You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Poor getting poorer [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Poor getting poorer


Yerdaddy
08-26-2004, 03:52 PM
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html" target="_blank">Ranks of Poverty-Stricken, Uninsured Rise, Census Finds - For Third Straight Year, Numbers in Both Categories Increase</a>

The number of Americans living in poverty and without health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003, the Census Bureau reported Thursday in a pair of reports that delivered a double dose of bad economic news for the Bush administration.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said the reports demonstrate the administration's failed economic policies. President Bush's supporters said the numbers don't reflect more recent economic gains, including the addition of 1.5 million jobs in the last year.

The reports provided a snapshot of Americans' economic well-being in 2003, two full years after the end of the recession. Joel Naroff, an economist and president of Naroff Economic Advisers in Holland, Pa., said job growth was slow until last August while wages overall were stagnant. Many of those who did get jobs were faced with accepting scaled-back benefits and pensions plans.

"It was what was expected when you have a soft economy and people losing their jobs," Naroff said. "It simply wasn't a good year."

There were 35.8 million people living in poverty last year, or 12.5 percent of the population. That was 1.3 million more than in 2002.

Children made up more than half the increase -- about 800,000. The child poverty rate rose from 16.7 percent in 2002 to 17.6 percent.

More people lacked health insurance as well -- about 45 million last year, or 15.6 percent, compared with 43.5 million, or 15.2 percent the previous year.

The rate of uninsured children was relatively stable at 11.4 percent, probably the result of recent expansions of coverage in government programs covering the poor and children, such as the state Children's Health Insurance Program, analysts said.

Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but Hispanics' income fell 2.6 percent, to $33,000.

Asians had the highest median income, at more than $55,000, nearly $8,000 more than whites and $26,000 more than blacks. The higher income for Asians is in part due to higher education levels.

Given that the report was just released, there should be better analysis, (less political finger-pointing), in the larger papers by the weekend. <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf" target="_blank">Or read the report.</a>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 8-26-04 @ 7:54 PM

SatCam
08-26-2004, 04:36 PM
I blame John Kerry's need for Secret Service agents.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

TheMojoPin
08-26-2004, 04:55 PM
Yeah, I've been watching this reported on the various news channels all day...not good news at all.

Seriously, how can the tax cuts still be considered a benefit at this point?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

GodsFavoriteMan
08-26-2004, 05:03 PM
Because of my tax cuts, this year I was able to buy 4 more boxes of Cookie Crisp. If that's not an immediate benefit, I don't know what is.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GodsFavorite.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>

Yerdaddy
08-26-2004, 05:19 PM
Because of my tax cuts, this year I was able to buy 4 more boxes of Cookie Crisp.

My tax cuts all went to the http://www.shopfoodex.com/catalog/images/04400000099.jpg.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

TheMojoPin
08-26-2004, 05:20 PM
Fuck you, fancy lad!

*Spits Saltines*

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

A.J.
08-27-2004, 03:56 AM
Poverty increases happen during EVERY Republican administration. That's because Republicans hate the poor.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

reeshy
08-27-2004, 04:05 AM
That's because Republicans hate the poor.


AND SO DO I!!!!!!!!!!!!

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

TheMojoPin
08-27-2004, 08:06 AM
I saw we take down the Statue of Liberty and put up a Statue of REESHY!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

golfcourseguy
08-27-2004, 12:51 PM
Joblessness is a keystone of the No Child Left Home Alone Initiative.

" editing posts since day one"

FUNKMAN
08-27-2004, 05:01 PM
this is what i 'kind've' complain about once in a while...

i don't feel great about saying 'take it from the most wealthiest' but where else is it gonna come from, how much more can people be left out in the cold...

the rich don't get richer by thin air, it has to come from somewhere and it's the people at the bottom and middle who are paying... not only with money but with their lives

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm3_sig.jpg">

reeshy
08-27-2004, 05:07 PM
I saw we take down the Statue of Liberty and put up a Statue of REESHY!



This is what I want...wouldn't it look good in the Harbor????

http://marseillesympa.free.fr/david.jpg

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

SatCam
08-27-2004, 06:02 PM
I saw we take down the Statue of Liberty and put up a Statue of REESHY!



This is what I want...wouldn't it look good in the Harbor????

http://marseillesympa.free.fr/david.jpg

Can water come out of its pisshole? It could mist the people on the passing ferry.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

FollowThisLogic
08-28-2004, 08:10 AM
Redistribution of wealth is a communist idea.

