for hybrids. Doesn't seem to be working.

Are you sure it is not working ? The guy in the offivce next to me is inb the market for a new car ,and he went looking at the hybrids , Both Honda and Toyota , have 10 Month waiting list.

as for Fuel comsuption and electricty, our old Friend Nuclear was forced out. the claims were we didn't need nuclear Power . and these from the same people who claim we have to ger rid of our reliance on oil.

[Slider]

Hybrids sell out because the production volume is very low, not because of the tax incentives, but they surely help. My point about it not working was more about the need for ALL a manufacturer's offerings to have similar mileage, not simply a small portion. We need to encourage everyone to demand a high-mileage vehicle, not only those already considering them.
$4/gallon for gas would do it very effectively.

Slider

[EVIL BOTA]

We probley use more fuel for powering up these computers via electric power plants than with automobiles,But I'm sure that the same people complaining about the SUV'S wouldn't give up there electricity TO use these machines. We need to work on that just as much if not more than the fuel for cars.

[slapheadmofo]

My moped riding, reel-mower pushing, burn just enough wood to keep from freezing to death buddy called looking for his righteous indignation. It seems to have been misplaced; last seen heading north in an overloaded minivan averaging something less than 20 mpg on an essential 500 mile round trip to a VT ski area. (Only ~.00035 innocent Iraqis were killed in support of this particular trip.)

While you're searching, could someone please explain to me how spending billions on the war helps the gov't have more of our tax money left over with which to subsidize our gas? Please keep it simple, as I'm a little tired today from spending the weekend transporting furniture and construction material for a couple of my Honda and VW owning buddies.

Amazingly enough, I was able to keep all four wheels on the ground for somewhere around the 1000th consecutive week. When you buy a truck, you can't play Pole Postion every time you're on the highway, trying to gain that precious carlength like you used to in your Maxima/Jetta/Accord. SUVs don't flip themselves, poor and/or aggressive driving habits do. Slow down and drive conscientiously and it's a non-issue.

[AA]

My moped riding, reel-mower pushing, burn just enough wood to keep from freezing to death buddy called looking for his righteous indignation. It seems to have been misplaced; last seen heading north in an overloaded minivan averaging something less than 20 mpg on an essential 500 mile round trip to a VT ski area. (Only ~.00035 innocent Iraqis were killed in support of this particular trip.)


hehehehe, damn Slappy that is some funny sh*t.... makes you think doesn’t it.

[PutAwayWet]

So what's better? 6 people in a minivan getting 18 mpg (analagous to each person getting 108 mpg) or 5 people in an SUV getting 12 mpg (like each person getting 60 mpg)? Hmmm, come on math, don't fail us now...

Listen. An SUV works for some people, some of the time. For you proud SUV owners, what percentage of your miles are spent actually using the SUV capabilities? This means in 4WD, or off road, or loaded to the gills pulling a heavy object. If it is more than 10%, I'll be surprised. Shortsighted people fail to see the true cost/impact of their actions. Every gallon of gas burned adds 20 lbs of CO2 to the atmosphere (that's stupid, a gallon of gas doesn't weigh more than 7 lbs you moron! Umm, in the combustion process, for every one Carbon molecule, we more than double it's weight in added Oxygen - hence the O2 in CO2... if you want the math I'll be more than happy to provide it). Not to mention the CO, NOx, SOx, and other PIC (Products of Incomplete Combustion) added to the air. So even if you think global warming is a farce, you still have to breathe the other crap. Would you close your garage door and start your car? No? Funny, that's kind of what we're doing to the earth as a whole right now.

So anyway, for some more fun facts, say driver A drives a vehicle that gets 25 mpg. Driver B, bought an Expedition (sucker!) that gets 13 mpg. Each drives 15,000 miles a year. At the end of the year, A has burned 600 gallons of gas (ecoterrorist!), while B has burned 1150 gallons (ooohhh man, my wallet keeps floating off). Driver A has spent about $1200 on fuel, Driver B $2300. Driver A is responsible for 6 tons of CO2 (a volume of approx. 103,000 cubic feet), Driver B is responsible for 11.5 tons of CO2 (197,000 cubic feet). Still not making sense? Well, say you live in a 2000 sq foot home with 8' ceilings. Driver A filled his house 6.4 times with just CO2, Driver B 12.3 times. Now mix in the toxic stuff that comes out the tailpipe, and sit inside that house and breathe deeply until you understand, or die. Better revelate quickly, it's pretty harsh in there!

Luckily, we've got our good friends the trees to filter a lot of this stuff out. Unless we support other countries slashing rainforest...shoot! Better turn on all the lights and TVs in my house to help me ignore the crisis! But wait - all that 'clean coal' is depositing mercury in my damned fish! I know, I'll use nuclear - they bury that sh*t in Nevada! Wait, Uncle Bill lives in Nevada...Sh*t!

Here's a tough thing to do. Next time you use excess energy. whether it be driving or 'living', think about what you're actually doing. Are 20 days of inconvenience a year worth 345 days of excess pollution? Your kids will be the ones breathing, eating, and drinking it. So will their kids. Think about what your energy consumption says about you. Do you want to be the "consume, consume, consume - my next ten minutes is all that matters" guy....or do you want to leave something behind for your kids to enjoy?

[EVIL BOTA]

I'm not sure your mini van idea holds up. Now since my Suv holds 7 and its big old v8 works alot less than the mini van that holds 6,because the v6 is working at 3000 rpm's higher.I'd be willing to bet that my SUV is getting better mpg. I bet if you researched it the suv would end up the better choice.
But what do I know I'm just a guard..

[slapheadmofo]

I actually do use my suburban mainly as a 'utility' vehicle; I put maybe 5k on it last year. Probably burned a lot less fuel overall than some of the more vehicle-conscious folks out there. And I agree that needlessly driving a gas-guzzler around everywhere is wasteful and the fact that there's millions of them out there isn't a positive thing big-picture-wise. I take issue though, w/ the idea that a guy who owns an Expedition somehow bears greater personal responsibilty than does a guy driving a big ol' Caddy or an F250. Even someone getting 30mpg as opposed to 20 should get there fair 66% of the blame, don't you think? Why single out SUV's?

"Oh look little Bobby, that man in the Explorer is ruining the environment and costing people their lives, what I dink! Whoa, check out that sweet M3..." I call BS. (Of course I defer if you ride your bike everywhere and actually have a reel mower...otherwise, when pointing fingers, don't forget to keep a mirror handy) ;)

[Mr_Cheeze]

Nevermind all of this numbers mumbo jumbo. The problem is obviously not with those folks who chose their SUV for practical reasons. But SUV mania has gone off the deep end with models that you know aren't being used for Sport or Utility. The Cadillac Escalade (especially helpful if you peddle narcotics and have $10,000 to spend on sound equipment to boost), Lincoln Aviator, Buick Concept (another butt ugly retro vehicle), the Chevy Journey Concept (ditto), Lexus GX 470... (well, Lexus anything for that matter); the Mercedes G-500 (ditto). You get the picture. The SUV has now become more about status than utility, and herein lies the problem. The auto makers are certainly appealing to a wanting market. And it's not as though the Mercedes or Lexus drivers will be crying poverty if the gas tax is increased.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

We probley use more fuel for powering up these computers via electric power plants than with automobiles


Bingo... Offices and home users that leave the computers on overnight account for 10% of total US energy consumption!

