My, my, my. How things change. I guess the left just cannot stop the flood of good news and it is finally reflecting in the polls. Considering how divided the country is, this is probably as high as Bush can go. The rest of the non-believers will never believe so why bother. Cheers :Beer Time to celebrate.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-07-bush-poll_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-07-bush-poll_x.htm)

Bush Shows Highest Ratings In A Year

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Americans give President Bush his highest job-approval rating in more than a year and show cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken shortly after historic Iraqi elections.

In reversals from a month ago, majorities now say that going to war in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's likely democracy will be established in Iraq. (Related item: Poll results)

Bush's approval rating of 57% is his highest since he reached 59% in January 2004, shortly after U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein.[snip]

Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster and strategist, says Bush's high numbers are a temporary function of "a positive news event" (the Iraqi elections) and a well-received State of the Union address. He predicts they will be superseded by "Social Security privatization and a budget proposal that is deficit-laden, even with huge cuts in domestic programs."

The poll shows increased optimism about Iraq on many fronts. Six in 10 people say the elections there went better than they expected.

Other findings:

55% say the United States did not make a mistake sending troops to Iraq, up from 47% last month.

53% say things are going very or moderately well in Iraq, compared with 40% last month.

64% say it is very or somewhat likely a democratic form of government will be established in Iraq, up from 47% last month.

10% say more U.S. troops are needed in Iraq, down from 24% who felt that way before the elections.

50% say they approve of how Bush is handling Iraq, up from 42% last month; 48% say they disapprove, down from 56% last month.

The poll suggests a broadly positive environment for Bush's party. Republicans receive a 56% favorable rating, compared with 46% for Democrats — a 10-point advantage, up from 6 points in September. And 55% say Bush's policies will move the country in the right direction — up from 51% last month.

:sleep:

That's the best response you've ever posted.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

Silence is golden. Hard to refute facts that do not coincide with one's opinion, eh?

It has become my goal in life to someday here Barry utter the words: 'George Bush turned out to be a pretty good President after all'.

I won't hold my breath but I think that day will come.

I'm a patient guy. I'll wait.

Silence is golden. Hard to refute facts that do not coincide with one's opinion, eh?

Funny coming from you. I asked you about a week ago to address, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, "Monstermark, please address this" and you never responded.


Silence is golden. Hard to refute facts that do not coincide with one's opinion, eh?

"Worst President Ever"

Funny coming from you. I asked you about a week ago to address, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, "Monstermark, please address this" and you never responded. So very true. I did respond that I wanted other people to voice their opinions without drowning out the discussion as I am known to do. I really enjoy reading and understanding other's opinions. I truly do.

So in the spirit of dialogue, what do you think of 'ol George's approval ratings? You've got admit that they are at least 10% low because of all the lefties that will never admit to being wrong, right?http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif

Mark my words, "Worst President Ever". I mean that. He has sold us all down the river and now he wants to balance the budget on the backs of social programs. Lied to us about not having a religious agenda. Will never recognize gay unions, not because he and Cheney don't want them; it's because the religious right have their hand(s) up his a$$ just like a sock puppet. Lets drill for oil in Alaska; another broken promise. Faith based initiatives. Just another brand of pork. I won't even go into WMD. The list goes on.

No doubt, GW is enjoying a bump from the Iraq elections, but how long that bump will last is yet to be seen.

Meanwhile his domestic agenda is taking a dive........

"Ignore the man behind the curtain..........." - The Wizard of OZ

Meanwhile his domestic agenda is taking a dive........


in what manner?

Do these approval ratings actually mean anything? I mean..Bush had the lowest approval rating of ANY 2nd term president since the 50's. Does it actually mean anything? And Clinton left the White House with the HIGHEST approval rating of any modern day President..this while getting BJers from interns. Seriously..do these rating actually mean jack $hit???

Ratings only matter when the left is trying to sway opinion by using the herd mentality. During the election, when Bush was under 50%, all I heard was how the American people hated him. You would have thunk his approval rating was 5%, not 50%. I bring this up because now that his approvals are about as high as the polarized electorate will allow, there is nary a mention of it in the press. Why is this? The press doesn't want some of their herd to switch direction and start travelling away from the cliff. Get it? Got it? Good!

I would say that I approve of Bush 57% of the time. :wave

in what manner?