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I <font face="webdings" color=red size="+1">Y</font> my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

UnknownPD
08-28-2004, 08:53 AM
My problem with these "studies" is that they usually do not take into account benefits these people receive. Welfare, medicaid, WIC, Section 8 Housing etc. I would like to see the numbers after all these things are taken into consideration. Are they still poor?

On the uninsured thing this problem has to be seriously addressed. I say we tax the fuck out of companies that outsource and movie/tv studios that film in Canada to beat US taxes.

Yerdaddy
08-28-2004, 01:24 PM
Redistribution of wealth is a communist idea.
Decreasing the proportional tax burden of the wealthy is redistribution of wealth.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

high fly
08-28-2004, 02:50 PM
Redistribution of wealth is a communist idea.

All tax schemes redistribute wealth.


Hope you find your way out of Clicheville.








" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

high fly
08-28-2004, 02:51 PM
Because of my tax cuts, this year I was able to buy 4 more boxes of Cookie Crisp. If that's not an immediate benefit, I don't know what is.



Your share of the deficit is $212,000.
Pay up.




" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

East Side Dave
08-28-2004, 02:57 PM
Hope you find your way out of Clicheville.



I heard every movie shown in Clicheville is "like a roller coaster!" Sounds exciting!....... But watch out! The only things certain in Clicheville:


death and taxes!

Oooooooh!

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on 90.5 The Night FM;
Friday and Saturday Night: Midnight to 5 AM you bastards!

El Mudo
08-28-2004, 05:23 PM
There were 35.8 million people living in poverty last year, or 12.5 percent of the population. That was 1.3 million more than in 2002.


True, there is an increase, but if anyone in the mainstream liberal media would report it, the poverty rate is still lower now than what it was during most of the Clinton years...

here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104525.html)




More people lacked health insurance as well -- about 45 million last year, or 15.6 percent, compared with 43.5 million, or 15.2 percent the previous year


These numbers are as inflated as AIDS statistics....If you lose insurance for a week and get it back, you are counted as being uninsured for the year.....also if you change jobs and lose the insurance from the old one and get insurance from the new one you are still counted as being uninsured for the year....It also counts those among us who are illegal immigrants....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/elm_sig.gif
<marquee>Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum </marquee>
Thanks Monsterone!!

El Mudo
08-28-2004, 05:27 PM
Seriously, how can the tax cuts still be considered a benefit at this point?


Would anyone be better off with more of their money in the hands of the federal government?

Seriously...give me one federal program that actually does what its supposed to. I'd rather misspend my own money then have the government do it....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/elm_sig.gif
<marquee>Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum </marquee>
Thanks Monsterone!!

Yerdaddy
08-28-2004, 06:00 PM
True, there is an increase, but if anyone in the mainstream liberal media would report it, the poverty rate is still lower now than what it was during most of the Clinton years...
On average, yes. But the poverty rate was lower when Clinton left office than when he took office, and the rate is currently higher than when Bush took office. Bearing in mind that just looking at that one statistic is a huge oversimplification of the issue. That's why I posted the report.

These numbers are as inflated as AIDS statistics....If you lose insurance for a week and get it back, you are counted as being uninsured for the year.....also if you change jobs and lose the insurance from the old one and get insurance from the new one you are still counted as being uninsured for the year....It also counts those among us who are illegal immigrants....
It's actually the opposite with the way they calculate the insured and uninsured. The immigrant thing, I don't know, the word "immigrant" doesn't come up in a search of the document, so I'll put the onus on you to support the claim.

From the report:
"What is Health Insurance Coverage?

The CPS asks about health insurance coverage in the previous calendar year.
The questionnaire asks separate questions about the major types of health
insurance and people who answer "no" to each of these questions are then
asked to verify that they were, in fact, not covered by any type of health
insurance. For reporting purposes, the Census Bureau broadly classifies
health insurance coverage as private or government coverage. Private health
insurance is coverage by a plan provided through an employer or union or
purchased by an individual from a private company. Government health
insurance includes the federal programs Medicare, Medicaid, and military
health care; the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); and individual
state health plans.29 People are considered "insured" if they were covered
by any type of health insurance for part or all of the previous year, and
they are considered "uninsured" if they were not covered by any type of
health insurance at any time in that year.


Would anyone be better off with more of their money in the hands of the federal government?

Seriously...give me one federal program that actually does what its supposed to. I'd rather misspend my own money then have the government do it....
Both of these are 'begging the question' logical fallacies of arguments. I'm not touching them only because they're just asking us to spend more time arguing pro- and anti-government polemics for longer than we re-fought the Civil War last year. This would be infinitely less interesting though.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

TheMojoPin
08-28-2004, 07:00 PM
mainstream liberal media

Hey, Dave! We're still stuck in Clicheville!

poverty rate is still lower now than what it was during most of the Clinton years...