[MTBME]

10% sounds kinda high. Are you sure about that number?

[sizlinseagulsoup]

I'll see if I can find the data...

This is interesting though...
http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/content/energy/text.htm

[Jisch]

We probley use more fuel for powering up these computers via electric power plants than with automobiles


Bingo... Offices and home users that leave the computers on overnight account for 10% of total US energy consumption!


I think what you are referring to is an initiative by IBM to have employees shut off PCs when they went home for the night resulting in a 10% savings in IBM's total energy bill. This is from memory from a story I heard on that leftist propaganda machine NPR.

Edit - now I think about it, the story actually had to do with screen savers, the savings came not from shutting off the PCs, but allowing the screens to turn off. You can set up your screen to shut off completely when not in use, but a screen saver can override that, or something like that...

John

[sizlinseagulsoup]

This is from memory from a story I heard on that leftist propaganda machine NPR.

::)

[slapheadmofo]

People are dying for your screensavers. :'(
Hope those little electronic fishies are worth it to you.

[TrailBate]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P101252.asp?GT1=5851

[Slider]

Since Bush's tax cut for the rich represents a full 50% of our current shortfall, it appears he'll have to either cancel it, or tax the rest of us more heavily. Gee, whaddya think he'll do?

Then, when inflation hits us all very hard next year, and recession follows, you think he'll suffer in any way?

The guy is a ******* menace - to us, the world, and the rest of the universe as well.

Slider

[Slider]

Here's a good one, just published on Boston.com:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/336/region/Former_Bush_campaign_official_:.shtml

The lead from the story:
Former Bush campaign official indicted for phone-jamming

By Erik Stetson, Associated Press, 12/1/2004 16:39
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) A federal grand jury on Wednesday indicted James Tobin, President Bush's former New England campaign chairman, on four counts related to the Republican jamming of get-out-the-vote phone lines on Election Day 2002.

I wonder why all those cabinet members are abandoning ship. I'm thinking there's lots more like this to follow, and more directly linked to Bush.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Since Bush's tax cut for the rich represents a full 50% of our current shortfall, it appears he'll have to either cancel it, or tax the rest of us more heavily. Gee, whaddya think he'll do?

Then, when inflation hits us all very hard next year, and recession follows, you think he'll suffer in any way?

The guy is a ******* menace - to us, the world, and the rest of the universe as well.

Slider


Funny how the liberals never even consider cutting spending on social programs. I guess I am not surprised.

I wonder why all those cabinet members are abandoning ship.

Hardly the reason. This happened under Clinton, too, if you remember. Cabinet members, more often than not, hold seats for a single term. It doesn't mean anything. Beside, these "resignations" are usually suggested by the Oval Office and mutually agreed upon. Nobody is ditching anything, although I know that's what you would like to believe.

[Slider]

Cutting social programs verses cutting taxes for the rich. Gee, let me think about that one.

Bush has surpassed Clinton in Cabinet exits, who was second on the "most departures" list. Next target: Nixon, who lost his whole Cabinet. Think hard, Cheeze - what do Clinton and Nixon have in common. Come on, you can figure it out.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop....Slider

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Anyone that has a clue took their money out of the US economy in 2002. This isn't news.

Had I invested $1000 dollars in Euros when it was .87 euros per dollar (2 Years ago), I could have traded in my Euro's today for about 600 dollars profit.

30% annual interest rate?!?! I'll take it! There's nothing like a moron president to make the financial savvy richer!

[Rych]

When are we going to do something about these polluters who are destroying the planet?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&u=/ap/20041202/ap_on_sc/st__helens_pollution_2&printer=1

Sorry you may have copy and paste...

[Slider]

That concerned environmentalist Ronald Reagan beat you to that idea. A couple of quotes:

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Cutting social programs verses cutting taxes for the rich. Gee, let me think about that one.

I don't have to think about it at all. Only one answer is constitutionally valid.

Oh yea, the Constitution! Damn, we liberals keep forgetting about that.

Bush has surpassed Clinton in Cabinet exits, who was second on the "most departures" list. Next target: Nixon, who lost his whole Cabinet. Think hard, Cheeze - what do Clinton and Nixon have in common. Come on, you can figure it out.



Let me guess. Both were notorious for their scandals and lying? Both tried hard to rewrite history and change their legacies?

Like I said, you will believe what you want concerning Bush's cabinet turnover. In reality, it's just business as usual.

[Slider]

Uh, constitutionally invalid? Don't tell me your one of those "income taxes are unconstitutional" whackos. Do you pay taxes? Does the government allocate them as it sees fit? Isn't revenue allocation the single biggest government task?

On answer two, CLANG!!! Nice try, but a simple answer relating to the varying success of impeachment attempts directed toward them would be much more to the point. Try this analgy: The ship is the administration, impeachment is the ocean threatening to sink it, and the cabinet members are the rats. So far, Bush has the rats, who see the encroaching water long before the rest of us.

Or maybe they just don't like the smell of the cargo hold.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Uh, constitutionally invalid? Don't tell me your one of those "income taxes are unconstitutional" whackos. Do you pay taxes? Does the government allocate them as it sees fit? Isn't revenue allocation the single biggest government task?



The Constitution Of The United States (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Uniform? Now, I ask you: are all taxes levied uniformly throughout the united states? Hardly. That's not to mention that most of those taxes we do pay are wasted on programs that neither provide for the common defence nor the general welfare. Separate issue. So, what's the solution? A simple, flat tax. Whether that be a flat income tax across the board or this new idea I've been hearing about a national sales tax which would be more than fair, but your hated rich folk already despise this idea, which probably means it will never happen.

And now California is proposing a driving tax. How is it any different than a gas tax? Well, now Big Brother can keep tabs on where everyone is going. If this happens, it's only a matter of time before CA's eastern, liberal sister state follows in kind. Just what we need, more government to become involved in our lives.

[Slider]

Uniform in this usage would more appropriately seem to mean that the Federal taxation system should be the same from state to state, as it is currently, and has been for a very long time. State taxes are another matter, not addressed here.

In a more broad sense, uniform is hardly an absolute term. It could also be interpreted to mean a uniform burden, which would make it relative to income. Again, the way it ostensibly is now. The devil is in the details, not the general system we use to determine the tax levy.

Flat tax is simply an attempt for the rich to grab even more of the revenue than they already get.