Oh gee, where shall I start?


Posted on Thu, Feb. 10, 2005





Public not sold on Social Security fixes

Americans see threat, but not the immediacy

By Richard Morin and Dale Russakoff

Washington Post


WASHINGTON – Most Americans are certain Social Security will go bankrupt but not ready to embrace changes that would shore up the system’s finances, according to two surveys by the Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Seven in 10 Americans agree with President Bush that Social Security eventually will go bankrupt if Congress fails to act, although most predict the system will not do so for at least two decades. Although Bush has warned of a crisis in Social Security, barely one in four Americans perceives that a crisis exists.

More broadly, the polls raise serious doubts whether Americans are willing to make the choices necessary to fix the system’s financial problems. Solid majorities reject both payroll tax increases and retirement benefits cuts, except for the wealthy. Experts agree that without new revenue coming in or less flowing out in benefits – or both – the Social Security system will not be able to pay all its promised benefits, perhaps as early as 2042.

Other recent samplings of public opinion have gauged support for Bush’s restructuring plan and other proposals for change, but these polls sought to measure what people knew about Social Security and how misinformation about the program is shaping policy preferences. The polls also tested how subtle changes in the way proposed changes are described can produce shifts in public opinion.

A majority support the president’s proposal to allow Americans to invest part of their Social Security contributions in stocks or bonds, although opinions on this and other aspects of the president’s plan are weakly held and easily moved.

That cost estimate proved to be the most effective of four arguments against Bush’s proposal tested in the polls. Although 56 percent said they support a plan for private investment accounts, more than half of those said they would be less likely to do so after hearing the estimate. More than four in 10 supporters wavered when they heard that private accounts would not, by themselves, reduce the financial problems.

Those opposed to Bush’s plan were consistently more resistant to changing their view – about one in four did – when confronted with four arguments supporting his proposal.

Taken together, the polls found that the debate over Social Security reflects the sharp divisions of the presidential campaign, and that Bush enters the fight without a clear mandate on the issue. The surveys also found serious misunderstandings about Social Security that could be exploited by either side to shape opinion as the debate evolves.

Facts and beliefs

Americans badly underestimate the share of the federal budget spent on Social Security, and most incorrectly believe that retirees, on average, receive less in benefits than they contributed to the system. And about half of those who support the president’s plan incorrectly believe it would protect people from losing retirement money they invested from their private account.

Perhaps most significant, about 7 in 10 Americans believe that the cost of living has been rising faster than wages over the past 20 years, although the reverse is true. This belief probably shapes policy preferences: The same percentage wants to peg initial Social Security benefits to the cost of living, as Bush reportedly wants, instead of the current formula, which pegs them to wage increases. That change would result in significantly lower guaranteed benefits for future generations, according to supporters and opponents.

At the same time, the polls found that the public has quickly become informed on many key elements of the Bush plan to create private investment accounts.

Most already know that Bush’s changes would exempt those 55 and older and understand that the accounts would be protected from use by government. They also know the plan would limit investments to a few relatively safe stock and bond funds.

To measure knowledge about Social Security and the Bush plan, the Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard conducted two national telephone surveys. The first poll of 1,236 randomly selected adults was conducted Feb. 3 to 6 and measured what people knew about Social Security and their attitudes toward restructuring.

The second survey, of 1,231 randomly selected adults conducted Feb. 4 to 6, focused on what people initially have learned about the Bush plan. Both surveys have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The polls suggest that the debate over Social Security is a battle of words – but not necessarily the words the administration has worried about.

Americans seem not to change their views when the president’s plan is characterized as a “private” rather than a “personal” investment account – a change from earlier studies, in which the use of the terms “private accounts” or “privatization,” drove down support. Either way, a modest majority favored the proposal, the survey found.

Far more sensitive was the characterization of the way a restructuring included a provision that would recalculate initial benefits for retirees. Opposition rose from 68 percent when this change was characterized as “reducing the rate of growth in benefits” to 86 percent when described as “cutting guaranteed benefits.” Both phrases accurately describe what would happen.

Fault lines

The polls revealed that the fault lines of the presidential campaign are resurfacing in the Social Security debate. Those surveyed split down the middle on whether they trusted Democrats or Republicans to lead on Social Security. And they were almost equally divided on the values that lie at the heart of the debate – self-reliance versus the government’s obligation to protect its citizens.