Very true. But that doesn't negate the fact it's still risen in the last three years. And that it dropped every year of Clinton's term from '93 until 2000.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-29-04 @ 12:07 AM

high fly
08-28-2004, 07:07 PM
mainstream liberal media

Hey, Dave! We're still stuck in Clicheville!




You missed the Slawson Cutoff.





" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

Tazz
08-28-2004, 07:14 PM
Poor getting poorer


http://home.mindspring.com/~mtbbrian/Violin.jpg

<img src=http://tazz1376.homestead.com/files/homersig.gif>

high fly
08-28-2004, 08:07 PM
True, there is an increase, but if anyone in the mainstream liberal media would report it, the poverty rate is still lower now than what it was during most of the Clinton years...
On average, yes. But the poverty rate was lower when Clinton left office than when he took office, and the rate is currently higher than when Bush took office. Bearing in mind that just looking at that one statistic is a huge oversimplification of the issue. That's why I posted the report.



And with welfare reform, they changed the way they figured what the poverty level was.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

high fly
08-28-2004, 08:16 PM
[
Would anyone be better off with more of their money in the hands of the federal government?


Yes, we all would.
We have a record-sized deficit whose interest is growing faster than the economy grows. So we are sinking deeper and deeper in debt.

The tax cuts temporarily goose the economy, but it is borrowed prosperity, because the money we borrow to cover the deficit must be paid back.

When we pay off the deficit, then we have hundreds of billions that the government is no longer vacuuming out of the loan market.
Now those hundreds of billions are available to business to borrow, and with competition from the government eliminated, the demand for that money is less, which drives down long term interest rates.

One way, Trickle Down Economics, pumps money into the economy, but then sucks it back out.
The other way, what was done in the 90s to kick off THE GREATEST ECONOMIC BOOM OF ALL TIMES!!! pumped money into the economy where it stayed.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

LiquidCourage
08-29-2004, 10:15 AM
Most people who are poor deserve it.

Yerdaddy
08-29-2004, 12:35 PM
and the theme of this week's Republican Convention:


Most people who are poor deserve it.


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

LiquidCourage
08-29-2004, 02:22 PM
If you smoke crack, no economic policy is going to help you. Just about everyone I know who's in the gutter put themselves there, and could have avoided their current place in life.

Yerdaddy
08-29-2004, 04:52 PM
If you smoke crack, no economic policy is going to help you. Just about everyone I know who's in the gutter put themselves there, and could have avoided their current place in life.

Oh joy! A stereotype!! We need more of those in politics! Because they're so useful!!

Listen, your guy gave us tax cuts for the rich and said they'd make the economy better. Well there are more poor people than there were when he gave the rich the tax cuts and now there are more poor people than before. Maybe a couple million people did take their couple hundred dollars and go buy crack with it and now they're poor. The fact remains, though, that the tax cuts haven't helped shit except the rich who got them. The president is more like you than the guy he pretends to be.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

high fly
08-29-2004, 05:00 PM
If you smoke crack, no economic policy is going to help you. Just about everyone I know who's in the gutter put themselves there, and could have avoided their current place in life.




And so since we see an increase in this behavior, are you saying that Bush causes more people to smoke crack?

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

El Mudo
08-29-2004, 05:51 PM
Listen, your guy gave us tax cuts for the rich and said they'd make the economy better. Well there are more poor people than there were when he gave the rich the tax cuts and now there are more poor people than before. Maybe a couple million people did take their couple hundred dollars and go buy crack with it and now they're poor. The fact remains, though, that the tax cuts haven't helped shit except the rich who got them. The president is more like you than the guy he pretends to be.


The top 20% of wage earners pay something like 79% of all income taxes...

OF COURSE they're going to get more back than people who don't have to pay taxes. How are people who don't pay taxes at all supposed to get a tax cut?





The dramatic shift of pretax income toward the top quintile--its share increased from 46 percent to 53 percent over the period--joined with reductions in rates to shift the burden of individual income taxes onto the highest-income households. The top quintile of households paid 78 percent of total individual income taxes in 1997, up from 66 percent 18 years earlier (see Figure 1-9). The top 1 percent of households bore the bulk of that change: their share rose from 19 percent to 33 percent over the interval


here (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=2&from=0)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/elm_sig.gif
<marquee>Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum </marquee>
Thanks Monsterone!!