The real point, though, is that the Supreme Court decides how the Constitution is interpreted, according to the Constitution itself. They say income tax is OK, so it is OK.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I am not arguing the point about income tax, per se, but the level of taxation and how it is spent. Taxes are necessary for, at least, some basic needs as outlined in the Constitution. That document, however, says nothing about taxing more heavily the rich in order to socially engineer a more equitable society.

I don't see how a flat tax makes the rich greedy, especially since most of them are against it. They will still pay more on the basis of their higher earnings, and would lose many of the tax loopholes they benefit from under the current system. A national sales tax would work almost the same way and eliminate the IRS. Yes, it would put many CPA's out of business. Oh well. It's all too simple, anyhow. The government likes things complicated so they can get away with more ****.

[Slider]

The bottom line is that a true flat tax would make me, and probably you, and most likely everyone in this forum, pay a LOT more tax. It would reduce the burden on the "idle rich."

Sorry, you won't get me behind that one. I am all for social engineering.

Slider

[Slider]

I'm pretty sure Bush said yesterday that torture was the action of a few renegades. He's a lyin' S o' S.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/08/interrogators_objected_to_tactics/

The lead from the story:

"The Bush administration's aggressive techniques for extracting information from detainees captured in Afghanistan and Iraq sparked sharp dissent among some experienced interrogators in the military and the FBI, according to government documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union yesterday.

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, indicate that some prisoners in Iraq continued to be physically abused even after details of abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison became public in the spring of this year."

In other words, it came from the top.

Slider

[TrailBate]

yet the individual soldiers who took the orders are the ones beiNG court-martialed and thrown in jail. Ridiculous.

[Slider]

Here's a surprise: Rumsfeld is a lying S o' S too. Seems the Bush administration doesn't even respect for the soldiers it is sending to die in Iraq enough to properly protect them, and is willing to lie in their face to hide the fact.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/10/us_stance_on_armor_disputed/

Slider

[Slider]

So the missle defense system has failed yet again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/politics/16missile.html?hp&ex=1103259600&en=742de2e10e2e0a6 2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The story lead: "An important test of the United States' fledgling missile defense system ended in failure early Wednesday as an interceptor rocket failed to launch on cue from the Marshall Islands, the Pentagon said."

And, from deeper in:

"The overall missile defense program is to cost more than $50 billion over the next five years; the first group of land- and sea-based missiles, sensors and associated systems envisioned for deployment is to cost more than $7 billion, and this test alone had a budget of $85 million."

$50billion here, $100billion there (Iraq, this year alone), and pretty soon you have some real expenses....

After being told it had problems, Bush forced early, untested deployment! So lots of testing wasn't done, the thing is a huge turkey, and it is eating up lots and lots of $$$$. But it did provide a major plank for his campaign platform. Can you say pandering?

So whaddya say we cut the taxes on the rich some more. That ought to fix the economy, sinking under our enormous deficit.

Slider

[TrailBate]

this is a program that Bush/Cheney criticized Kerry for NOT supporting......hmmmmm....

[TrailBate]

Bush also promised to send Congress "a tough budget" early next year to hold the line on federal spending.

"If the deficit is an issue, which it is, it's going to require some tough choices on the spending side," the president told a White House economic conference.

The president credited his tax-cutting policies with reviving the economy. Bush said his strategy will be "to grow the economy with reasonable tax policy but to make sure the deficit is dealt with by being wise about how we spend money."



does this guy ever stop spewing bs?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Just in case you have forgotten, Clinton was very much in favor of missile defense. And they had very similar failures under his regime. No surprise that the pro-UN John Kerry was against it. Wouldn't want the US to be unfairly protected against everybody else.

[Slider]

"Just in case you have forgotten, Clinton was very much in favor of missile defense. "

Well, Cheeze, spending is, or at least should be, closely tied to available revenue. Remind me - how big was the deficit under Clinton? Oh that's right - there WASN'T one.

Slider

[TrailBate]

44% of Americans oppose America's core ideals
MSNBC |
"Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans, according to a nationwide poll. The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious. Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim-Americans... 44% favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans... 27% of respondents supported requiring all Muslim-Americans to register where they lived with the federal government... The margin of error was 3.6%."

[TrailBate]

Pacific Currents: U.S. gunboats, sinking of ships rankle Ecuadoreans
By BRUCE FINLEY
THE DENVER POST
MANTA, Ecuador -- American counterterrorism officials have set up a high-seas gantlet deploying Coast Guard cutters off Latin American coasts and arresting foreign nationals trying to leave their own countries.
Off the coast of Ecuador alone, Coast Guard crews have blocked at least 37 boats and detained more than 4,575 suspected illegal migrants during the past four years, records show. During the past two years, they have sunk a dozen emptied migrant boats that they deemed "unseaworthy" -- setting them ablaze and firing their .50-caliber machine guns into them.
The interdiction effort fits into a new worldwide strategy that Department of Homeland Security officials describe as "pushing our borders out." Enforcing U.S. laws abroad is crucial, they contend, to control illegal immigration, estimated at 500,000 people a year, and close security gaps terrorists could exploit.
"The president has authority to secure the borders of the United States," said Lt. Cmdr. Brad Kieserman, operations legal chief at Coast Guard headquarters in Washington.
That means not only off Ecuador but "anywhere in the world," Kieserman said. Coast Guard and Navy ships will "go to the source of transnational crime and interdict it before it gets to the United States," he said.

[Slider]

They used to call that "gunboat diplomacy." Sounds more like imperialism to me.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

And here is reason #18,436. Michael Moore has just been prescribed thorazine.

[narlus]

revolutionary alright. as in, let's start one.

i still can't see how fiscal conservatives can like this guy? can anyone explain it to me?

[TrailBate]

revolutionary alright. as in, let's start one.

i still can't see how fiscal conservatives can like this guy? can anyone explain it to me?


1. They just blame it all on 9-11, instead of Bush.
2. They just ignore this little detail while they support their candidate
3. They just waited until after the election to criticize him about it. There is an article today on cnn.com about this.
4. He's made the highly believable promise of cutting the deficit in HALF in the next 4 years. A virtual impossibility.
5. All the rich republicans got huge tax cuts, so they just stay quiet about it.

[Mr_Cheeze]

What many on the left continually fail to recognize is that most fiscal conservatives feel that they are not left with a better choice. Nobody ignores the facts concerning the deficit and the increased spending, which is most certainly a by-product of 9/11, the war in Iraq and the supposed war on terror. Please don't think that I am making an excuse, because I have been critical of both Bush's fiscal care, as well as his priorities as concerns the war on terror. Both of those, as well as the President's dubious Constitutional protection record, are the reasons why I didn't vote for Time's "Person" of the Year. But here you have a Democrat Party that has no interest in neither lowering any non-defense spending nor lessening the tax burden. I know how all of the socialists feel about the rich, so let's leave that aside right now. Fiscal conservatives have two choices: have faith in a Republican who, on paper, should be more fiscally responsible; or someone like Gore or Kerry, neither of whom had any intent to put government on a diet, while selling out the country's virtual sovgeignity and security to a world consensus; i.e. the United Nations, a decidedly corrupt and anti-American organization.