Half said the overriding value is having a guaranteed minimum standard of living in retirement, even if that means the government decides how all Social Security taxes are invested. Nearly as many said the system should above all allow Americans to invest a portion of Social Security taxes as they wish, even if they end up taking risks that hurt them financially.

Six in 10 Democrats valued the guaranteed standard of living, while 6 in 10 Republicans valued the freedom to invest on their own. Seniors valued the minimum standard of living by 57 to 32 percent; those under 40 valued the right to invest on their own by 53 to 42 percent.

Attitudes of those older than 55 often differed significantly from those of other Americans, with strikingly little variation among those 18 to 55. For example, those younger than 55 are about twice more likely to say the system is in crisis than older adults. They are twice as likely as older people to say they expect to receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid into the system.

[b]The survey suggests that Bush begins the fight over Social Security without the backing of a majority of Americans. Only 1 in 5 wants him to lead on Social Security, while a similar proportion have more confidence in congressional Republicans. More than 4 in 10 – 43 percent – say they trust congressional Democrats on Social Security.[/b[ Taken together, the findings suggest that about half want Democrats to handle this issue, while about half have more confidence in Republicans.

Although half of all retirees say Social Security is their major source of income, few younger Americans say they plan to rely on the system to be anything more than a supplement to their retirement incomes.

More than two-thirds of the country knows that payroll taxes paid into the Social Security trust fund are lent to the federal government and spent on other programs. But more than 6 in 10 of these doubt that the federal government will ever pay that money back – one big reason why the system is now in trouble, according to a lopsided majority.

Thank your lucky stars that Bush won that last election, if Kerry won, the U.S. would be kissing the worlds ass right now, THANK GOD for the Republican Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bow: France, Germany

God, regarding the SS, have the GOVERNMENT PAY BACK ALL THE MONEY IT BORROWED FROM THE SS FUND & WE'LL BE OK, during the 30's & early 40's there was such a SURPLUS of FUNDS in SS, the GOV'T BORROWED FROM IT & NEVER PAID IT BACK, your WAY out of line BLAMING Bush for this FIASCO, put the BLAME where it BELONGS, WITH THE ASS HOLE DEMOCRATS !!!!!!!!

Funny coming from you. I asked you about a week ago to address, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, "Monstermark, please address this" and you never responded.



"Worst President Ever"


YOUR IN FREAKIN LA LA LAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!

have the GOVERNMENT PAY BACK ALL THE MONEY IT BORROWED FROM THE SS FUND & WE'LL BE OK

OK brainwave, where do you think the government will get the money to pay back SS?

I repeat "WORST PRESIDENT EVER"

THANK GOD for the Republican Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like GOD really cares who's Republican and whose a Democrat.:slam

OK brainwave, where do you think the government will get the money to pay back SS?

I repeat "WORST PRESIDENT EVER"

For Christ sake, they didn't have a problem TAKING it, let them figure out how to PAY IT BACK !!!!! Why don't you move to France..........you'd be appreciated there.......AMERICA BASHER.....get a life, and if you say something at least get some background on the subject your talking about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok guys - we're all friends. No need to start all the insults. I know its hard sometimes, but lets not have things turn into a street fight.

God, regarding the SS, have the GOVERNMENT PAY BACK ALL THE MONEY IT BORROWED FROM THE SS FUND & WE'LL BE OK, during the 30's & early 40's there was such a SURPLUS of FUNDS in SS, the GOV'T BORROWED FROM IT & NEVER PAID IT BACK, your WAY out of line BLAMING Bush for this FIASCO, put the BLAME where it BELONGS, WITH THE ASS HOLE DEMOCRATS !!!!!!!!

WHO turned the FIRST national SURPLUS in 40 YEARS into the largest national DEBT EVER in FOUR SHORT YEARS??? Whether it's the natl. DEBT or the SS coffers, BUSH GETS THE BIGGEST BLAME FOR LEAVING OUR CHILDREN WITH A HUGE DEBT TO PAY BACK. Don't try to displace the blame for this one PAL! This falls SQUARELY on GW's and the GOP's shoulders!!

Historical US National Debt. Excuse me, please point out these surpluses you speak about. They don't exist. They are not real. They were projected!!!

Well, guess what??? 9/11 happened! Live with it. The National Debt went up every year under Clinton. That is simply the fact.

