Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Let me ask you this, tres - are you aware of, and if so, do you dispute, the history of blacks disenfranchisement from voting?

I mean, I'm naive enough to assume that everyone knows that white men in this country tried to keep everyone but white men from voting until forced by legislation in the 60's. But, now I'm wondering.

Where I'm going with this is probably obvious - why then is it so incredible to you; so illogical to suggest that blacks are kept from voting because they're black? Because we've come a long way, baby?

snood, Actually, even many whites were prevented from voting in the early years of our democratic republic. It's also true that blacks suffered the most and the longest from discrimination in more ways than everybody else in the US. All the anecdotal evidence suggests that blacks were disenfranchised during the 2000 presidential election. If there is enough evidence to prove such, it would seem to me that there would be more people of conscience that would pursue that issue with the courts. That's one of the reasons why I'm so hesitant to come to any conclusions at this time. c.i.

Tw
I guess we have kicked the dead issue of the 2000 election around enough. As I had previously noted it's an exercise in futility.
Now it's time for us to go back and watch the destruction of the US as authored by Bush and company. { that should set you off}

Ooooh! He makes me soooo mad! :wink:

Well, there's mad, and there's furious. There's the irritation of being inconvenienced, and there's the rage that comes from living 40+ years in a country whose leaders always speak with forked tongues, and then wonder why you are so jealous with your allegiance.

And no, fellow posters, I'm not alluding to anyone in particular.

I just get a little fed up sometimes.

If George W. Bush's career in politics has been built around defying expectations, he had a promising weekend, with the Washington Post saying he was less powerful and more embattled than he was just a few weeks ago.

Thomas M. DeFrank of the New York Daily News found at least four (assuming no double counting) Republicans who each implicitly raise expectations for the president tomorrow night.

Here's one: "'Two months ago, this guy was invincible,' a prominent Republican political consultant mused. 'Today, he's viewed as extremely vulnerable.'"

Here's a second: "There's something in these numbers that says the American people want more from their President than they're getting,' a GOP official theorized."

"[S]ome Bush loyalists worry that while public opinion is notoriously fickle, Bush's slide in the polls could mask trouble doubts about his job performance on the eve of the 2004 election cycle," DeFrank writes. "Ironically, the twin issues that one historian called 'guns and butter' complicate Bush's selling job."

"He has to keep thumping both these drums, a Republican pollster said, but talking too much about Iraq will make some people wonder if he's giving short shrift to the economy.'"

ABCNews.com's The Note

GWBush already gave short shrift to the economy. All we've heard is "stimulus package" without anything to support it. c.i.

Snood - I would be happy to discuss it further, but we should give the topic a discussion of its own. Give it a go, and I'll come along.

ci - Are you unaware of the specifics of the package?

Yeah, something that exempts dividents from taxes, and SUV's also get the same treatment. Seems to me like they're designed for the rich. We belong to the po folks, because all our stocks and funds are 403b's and IRA's, all taxable upon withdrawal. No tax breaks for us. Too po to buy a $75,000 SUV too! c.i.

Trust me, tres, I'm not anxious to engage you in the semantic acrobatics that seem to pass for erudition with you; certainly not enough to start a whole thread dedicated to it. I just wanted a simple answer to a simple question.

Consider it forgot.

And they say there's no liberal bias in the media!

Here are some other elements to Bush's plan:

· Implement tax cuts for everyone now, rather than phasing in over 10 years. (I guess everyone is "rich".)

· Reduce the marriage penalty this year, instead of waiting until 2009. An estimated 46 million married couples would benefit under the President's plan. (Those must all be "rich" married couples.)

· Raise the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child this year, instead of in 2010. That would amount to a $400 increase per child, and checks would be issued in that amount this year to help parents across America. An estimated 34 million families with children would benefit under the President's plan. (Of course, only "rich" people have children!)

Oh, and I find no mention of SUVs in the plan. Maybe you can educate me on that one.

I went to the source for the information:
The President's economic security agenda

tres, I've learned from this president that he has a tendency to back-track on his rhetoric. I'll believe it when I see it. It's interesting that you missed the tax exemption on SUV's. It was splattered all over the media during the past week. c.i.

tres, You're using the white house interpretation of the stimulus package by the white house. Here is the opposing view: http://www.chn.org/issues/article.asp?Art=925

Haven't you learned yet that using the fox to protect the chickens is the most dangerous way of saving your chickens. c.i.

Here's one source.


The Seattle Times: Tax break fuels SUV purchases

And Harvey Pitt is still with the SEC. It's wonderful what gets pulled from web sites.

Here's one source.


The Seattle Times: Tax break fuels SUV purchases

And Harvey Pitt is still with the SEC. It's wonderful what gets pulled from web sites.

Here's one source.


The Seattle Times: Tax break fuels SUV purchases

And Harvey Pitt is still with the SEC. It's wonderful what gets pulled from web sites.

How did that happen? Anyway, the SUV story made most of the papers, Forbes - geez - it was all over.

ci - What? I'm using the "White House interpretation" of the White House's plan? How dare I? What am I, nuts? Going to the source like that! Silly me. I suppose you'd go to Bush to find out what the Dems stimulus plan is?

You need to differentiate between editorializing on the merits and looking at the specifics of what the plan plans. It is the latter for which I cited the information, not the former.

mama - That someone can find an advantage for SUV owners in the tax cuts does not mean it was the intention of the tax cuts, it means that some people will spin the silliest things.