So how could fiscal conservatives have voted for George Bush? There was simply no viable alternative. Iraq is certainly an albatross on the economy. Whether you agree or disagree with the reasons for having gone in there, a large majority of Americans still believe that we have to finish the job we started, which means the weight will remain. No elected Democrat would have been able to solve the problem without falling back on th usual means to increase revenue.

[TrailBate]

unfortunately, the "usual means to increase revenue" is how we get new books and more teachers in our schools, get our roads paved (just don't mention the Big Dig), get more cops on the streets, more equipment to firefighters, more park rangers, a more logical means to fix social security and health care, etc etc.
Of course, Ridiculous amounts of money is spent by EVERY president on stupid, useless crap as payback to political supporters.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

"I know how all of the socialists feel about the rich, so let's leave that aside right now."
::)

[Mr_Cheeze]

hey, roll your eyes all you want. But the constant refrains of lefties blaming everything on the rich, and/or always suggesting that they pay the extra burden... it just reeks of pure envy and is very tiresome. People like Bill Gates, who made his money the hard way, and yet donates vast amounts of his fortune to charity, gets constantly and unjustly bombarded with criticism.

It's just not up to the government to say how people's moneyt should be spent, just because they happen to make over a certain amount. I know you dislike the term "socialism", but it is what it is and Democrats are socialists. I know it seems like a noble stance to many, but it is anti-constitutional, and that's the bottom line.

And what, no criticism of The Bush administration's $50 million allocation to the disaster relief effort?

[narlus]

so they've upped it to 50MM now, huh? at least the total now eclipses what they will be spending on W's inauguration shindig. how generous.

[TrailBate]

It's just not up to the government to say how people's moneyt should be spent, just because they happen to make over a certain amount. I know you dislike the term "socialism", but it is what it is and Democrats are socialists. I know it seems like a noble stance to many, but it is anti-constitutional, and that's the bottom line.

And what, no criticism of The Bush administration's $50 million allocation to the disaster relief effort?


Ah, but the Patriot Act IS constitutional?

btw, it's up to $350 million now. I think that is one less F-22 the military can buy now.

[Slider]

This story sums up the Bush adminstration approach to management really well. Why bother with effective policy when reinterpreting the numbers makes the problems disappear?

From today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/politics/02fiscal.html

"To show that President Bush can fulfill his campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009, White House officials are preparing a budget that will assume a significant jump in revenues and omit the cost of major initiatives like overhauling Social Security.

To make Mr. Bush's goal easier to reach, administration officials have decided to measure their progress against a $521 billion deficit they predicted last February rather than last year's actual shortfall of $413 billion.

By starting with the outdated projection, Mr. Bush can say he has already reduced the shortfall by about $100 billion and claim victory if the deficit falls to just $260 billion.

But White House budget planners are not stopping there. Administration officials are also invoking optimistic assumptions about rising tax revenue while excluding costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as trillions of dollars in costs that lie just outside Mr. Bush's five-year budget window.

The five-year plan, due in February, is likely to reaffirm previous predictions of a $217 billion surge in tax revenues in 2005, the biggest one-year jump on record, and almost $800 billion a year by 2009."

We're smothering under an avalanchge, and Bush is shoveling snow on top.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Plus Bush now has one more thing to blame if he can't improve the deficit: The Tsunami. That and 9/11. It's not his fault!

[Slider]

This ought to be called the "Fish in a Barrel" adminstration. It manages to meet the lowest expectations possible. This is confirmation that the torture orders came from the top, ably aided by our soon-to-be rubber stamped Atty General.

Why are the most evil also the most sanctimonious????

Slider

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/politics/05gonzales.html?hp&ex=1104987600&en=ffaa199669f32a 7e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 - Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Gonzales's role in seeking a legal opinion on the definition of torture and the legal limits on the force that could be used on terrorist suspects in captivity is expected to be a central issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on Thursday on Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general.

The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the much-debated Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security.

Until now, administration officials have been unwilling to provide details about the role Mr. Gonzales had in the production of the memorandum by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Gonzales has spoken of the memorandum as a response to questions, without saying that most of the questions were his."

[Slider]

You gotta think this one through a little. The very fellow that the administration claimed was responsible for the false claim that Saddam was actively trying to buy uranium from Niger looks to be Bush's man for the position of undersecretary of state for arms control and international security in the State Department.

The only conclusion can be that Robert Joseph is getting rewarded for being the fall guy. In other words, similarly to so many other of this adminstrations dealings, Bush and his cohorts engineered the false claim, purposely included it in the 2003 State of the Union address, got the mileage they needed out of it to get support for the Invasion of Iraq, blamed Robert Joseph to get themselves off the hook, and managed to dodge responsibility for the lie they perpetrated. Now the other show is dropping and Jordan gets rewarded for his role.

From today's Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/11/despite_false_claim_his_star_rises_former_bush_aid e_eyed_for_state_job/

The story lead:

"Despite false claim, his star rises
Former Bush aide eyed for State job
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 11, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The man who insisted that President Bush make the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa is poised to assume a top State Department job that would make him the lead US arms negotiator with Iran and North Korea, according to administration officials."

[MissJean]

a top State Department job that would make him the lead US arms negotiator with Iran and North Korea

Perhaps this is another example of preemptive striking by the administration..... you can’t think that those negotiations will end up being very productive. He’ll be all set to take the fall when we wind up on the brink of a nuclear war w/No Korea & Iran.

[Slider]

Professional Fall Guy - I wonder how you play that up on a resume!

Let's do a comparison here. Remember that Dan Rather thing at CBS? He and four others have now lost their jobs because they unwittingly used a forged memo as the basis for a story about Bush's military service. Don't lose site of the fact that Bush, from all accounts, did dodge his commitment, so the central premise is basically unchallenged. But, in the "liberal media", that kind of mistake gets you fired, because there is a central requirement for adherence to the truth.

Now take the Bush administration. Let's assume that Joseph actually was responsible, and his error introduced a false statement into the State of the Union address. Now, they are promoting the fellow. That sure makes it seem like Bush has a central adherence to something other than truth. The underlying implication - that he was not actually responsible - lays bare something far more evil. Lies layered upon lies.

We are being played for saps, artfully, and , as a country, appear to like it.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Slider, you seem to be arguing with yourself. you're the only one posting! Is it the voices in your head?

And didn't Bush give the CIA director who messed up 9/11 and the Iraq WMD intelligence an award? You know, the guy who told Bush there were NO wmd's in iraq, but changed his report to match what Bush told him to report, then got blamed for being wrong, then got a medal.

Don't blame me! I voted for...you know

[Slider]

Well, I was responding not to voice in my head, but to a post here, by Oldbroad. You might want to reread the sequence.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Well, I was responding not to voice in my head, but to a post here, by Oldbroad. You might want to reread the sequence.