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Let me add. The debt went up 2 Trillion dollars under the Clinton Administration and that was even when we had the explosive growth of the Internet to draw off of. Remember how the times were so good?

WHO turned the FIRST national SURPLUS in 40 YEARS into the largest national DEBT EVER in FOUR SHORT YEARS??? Whether it's the natl. DEBT or the SS coffers, BUSH GETS THE BIGGEST BLAME FOR LEAVING OUR CHILDREN WITH A HUGE DEBT TO PAY BACK. Don't try to displace the blame for this one PAL! This falls SQUARELY on GW's and the GOP's shoulders!!


Rocket scientist..............................lol

WHO turned the FIRST national SURPLUS in 40 YEARS into the largest national DEBT EVER in FOUR SHORT YEARS??? Whether it's the natl. DEBT or the SS coffers, BUSH GETS THE BIGGEST BLAME FOR LEAVING OUR CHILDREN WITH A HUGE DEBT TO PAY BACK. Don't try to displace the blame for this one PAL! This falls SQUARELY on GW's and the GOP's shoulders!!What MonsterMark stated above about the debt has been addressed before in this very forum, and the reasons for the debt as well. And you in particular are fully aware of them.

It's not a debate when one side fails to recognize the facts and continues to spread blatant falsehoods due to some preconceived notion that is influenced by an irrational hatred. It's a pi$$ing contest. And since you are obviously in the recycle mode, yours never ends.

THIS is what I'm talking about.............. right from the "horses........... mouth".

*owned*

Shall we talk about budget deficits???

Posted on Fri, Feb. 11, 2005

Analysis


N. Korea says it has nuclear weaponry

By Glenn Kessler and Anthony Faiola

Washington Post


WASHINGTON – North Korea declared Thursday that it had produced nuclear weapons to defend itself from the United States and had suspended participation in multinational talks to halt its arms program.

The announcement provoked calls by the Bush administration and its partners negotiating with North Korea for the resumption of six-party talks toward a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue in the Communist country.

By heightening the stakes in a two-year standoff, North Korea has signaled it has little interest in giving up its nuclear programs for relatively minor upfront concessions from the Bush administration – and appears to be gambling that the United States and its allies will ultimately accept the idea of a nuclear North Korea.

At each step of the way in the crisis, the government of Pyongyang has carefully crossed once-unthinkable thresholds, but with little apparent consequence.

North Korea’s announcement Thursday that it has nuclear weapons and is withdrawing from negotiations on its nuclear programs has again upped the ante. But it appears unlikely it will jar the United States and its allies to take any dramatic actions, analysts and officials said.

Indeed, the North Korean statement is less about nuclear bombs – nations generally announce they have joined the nuclear club by conducting a successful test – than a calculated diplomatic gambit designed to gain a new edge in the debate over its nuclear ambitions.

Regional resistance to any military strike has mounted in the past year – and to many in the region, analysts say, the idea of a nuclear North Korea simply isn’t as shocking as it once was. This has limited Washington’s leverage, and Pyongyang appears to be trying to prod Washington to sweeten its offer.

North Korea has sought billions of dollars in energy, economic aid and loans to give up its nuclear ambitions. The United States has insisted it will give North Korea no rewards until it fully discloses its nuclear programs and allows independent verification of its report within three months – and then has only hinted at what might follow.

Although the United States has been joined at the talks by four of North Korea’s neighbors, unity among the five nations dealing with North Korea has been fitful. China and South Korea in particular have complained that the Bush administration hasn’t shown enough flexibility.

Just last week the administration dispatched two key officials to Asia to bolster its position by displaying what it claimed was new intelligence showing nuclear dealings between North Korea and Libya.

But China, host of the six-party talks that also include Russia and Japan, appears eager to avoid economic sanctions or other measures that could lead to the collapse of North Korea, something that could potentially spill millions of refugees across the Chinese border. In South Korea, the ruling party faces a tough election in April and is discussing a possible presidential summit in Pyongyang to bolster its electoral prospects.

In the United States, North Korea’s statement appears certain to reopen debate within the administration, which throughout Bush’s first term was bitterly divided over North Korea policy. As recently as Wednesday, U.S. officials had confidently told members of Congress that the talks, which last took place in June, would restart in early March. Some key advocates of a low-key diplomatic approach were convinced they had the upper hand in the internal debate.