This message was edited by El Mudo on 8-29-04 @ 9:52 PM

El Mudo
08-29-2004, 06:12 PM
[
Would anyone be better off with more of their money in the hands of the federal government?


Yes, we all would.
We have a record-sized deficit whose interest is growing faster than the economy grows. So we are sinking deeper and deeper in debt.

The tax cuts temporarily goose the economy, but it is borrowed prosperity, because the money we borrow to cover the deficit must be paid back.

When we pay off the deficit, then we have hundreds of billions that the government is no longer vacuuming out of the loan market.
Now those hundreds of billions are available to business to borrow, and with competition from the government eliminated, the demand for that money is less, which drives down long term interest rates.

One way, Trickle Down Economics, pumps money into the economy, but then sucks it back out.
The other way, what was done in the 90s to kick off THE GREATEST ECONOMIC BOOM OF ALL TIMES!!! pumped money into the economy where it stayed.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

Right...Cause we were all doing so great in the late 70's under Carter when the government was taking 78% of people's money...

The problem is, high fly, you actually believe the money will actually get spent where its supposed to....



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/elm_sig.gif
<marquee>Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum </marquee>
Thanks Monsterone!!

high fly
08-29-2004, 06:53 PM
Right...Cause we were all doing so great in the late 70's under Carter when the government was taking 78% of people's money...

It was not taking 78% of people's money, nor were we running record-sized deficits.



The problem is, high fly, you actually believe the money will actually get spent where its supposed to....



The solution,El Mudo, is that I gave you a great example where it did.


Be that as it may, you think Bush will keep his promise and give us a balanced budget this year?

Any ideas on how to pay off that record-sized deficit?






" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 8-29-04 @ 11:27 PM

Yerdaddy
08-29-2004, 08:36 PM
The top 20% of wage earners pay something like 79% of all income taxes...

OF COURSE they're going to get more back than people who don't have to pay taxes.
And the top 20% of wage earners control over 70% of the income, (see figures in your own link). The distortion of the tax cuts is not that the more you make the more you get back, it's the more you make the higher percentage you get back, (or don't have to pay). That's how it favors the rich, rather than simply cut taxes at an equal rate among all levels of income. If it were an equal tax rate cut across the income levels then I wouldn't even be calling it a "tax cut for the rich" and, in fact, the president and republicans would have defended themselves against the charge of "tax cuts for the rich." But that's exactly what it was/is. They simply tacked on some recycled trickle-down rhetoric about "creating jobs" and such horseshit, while shooting down Democratic compromise ammendments that would have made the cuts contingent on actually creating jobs. Instead, it was a gift.

This is why <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13113-2003May19?language=printer" target="_blank">Warren Buffett</a>, the second richest man in America said this about Bush's dividend tax cut:

"The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.

Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.

She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be."

What you're trying to do is describe it as "they get more because they pay more," and that's just not the case.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 8-30-04 @ 12:36 AM

Recyclerz
08-29-2004, 08:39 PM
The best, and most ironic, parts of conversations about gov't and money (specifically taxes, federal spending and the national debt) like the one going on between High Fly and El Mudo is that it's the middle-aged democrats (like myself and, I'm assuming, High Fly)worrying about the long term effects of the national debt when it's young people like El Mudo and you other young Republicans who will have to live with the consequences.

I've put several fistfuls of cash and will spend a week or two of my vacation time trying to get Kerry elected because I think it is the right thing to do as a citizen. But if you fuckers want to put W in for a second act I've got my plan ready.


Say thank you very much for my tax cuts; can I have some more please?
Invest the money in international stock funds precisely because they will provide no economic stimulus to the US (cuz I'll be trying to make a point)
Retire to a Caribbean island ASAP with my loved ones where I can live large
& lastly, watch long distance as El mudo and crew have 78% of their paychecks get taken out to pay the Chinese government (interest on the debt) and old bastids like High Fly and me (Soc.Sec.) while working in an economy like Argentina's


If I were 20 years younger, I think I'd be paying attention to the checks that the old men were writing that my ass would have to cash (both foreign policy and economic). But if the young'uns don't care, I'm finding it increasingly hard to worry about it myself.

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 8-30-04 @ 12:45 AM

Recyclerz
08-30-2004, 09:26 PM
I'm bumping the thread to post this article from the New Yorker which does a great job of summarizing everything I think Bush is wrong about in his economic policies.

Bushonomics (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040906fa_fact)

If anybody on the Right wants to have a discussion as to why this article is wrong, I would really like to hear what you have to say.



<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]