Slider


I was just razzin ya. Fellow bush-hater, remember?

[Slider]

Oh....Um....I knew that. ;)

But I admit to being a little defensive, after the previous round of "not appropriate" postings. I do watch the View count, and it seems that at least a few of us are interested. So I will persevere. It doesn't appear I am going to run out of material.

Slider

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html


*GASP!* What do you mean, there are no WMD's in Iraq?! Huh?! What?! You're KIDDING!!!!!

[truckboy]

We are being played for saps, artfully, and , as a country, appear to like it.

Slider


I don't like it.

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.regrets.ap/index.html

I love it. There are only 2 things that Bush regrets saying. What about when he said he didn't care where Bin Laden was? I guess there is a difference between regretting what you say, and just pretending you didn't say it.

[TrailBate]

Condoleezza Rice stressed the importance of diplomacy, democracy and freedom today in remarks at her confirmation hearing to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state. "We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom," Rice said. "The time for diplomacy is now."


Does anyone actually buy this crap? Shove it, Condie. You whore.

[Slider]

Her recent accomplishments:

1. Try to convince the world that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction.

2. Architect Iraq's post war society.

Nice resume for the Secretary of State. Maybe if we also invade Iran, she can run for President in a few years.

SLider

[TrailBate]

Don't forget she also got an oil supertanker named after her!

and with all this security for Bush inauguration, who do you think he fears most? Foreign or domestic terrorists?

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Iran - "We don't have a Nuclear weapons program! We scrapped that!"
Bush - "Comeon' Iran, be HONEST about program or else we'll INVADE YOU!"
Iran - "But, but... we are being honest, don't you see?"

This sounds so damn familiar. Mmmmm Iraq anyone?

McCarthyism and now the modern-day terrorist hunt reminds me so much of the Salem Witch trials. Once you've been accused, you're as good as dead, no matter what the truth is.

[kernel crash]

Well that might be true if you first believe that Iran is telling the truth. Now that takes a leap of faith.

[Slider]

The only reason Iran would need a nuclear program is to fend off our Emperor's, I mean President's, attempts to annex as many oil-producing nations as possible. If nuclear weapons in the wrong hands were really the issue, we'd have gone into Korea a long time ago.

An invasion of Iran would consign our world to many years of strife, and even our "friends" in Saudi Arabia would openly desert us. We would be alone in the world, with our military so overextended that it would be powerless if, say, China decides to take advantage.

Worse than simple bad foreign policy, it is truly insane. Elected with the tightest margin for any sitting President ever, Bush claims a mandate. The man is losing touch with reality.

Slider

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Well that might be true if you first believe that Iran is telling the truth. Now that takes a leap of faith.


True, but look at Iraq. If Sadam tells the United States the truth about WMD's and Bush lies, then I'm not taking Bush's word again!

[TrailBate]

McCarthyism and now the modern-day terrorist hunt reminds me so much of the Salem Witch trials. Once you've been accused, you're as good as dead, no matter what the truth is.


My thoughts exactly! Although if this "dirty bomb" goes off in Boston, I may change my tune a bit....

[TrailBate]

The only reason Iran would need a nuclear program is to fend off our Emperor's, I mean President's, attempts to annex as many oil-producing nations as possible. If nuclear weapons in the wrong hands were really the issue, we'd have gone into Korea a long time ago.

An invasion of Iran would consign our world to many years of strife, and even our "friends" in Saudi Arabia would openly desert us. We would be alone in the world, with our military so overextended that it would be powerless if, say, China decides to take advantage.

Worse than simple bad foreign policy, it is truly insane. Elected with the tightest margin for any sitting President ever, Bush claims a mandate. The man is losing touch with reality.

Slider


Iran has learned a lot from Iraq and N Korea: If you DON'T have nukes, you'll get invaded, if you DO have them, you'll be left alone. So what would YOU do? I'd hurry up and get me some nukes!

and I would hardly call Saudi Arabia "friends"...oh, you had them in quotes too. my bad.

[TrailBate]

just checked cnn.com. The headline is "Bush Inaugural address to stress peace through liberty.
And Bush plans to lay out his vision of spreading worldwide democracy

so, in other words, bush will stress "peace by invading foreign countries and forcing them to elect a pro-western leader", and a vision of "bombing all non-democratic nations back to the stone age."
since obviously there has never been any instance where a democratically elected leader has ever resorted to violence against anyone.

[jerseygirl]

Did anyone catch the morning news today (7)? They showed people waiting in the cold for the innauguration. The voice over said "some Bush supporters are numb." I said to myself, "just some?"

[TrailBate]

why wasn't this a front page story?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/index.html

[Rych]

Give it up. Your guy lost overwhelmingly.


http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

[narlus]

yeah, let's give up the search for truth. no need mucking about to see what really is going on w/ our gubmint.

[Slider]

Forget all that crap Bush spewed in the SOTU Address. The State of the Union is this: SELLOUT. The whole Social Security thing is part of Bush's plan to trade our future for industry profit. Now the EPA is in on it, trading our health so as not to hurt an economy already overburdened by his idiotic policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/national/04mercury.html

The lead:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general charged on Thursday that the agency's senior management instructed staff members to arrive at a predetermined conclusion favoring industry when they prepared a proposed rule last year to reduce the amount of mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants.

Mercury, which can damage the neurological development of fetuses and young children, has been found in increasingly high concentrations in fish in rivers and streams in the United States.

The inspector general's report, citing anonymous agency staff members and internal e-mail messages, said the technological and scientific analysis by the agency was "compromised" to keep cleanup costs down for the utility industry.

[narlus]

Forget all that crap Bush spewed in the SOTU Address. The State of the Union is this: SELLOUT. The whole Social Security thing is part of Bush's plan to trade our future for industry profit.

this is about the ONLY thing i agree w/ Bush about. what's so bad about letting ME decide how to invest MY money? should i let the government choose my 401K deductions and allocations too?

here are two sites which illustrate this well:

Your Retirement Calculator (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/)

compared to what you are getting from SS

Soc Security Admin Website (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/index.html)

[Slider]

Bush's numbers are all BS, starting with the predicted dates that SS will start to cost more than it brings in, right up to the overall benefit estimates, and pretty much everything in between.

Your future (definitely mine at age 48) will be totally dependent on the performance of the market. The whole friggin' idea of Social Security is to take variables like that OUT of the equation when you calculate your retirement funding. Overall, the market can meet the 3% annual gain needed, not counting the broker commissions, to make it work, but one good recession - like the one Bush is building for us now - will mean seriously lean times for anyone whose peak earning years happen to coincide.

The main beneficiaries will be the brokerage houses. All those commissions will come out of your pocket and mine. Of course, the Fortune 1000 will get a boost from all that money, too. How many Enrons do you think will pop up to grab large parts of that invesment money? You think Bush, or the Republicans generally, will watch out for you when they do?

The proposed SS reform is a serious screw job.