“This will make our job easier,” said an administration official who favors a tougher approach. “North Korea is supporting the hard-liners’ well-earned derision of this whole process.”

But analysts said U.S. options are dwindling. There is little sentiment within the administration for making concessions to North Korea. If talks do not resume, the administration faces a tough struggle to get the issue before the U.N. Security Council, where China holds a veto. In the past week, the administration has concentrated its focus on Iran’s nuclear programs, which it also wants to bring before the Security Council.

“There aren’t good options here,” said Charles “Jack” Pritchard, a Brookings Institution fellow who until August 2003 was special envoy for the North Korea talks. “They still have Iran on their hands, and I don’t think they can take North Korea on in a confrontational manner.”

In recent weeks, North Korea had sent signals that it was carefully watching Bush administration statements for a “change in tone.” President Bush, who three years ago called North Korea part of an “axis of evil,” was muted in his statement about North Korea in last week’s State of the Union address.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in her confirmation hearings, labeled North Korea one of six “outposts of tyranny” – which Pyongyang repeatedly cited Thursday.

Some administration officials noted that, in declaring it would indefinitely suspend participation in the talks, North Korea also said it still had the “ultimate goal” of a denuclearized Korean peninsula and would “solve the issues through dialogue and negotiations.” They said it was a hopeful sign that North Korea intended to return to talks.

But other analysts said that language might have been aimed at China and South Korea, giving them one more reason to sidestep a confrontation. The Bush administration first tried to convince China in July 2003 to allow the issue go to the Security Council, but the Chinese insisted the six-party negotiating track must first run its course.


You can't refute the IRONY of this clown GWB now begging for six-party talks when during the debates he stated time and again that they were stupid and would never work. Talk about a FLIP-FLOPPER!

You can't refute the IRONY of this clown GWB now begging for six-party talks when during the debates he stated time and again that they were stupid and would never work. Talk about a FLIP-FLOPPER!What are you talking about now? Kerry's the one that wanted to have one on one talks with N Korea. GW wanted multilateral talks.

And just what does that article have to do with approval ratings? If you can't win a debate, do you think expanding it will just confuse the other side or something? And what are you trying to prove with your graph? Again, you're ignoring the reasons for the spending in the first place.

Johnny's reply: "gargle gargle"

Please, we need to stay on subject #1, and stick to facts #2 if we want to enjoy an intelligent debate. Johnny, what you just posted is a flat out propagandist's mistruth. (being nice)http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif



Transcript from the 1st Debate:



Part 1 ..........



KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.



LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement.

Part 2 ...........

KERRY: Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation.


But again, the test or the difference between us, the president has had four years to try to do something about it, and North Korea has got more weapons; Iran is moving toward weapons. And at his pace, it will take 13 years to secure those weapons in Russia.

I'm going to do it in four years, and I'm going to immediately set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea. (What else would you expect from a United States traitor and sympathizer who met with the enemy during a time of war and whose picture now hangs in a Communist Museum as a tribute!)

LEHRER: Your response to that?

BUSH: Again, I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that.

We must have China's leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves. And if you enter bilateral talks, they'll be happy to walk away from the table. I don't think that'll work.



.................................................. .................................................. .......



Transcript from 2nd Debate:



BUSH: Let me talk about North Korea.

It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he's the person who's accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to take the six-party talks we have -- China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States -- and undermine them by having bilateral talks.



That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Koreans. And guess what happened? He didn't honor the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy.



Do I even need to post this? Oh, well. Major league *owned*.

This has gone off topic.

Johnny, I've got to agree with Bryan on this one. The facts bear him out.

Bryan please comment on the chart that Johnny posted. I'm curious if you can refute that?

I got to run but I'll take a stab at it later for ya.

Has anyone else notice that spikes in the national debt precede some of the most economically properous times in our nations history...hmmm

Debt is something that keeps this nation going. If kept in check. Borrowing money provides economic boosts...those economic boosts provide excess capital that the government can use to pay off the debt. This is the natural cycle of things. Under President Clinton this nation saw a economic ballon the likes of which it hadn't seen since shortly after WWII. This was caused largely by the advent of the WWW and it's ability to create a source of income. This advent went largely ignored by large corporations and was widely utilized by small private buisnesses. As the economic prosperity of people who were selling products, services and the bandwith required to create sites grew to the historic proportions it could no longer support itself. There was a sudden surge in compitetion by larger companies who could support larger staffs to monitor this new market. The small guy could not compete and the bubble burst. Easy street got shut down...

At the same time the Department of Defense went through a major force reduction cutting the amount of equipment and manning by a large percentage. Now cutting defense is one of the largest chunks you can take out of an budget. All these things came together to make President Clinton look like the man who saved the budget.

Now skip to the future...with the DOD there are a number of weapons systems that were in development that are now coming on line. New fighters like the F/A-22, Nimitz class carriers and other weapons systems of which we are commited to buying are being brought online. At the same time more spending is being used to improve quality of life issues in the military. Plus we are in a war and as we all know those things are friggin' expensive...

These are just my personal thoughts. There is no researched information here. If anyone wishes to educate me...especially you Barry as a buisness owner. Please do so , I welcome any chance to learn...

Has anyone else notice that spikes in the national debt precede some of the most economically properous times in our nations history...hmmm

Debt is something that keeps this nation going.

Problem is, it has to be paid back at some point. SO either the republicans have to learn to reign it in or they have to admit the need for democratic pesidents.

Problem is, it has to be paid back at some point. SO either the republicans have to learn to reign it in or they have to admit the need for democratic pesidents.

Oh, I agree. It does need to be paid back...but it is an ebb and flow, mountains and valleys...do I think that GW is an economic genius...no. Is he facing one of the most challenging/exspensive periods in recent history...yes. The economy will rebound and money will flow into programs. Well...I would like to believe that anyway.

And yes, we do need Democratic presidents...just as much as we need Republicans. We even need extremes of both...that's what makes this country great. A bunch of idiots coming together to make some sort of sense out of our dumb ideas...

If anyone wishes to educate me...especially you Barry as a buisness owner. Please do so , I welcome any chance to learn...

This is personal experience. I have been in business for 28 years. During the Clinton administration (I didn't vote for him) my business averaged $1.2 million annually in gross sales. Since the beginning of the Bush adminstration sales have dropped off to around $750,000. That's a pretty significant drop.

The industries that I service; apartments, schools, hospitals and other commercial buildings have pretty much stopped spending money. The apartment industry was devastated by miniscule interest rates. People were buying home like crazy and moving out of apartments. Vacancy rates (except for college towns) are 20% or more. Every third building has a lease sign in front of it. Hospitals are watching every dollar and most other businesses are deferring maintenance thinking they are saving money.

Michigan has a 7.3% unemployment rate. The actual number is much higher because the numbers don't include people whose benefits have run out, the so-called "chronically unemployed".

I've had to lay off people. I hated doing that. My unemployment insurance rate has gone from 2% to 8% during the Bush admininstration. My bills have doubled for both gasoline and natural gas. My health insurance is 50% higher than when Bush took office and my insurance in general has gone up over 50%. My salary is now one third of what it was when Bush took office and now I can't afford to add to my building because steel prices have skyrocketed, so I have no place to put the new bucket truck I would have bought to expand our geographc coverage.

How would you feel about Bush in my shoes? Luckily I was smart enough to not have any debt, so I can slide for awhile. I've seen so many businesses shuttered around here that it's scary. Yes, I get to keep more of my paycheck but my paycheck is one third of what it was when Bush took office on a promise of fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

I guess I voted my pocketbook.

Do I even need to post this? Oh, well. Major league *owned*.

:slam DOH! I must be getting old, I could have sworn BuSh was the one that was dissin' the six-party talks.

But the POINT of posting that article was , while GW is patting himself on the back (although I've heard his approval ratings have turned around and started to slide downward already), he hasn't gotten his eye back on the ball on other major foreign issues which continue to deteriorate. Its about time BuSh puts Condi to work in those nations. Maybe she can do her Neil and Bob routine that has gotten her so far in the white house. Seems to have worked wonders there.

And fully absolving GW and his cabnet for 9/11 in the first place isn't going to happen. They left the backdoor of our nation unlocked, and we were ransacked. Besides, the major portion of the spending on the "war on terror" was due to invading Iraq, NOT Afghanistan. And we ALL KNOW the real reason we went into Iraq, and it had nothing to do w/ 9/11.