Slider

[Rych]

The problem with social security is people are living to long. So the solution is…Allow industry to poison the environment. Then people will die sooner so there will be less people on social security. See Bush’s policy’s do work.

[truckboy]

this is about the ONLY thing i agree w/ Bush about. what's so bad about letting ME decide how to invest MY money? should i let the government choose my 401K deductions and allocations too?


It might not be a terrible idea, but it certainly favors the better educated wage earner (already well to do). It will also put more money in the hands of Wall Street, which doesn't have a very good reputation for honesty (and there will be fees). What it will do is move SS from being a safety net, to being another calculated risk. It certainly won't make for a less stressed, less "gimme mine" society. It will probably help widen the divide between haves and have-nots. It may actually help some smart, unlucky people from the wrong side of the tracks to do better, but I don't think it will help America be a better place to live on the whole.

[Rych]

this is about the ONLY thing i agree w/ Bush about. what's so bad about letting ME decide how to invest MY money? should i let the government choose my 401K deductions and allocations too?


It might not be a terrible idea, but it certainly favors the better educated wage earner (already well to do). It will also put more money in the hands of Wall Street, which doesn't have a very good reputation for honesty (and there will be fees). What it will do is move SS from being a safety net, to being another calculated risk. It certainly won't make for a less stressed, less "gimme mine" society. It will probably help widen the divide between haves and have-nots. It may actually help some smart, unlucky people from the wrong side of the tracks to do better, but I don't think it will help America be a better place to live on the whole.



It's not governments job to level the playing field. " The world needs ditch diggers too."

[Slider]

The problem with social security is people are living to long. So the solution is…Allow industry to poison the environment. Then people will die sooner so there will be less people on social security. See Bush’s policy’s do work.

Gee, maybe I seriously underestimate the man. Looking at it that way, he's brilliant!

Slider

[TrailBate]

this is about the ONLY thing i agree w/ Bush about. what's so bad about letting ME decide how to invest MY money? should i let the government choose my 401K deductions and allocations too?





the problem is this: You will be paying less into social security ( or nothing) and people who are already collecting, or will be collecting in the next 30 years, will be getting paid how? Out of the budget deficit, that's how. Who's going to pay to fix the deficit? YOU ARE!!!

better plan: don't let the wealthy collect social security. Why should they? they don't need it? Isn't that what social security is about? Why am I giving my money to rich people who don't need it?

[truckboy]

It's not governments job to level the playing field. " The world needs ditch diggers too."


"Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life, son."

Seriously though Rych, what IS the Government's job? And why do ditch diggers have to die in abject poverty after toiling their whole lives? The measure of a society is how it cares for its less forunate. Why not just tax me less and let me do what I want with that extra money. They're still taking it out of my check without my permission and controlling where it gets invested. Is THAT what Governmen't job is?

[TrailBate]

They're still taking it out of my check without my permission and controlling where it gets invested. Is THAT what Governmen't job is?


uh, YEAH. If it weren't for government, you'd be speaking german, japanese, or with a british accent. You wouldn't have any public schools, paved roads, or a military to defend you, and the country would be full of Enrons.

[TrailBate]

this is about the ONLY thing i agree w/ Bush about. what's so bad about letting ME decide how to invest MY money? should i let the government choose my 401K deductions and allocations too?

here are two sites which illustrate this well:

Your Retirement Calculator (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/)

compared to what you are getting from SS

Soc Security Admin Website (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/index.html)




yeah, I'll trust figures from a website that quotes Rush Limbaugh on it's front page.

try these

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/social.security.poll.ap/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/04/markets/gross_social_security/index.htm?cnn=yes


now, when you consider that Bush plants pro-bush "journalists" into his press conferences, pays real journalists to promote his policies(with your tax money), and hand-picks nothing but republican conservatives to attend his "town meeting" discussions about this topic (which makes it nothing more than any other stupid infomercial you see on tv), how can you believe anything he says about social security?

http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2005/02/02/white_house_friendly_reporter_under_scrutiny/

[kernel crash]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a voluntary proposal about putting your money in the market? I'm not aware thast people will be forced to invest in high risk accounts. Seems to me there should be some relatively low risk investments that will yield a better return than what your getting now.

And doesn't it strike you strange that the same democrats (Kerry, Kennedy) that were screaming about social security durung the elections, are now saying it's not that bad and doesn't need such a dramatic fix as Bush is proposing. Are they afraid of the consequences of having the Republicians fix social security? Again it's all politics.

[TrailBate]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a voluntary proposal about putting your money in the market? I'm not aware thast people will be forced to invest in high risk accounts. Seems to me there should be some relatively low risk investments that will yield a better return than what your getting now.

And doesn't it strike you strange that the same democrats (Kerry, Kennedy) that were screaming about social security durung the elections, are now saying it's not that bad and doesn't need such a dramatic fix as Bush is proposing. Are they afraid of the consequences of having the Republicians fix social security? Again it's all politics.



just the fact that they're stopping payments INTO social security, while still paying OUT of it for people still collecting or are about to collect, is going to F up the budget.

And Kerry was against Social security reform. Which also is no solution.

[narlus]

It will also put more money in the hands of Wall Street, which doesn't have a very good reputation for honesty (and there will be fees).

i'll turn that question on it's side. the government DOES have a good track record of being honest?

and fees? or course there will be fees. do you think that the present social security adminstration is free? our taxes pay for that.

What it will do is move SS from being a safety net, to being another calculated risk

so have T-Bills of US bonds be one of the categories which people can move their money into if they want a low-risk investment.

yeah, I'll trust figures from a website that quotes Rush Limbaugh on it's front page.

you must be talking about the heritage.org site, but i can't see any Rush quotes there. in any event, regardless of what their political orientation is, you can't argue the fact that from a ROI perspective, social security is a total joke.

better plan: don't let the wealthy collect social security. Why should they? they don't need it? Isn't that what social security is about? Why am I giving my money to rich people who don't need it?

did they pay their $ into the system? so how is it YOUR money? sounds like socialism to me.

[TrailBate]

social security is not a joke. The problem with it is that there are more old people collecting from it then there are people paying into it. It needs to be tweeked. And stopping payments to the rich, so that the government can afford to pay the non-rich, is one way to fix it. Why is that socialism? Why is it that anytime somebody wants to help the poor by giving less money to the people who clearly don't need it they immediately cry socialism and communism? You've decided that the retired population can just go screw themselves because it's not your problem.

[narlus]

social security is not a joke. The problem with it is that there are more old people collecting from it then there are people paying into it. It needs to be tweeked.

it's a ponzi scheme w/ a very inefficient engine.

And stopping payments to the rich, so that the government can afford to pay the non-rich, is one way to fix it. Why is that socialism?

because it's THEIR money? how hard is that to understand? they paid into the system just like everyone else, so what right does the gov't have to take their assets?


Why is it that anytime somebody wants to help the poor by giving less money to the people who clearly don't need it they immediately cry socialism and communism? You've decided that the retired population can just go screw themselves because it's not your problem.

there definitely needs to be a well-thought out transition plan, and i'm hardly advocating Alpo for Gramps. i am merely agreeing w/ Bush's idea about how to make your contributions actually worth something. i can't see the harm in that. government is not nearly as efficient as the market. we've got checks and balances (ie, SEC) in place and like everything else, there will be tweaks necessary as improprieties are uncovered.

that said, i'll take my chances w/ a fidelity (or goldman sachs, whoever) investment manager making financial decisions or me, rather than whoever it is the government sponsors.

[truckboy]

uh, YEAH. If it weren't for government, you'd be speaking german, japanese, or with a british accent. You wouldn't have any public schools, paved roads, or a military to defend you, and the country would be full of Enrons.


What does any of this have to do with SS? You're just making my point. That IS what the guv. should be doing, but those things don't come out of FICA, they get funded from the general Federal tax. My point is this: If it's not the gubmint's job to take care of its people then why take any money out for SS at all?

Hell, I'm intrigued by the idea of being able to invest part of my SS tax in something I think will give a good return, but SS was not set up to do that. It's for the SECURITY of the SOCIETY.... a safety net. A safety net that will begin being dissasembled by this reform. That's the Right's agenda; Personal Responsibility, and if you're too stupid, naive, uneducated or distracted - you're not being responsible enough and it's your own fault.

I don't have the answer to the problem, IF it's as big a problem as the Right claims, which I doubt. I don't trust them. there's always a hidden agenda.

[narlus]

Hell, I'm intrigued by the idea of being able to invest part of my SS tax in something I think will give a good return, but SS was not set up to do that. It's for the SECURITY of the SOCIETY.... a safety net. A safety net that will begin being dissasembled by this reform. That's the Right's agenda; Personal Responsibility, and if you're too stupid, naive, uneducated or distracted - you're not being responsible enough and it's your own fault.

I don't have the answer to the problem, IF it's as big a problem as the Right claims, which I doubt. I don't trust them. there's always a hidden agenda.

what is so bad about personal responsibility? ??? can i choose not to let the government be my care-taker, and let me handle my own retirement plans?

it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in Europe, which has a much bigger problem (way more benefits, and a shrinking worker base to support these benefits). i foresee tough times ahead for germany, france, and the like.

[huff'npuff]

Quote from: TrailBait on Today at 12:39:13pm
"social security is not a joke. The problem with it is that there are more old people collecting from it then there are people paying into it. It needs to be tweeked.


'


It needs to be only for the retired people that put into it all of their working lives. NOT dipped into for welfare doled out to illegal aliens that come here and have never put a cent into it! Bush & congress are pushing a bill to give non-registered Mexicans S.S. so they can go back and bolster the Mexican economy and live like kings.
It's not that there are more old people collecting than what is being put in. Think about it. You really think there are more old people than people below age 65 ?
Social security covers so much more than what its original intent was now because it is not a separate system like it was meant to be.

[Rych]

The fact of the matter is every dollar I earn from January 1 through about April 15th gets confiscated by the government. That’s not even counting the sales, gas, property, excise, taxes. Then there are tolls, and fees. I think there’s a large portion of society who have no idea how much the government takes from them. I think we should eliminate the payroll deductions and make taxes due 1 week before Election Day. I’d be interested to see how people vote a week after writing a $30k check to the government.

[truckboy]

can i choose not to let the government be my care-taker, and let me handle my own retirement plans?.


No, you cannot. Nor will you be able to under the SS reforms. The govt. will still be taking money out in the name of FICA (Social Security) and you will have a limited choice of investments they choose for you. You will have a little bit of rope to either climb up or hang yourself with. You will not have the choice of keeping your money and buying real estate or stock of your favorite software startup.

[TrailBate]

And stopping payments to the rich, so that the government can afford to pay the non-rich, is one way to fix it. Why is that socialism?

because it's THEIR money? how hard is that to understand? they paid into the system just like everyone else, so what right does the gov't have to take their assets?



no, it's not their money. As soon as you pay in, it goes to somebody's SS check right away, and it's gone. It is not YOUR money that sits around and collects interest.
Now, Bush's idea is not a bad idea by itself, the problem is transitioning from the current system to the new one. As soon as people stop paying into SS, it will be broke, empty, nada, zilch. So how do current retired people collect their money? From YOUR taxes, which will be paying have a larger deficit, plus interest, and the interest is more than you'd make on your personal retirement account.
what do you do about people who are going to retire in 10, or 20 years?

[TrailBate]

uh, YEAH. If it weren't for government, you'd be speaking german, japanese, or with a british accent. You wouldn't have any public schools, paved roads, or a military to defend you, and the country would be full of Enrons.


What does any of this have to do with SS? You're just making my point. That IS what the guv. should be doing, but those things don't come out of FICA, they get funded from the general Federal tax. My point is this: If it's not the gubmint's job to take care of its people then why take any money out for SS at all?

Hell, I'm intrigued by the idea of being able to invest part of my SS tax in something I think will give a good return, but SS was not set up to do that. It's for the SECURITY of the SOCIETY.... a safety net. A safety net that will begin being dissasembled by this reform. That's the Right's agenda; Personal Responsibility, and if you're too stupid, naive, uneducated or distracted - you're not being responsible enough and it's your own fault.

I don't have the answer to the problem, IF it's as big a problem as the Right claims, which I doubt. I don't trust them. there's always a hidden agenda.




sorry, I thought you were arguing the other way. my bad.

[TrailBate]

It's not that there are more old people collecting than what is being put in. Think about it. You really think there are more old people than people below age 65 ?



okay, that's a bit of a mis-statement. But if you figure the average old geezer who stays home most of the time needs about $30,000/year to live off of, how many people need to pay into SS each year to cover that? 20? (not really sure, to be honest). So that's a 20:1 ratio? I'll have to find a link, but the actual ratio of those paying in to those recieving SS is going to fall to like 3:1 in the very near future.

[narlus]

no, it's not their money. As soon as you pay in, it goes to somebody's SS check right away, and it's gone. It is not YOUR money that sits around and collects interest.

well that was the original intent, you must admit. when SS first started, there was no money to pay out in social security, so it should have been sequested in some account somewhere.

just because the government mis-managed the money and turned it into a ponzi scheme (and the increasing lifespan of ex-workers certainly doesn't help matters), that doesn't mean people haven't rightfully given their money into it. it really shouldn't be considered the government's money.

[TrailBate]

no, it's not their money. As soon as you pay in, it goes to somebody's SS check right away, and it's gone. It is not YOUR money that sits around and collects interest.

well that was the original intent, you must admit. when SS first started, there was no money to pay out in social security, so it should have been sequested in some account somewhere.

just because the government mis-managed the money and turned it into a ponzi scheme (and the increasing lifespan of ex-workers certainly doesn't help matters), that doesn't mean people haven't rightfully given their money into it. it really shouldn't be considered the government's money.


no, this was always the original intent. At the time of SS's inception, there were considerably more people working and paying into the system then were drawing from it, so it was not even an issue. It actually created a surplus (which still exists today). At the time, nobody could foresee the explosion in the retired population.
And it was never "the government's" money. You pay in while you work to support retired people, then when you retire, the working people will pay for you, etc.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Something ironic about adults debating about how to handle "the future of our children" (and no, I'm not talking about you guys on the forum, I'm talking about the politicians).

I my eyes, privitization-pushers are just selfish, ideological, and greedy. Bottom line, Republicans want to cut entitlement spending so they can cut taxes again. Sure, all you guys (this includes forum members) don't really have to care about it--you're not the unfortunate ones that will have to pay off that $2Trillion debt that's going to have to be created (that's MY children's schools, pell-grants, and my adulthood land-access that will be pawned away to pay off the debt). People act like Government is cutting back waste in response to the tax cuts. You guys are blind to politics. Instead of finding ways to cut spending (look at the Globe today, Bush wants to increase defense spending again!) they are looking at narrow-minded, short term ways of generating capital. You know you're favorite, local riding spots? They are being sold off AS WE SPEAK and you don' t even know it. Do some research of OS 548, it's amazing what the government has done in the past few years to find money to ATTEMPT to balance the budget...

[truckboy]

No, we have to care about it because we are going to retire in 20 years or so and will want to collect on the money we put in all of our working lives.

I agree to your point about the short term narrow minded strategies, but don't blame "government". Blame the Bush administration. I've been saying that about them for 4 years. Everything they do is about making sure the rich get richer, or at least pay less taxes. I'm glad you're angry.

[slapheadmofo]

Personal Responsibility, and if you're too stupid, naive, uneducated or distracted - you're not being responsible enough and it's your own fault.


I like the sound of that. :)
It should be posted in every classroom in the country so down the road, no one can say nobody told them there were gonna be consequences. People who put in the effort to make better lives for themselves deserve what they get, as do their heirs.

Oh, and can someone define "rich" for me please? I'm looking for a dollar figure here.

[truckboy]

I agree with your general sentiment, but I think it's somewhat shortsighted. The real problem I have with the philosophy I was describing in that quote, is that it favors those who already have a leg up. Those people, myself included depending on who you are comparing, will be better educated and will probably have elders to look after their assets until they can themselves. I think it widens the gap between "rich" and "poor" (no $$ amounts included in this generality).

On the other hand, I would agree that giving someone money for being "poor" doesn't encourage one to work hard and be responsible. And it does seem to punish those who do work hard.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

"WASHINGTON Feb 7, 2005 — President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget plan Monday that would boost spending on the military and homeland security but seeks spending cuts across a wide swath of other government programs. Bush's budget would reduce subsidies paid to farmers, cut health programs for poor people and veterans and trim spending on the environment and education."

...

"Of 23 major government agencies, 12 would see their budget authority reduced next year, including cuts of 9.6 percent at Agriculture, 5.6 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency, 6.7 percent at Transportation and 11.5 percent at Housing and Urban Development."

WORTH IT.

I hope all the veterans that were against Kerry and Pro-Bush are jumping for joy now their benefits have been cut.

Glad he's screwing the poor again while giving those corporations billions of dollars in military contracts!

[Slider]

Bush's budget proposal brings a novel approach. There is no mention of the Iraq war in the budget. None. Nada. Zip.

I wish it would work on my wife. Maybe if I leave all my biking-related purchases out of the expense tally, they'll magically go away!

It will be pretty hard to hide the largest deficit we've ever seen. Our kids sure won't think it has disappeared, but we'll all feel the repercussions long before we drop them in their laps.

Slider

[TrailBate]

yeah, but who cares if we have to work 18 hour days like during the industrial revolution, and who cares if we need to repeal all the child labor laws so my 5 year old can get a job. We saved a bunch of Iraqi's from themselves!! C'mon!!

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/blair.iran/index.html

deja vu!!

How long until we start hearing about how oppressed the Iranian people are, and how we should "liberate" them?

[truckboy]

This one's starting to look like Bush and Blair have decided it's Europe's job. Even Bush can't be so arrogant as to think he could get Congress to OK going into Iran.

What am I saying!? Of course he's (they are) that arrogant!

Is any of this ANY surprise to ANYBODY?

[TrailBate]

Wow, Condie Rice has had her new job only 2 weeks, and she's already threatened Iran, and has convinced N Korea to threaten the US with more nukes!
You go, Girl!

[MTBME]

"How long until we start hearing about how oppressed the Iranian people are, and how we should "liberate" them? "

Can't see that happening. Bush won't admit it, but even he realizes he has his hands more than full with Iraq and would like a graceful exit. The military is stretched thin and the American taxpayers will only take so much. Everything has its limits.

[TrailBate]

"PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (Feb. 17) - President Bush is not ruling out raising taxes on people who earn more than $90,000 as a way to help fix Social Security's finances."

And I am not ruling out that monkeys will come flying out of my butt.

[Slider]

This one is really out there, inline with those other fake reporters Bush has hired. But the pure arrogance and, well, utter disregard for us as citizens and constituents is so enraging that it defies words. Is Bush really so afraid of the truth that he has to fake his own press conferences?

From today's NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html?8hpib

The White House Stages Its 'Daily Show'

THE prayers of those hoping that real television news might take its cues from Jon Stewart were finally answered on Feb. 9, 2005. A real newsman borrowed a technique from fake news to deliver real news about fake news in prime time.

Let me explain.

On "Countdown," a nightly news hour on MSNBC, the anchor, Keith Olbermann, led off with a classic "Daily Show"-style bit: a rapid-fire montage of sharply edited video bites illustrating the apparent idiocy of those in Washington. In this case, the eight clips stretched over a year in the White House briefing room - from February 2004 to late last month - and all featured a reporter named "Jeff." In most of them, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, says "Go ahead, Jeff," and "Jeff" responds with a softball question intended not to elicit information but to boost President Bush and smear his political opponents. In the last clip, "Jeff" is quizzing the president himself, in his first post-inaugural press conference of Jan. 26. Referring to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, "Jeff" asks, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

If we did not live in a time when the news culture itself is divorced from reality, the story might end there: "Jeff," you'd assume, was a lapdog reporter from a legitimate, if right-wing, news organization like Fox, and you'd get some predictable yuks from watching a compressed video anthology of his kissing up to power. But as Mr. Olbermann explained, "Jeff Gannon," the star of the montage, was a newsman no more real than a "Senior White House Correspondent" like Stephen Colbert on "The Daily Show" and he worked for a news organization no more real than The Onion. Yet the video broadcast by Mr. Olbermann was not fake. "Jeff" was in the real White House, and he did have those exchanges with the real Mr. McClellan and the real Mr. Bush.

"Jeff Gannon's" real name is James D. Guckert. His employer was a W