# News No more Pres.Bush!

1. Apr 28, 2003

### Turtle

In the 2004 election I hope Pres.Bush does not win. His tax-cut would only benefit the weathly. He is not for all americans ie. his support of senator santorium. When it comes to his campaign Bush will use the murder of people on 9-11 for his own good.

2. Apr 28, 2003

### Staff: Mentor

The war on terror and the war in Iraq will certainly work to Bush's favor. And with the economy improving, I don't think there is any possible way that Bush could lose. Democrats simply do not have a single compelling issue on their side.

I am starting to think the Democratic party is going to fold after the next election - or at least split up. As its failures continue to mount (losing an off-year election in a pseudo-recession is unheard of), people are going to start jumping ship in droves.

3. Apr 28, 2003

### Zero

Re: Re: No more Pres.Bush!

You say that as though it would be a good thing...

4. Apr 28, 2003

### Dissident Dan

I think that it's a little premature to call the death of the Democratic Party.

Democrats have many compelling issues on their side--the environment, energy independence, lack of tax cuts for the super-rich, tolerance...

5. Apr 29, 2003

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Re: Re: No more Pres.Bush!

We need to have two viable parties (at least). It would be nice to have a choice of two GOOD parties instead of one half decent one and one utter failure. Its bad if we end up with only one party, but good if the democratic party remakes itself into something viable.

All of those issues get people out protesting, but they don't get people VOTING (and those issues aren't what you make them sound like). People vote based on national security and the economy (at least in the current political climate).

6. Apr 29, 2003

### damgo

The parties will balance out, like they always have... I think we've already seen the start of it, with 'moderate' New Democrats gaining strength and moderate Republicans switching allegiences. Unfortunately, I can imagine several bad things coming out of this -- if the Democrats become more of a centrist party, the Republicans will naturally move more to the right, which would exacerbate the party split between libertarians and social conservatives. It will also further isolate the rather vocal far left. Hmmm.

In fact, if the Dems became economically and security-wise more centrist while the Republicans shift towards their very conservative base, I could see a lot of libertarian Repubs switching over; and the social conservatives can't IMO get enough support by themselves.

Perhaps we will see another major shift in the defining issues of the parties.... any thoughts?

7. Apr 29, 2003

### Zero

Re: Re: Re: Re: No more Pres.Bush!

Well, I wouldn't call the Republican party a failure...not completely, anyways.

8. Apr 29, 2003

### FZ+

LOL... I want to see an end to the two party system in the US. It is a hinderance to the democratic representation of the will of the electorate, IMHO.

9. Apr 29, 2003

### LURCH

With what would you replace it?

10. Apr 29, 2003

### FZ+

I don't really know. Proportional representation perhaps. Incentives for smaller parties maybe? Laws to break up the two big parties into smaller ones?

11. Apr 29, 2003

### Zero

Well, it would be nice...but neither party would ever agree to something that would weaken them.

12. Apr 29, 2003

### Staff: Mentor

I tend to see the democratic party shifting the other way. Thats why they have been such a failure in the past couple of years. The democratic party seems to me to succeed only when there is plenty of money to spend and nothing important to do.
Ignored.

13. May 10, 2003

He might not win, (and for the sake of democracy I hope he does not) but he has a chance. If the president is to be appointed by the supreme court from now on, he will of course win. However, there are many people out there who can do the math on the tax cut and are also out of work. The tax cut is totally insane, cutting rates starting at the top - 38% --> 15% for thousands of the richest americans.
Meanwhile, good paying jobs with health care benefits are going bye-bye because states can't fund them. $20E9 to the states and$500E9 to the richest. This stagnates the economy, because so much of it is capitalized (i.e. no longer going to hire people).

It's a critical time for the US, perhaps we're defaulting to Fuedalist 'Monarcy?'

14. May 15, 2003

### Sting

I would like to quote a bumper sticker: "Democracy was getting old anyway"

Seriously, as for the monarchy, it somewhat feels like it. Do you think the Bush administration will declare an emergency state one of these days?

15. May 15, 2003

### LogicalAtheist

I am gonna be honest. I am an American. I would sooner vote for Saddam than vote for president Bush.

While Saddam may cause suffering to humans, Bush absolutely causes suffering to humanity. To me, humanity is far more important than the lives of even millions of humans.

But remember, humanity exists for me, within my life only. Thus, in a time of "peace with myself" meaning I'm not in danger, nor are people I am EMOTIONALLY (yes I do have emotions) attached to. WHile, if this was in danger, the humans I am close to take presidence.

My point is, humanity will have to take alot longer to recover from the haults Bush has put on us than we will to have to deal with Saddams.

FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY

16. May 16, 2003

### Zero

By this, I assume you mean that Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, had only a limited sphere of influence. Bush, on the other hand, while not in the same league as Hussein, can do much more lasting damage, since he has more power?

17. May 16, 2003

### Staff: Mentor

I was gonna let this one go, but naa - what suffereing exactly is he causing or has he caused to humanity?

18. May 16, 2003

### damgo

I can't go half an hour now without hearing egregious use of the word 'regime.' That's suffering enough to equate him with genocide-of-the-Kurds Saddam!

19. May 17, 2003

### Ganshauk

"Oh! To hear the sanctified words of partisan politics!
To hear the unadulterated truths of selfinterested politicians!
To revel in the undeniability of intergovernmental propoganda!
I was there. I heard it with mine own ears!
Therefore it must be truth.

Forsooth facts and figures, forsooth accounting tricks.
Give me bombs and blasts and air force missions
Give me class warfare with aims towards my parties' agenda
Forget yesterday, or even last week, belie those Orwellian Seers
Ack, I bite upon that silver dollar, and come away with a broken tooth!"

Hmm, how does an across the board tax cut only help the rich?

Wake up peoples. Next paycheck, please do me a favor :

In a little box, somewhere down at the bottom of the stub, there is a space entitled FWIT or somesuch. It denotes Federal Withholding of Income Tax.
This is the amount of Income tax you are paying (raw) per pay check. Multiply this by 24 (assuming you are paid bi-monthly). Subtract from this amount how much you recieved back (it should have arrived quite recently) and divide the total by your total yearly income. Multiply by 100 and boom! This is the gross amount of taxes you have paid in the past year as a percentage of total income. Now factor in state income tax, property tax, school tax, sales tax and any other local taxes you are liable for and you will see :

The average American pays about 40% of his/her income tax!!!!

WTF???!!!!

Knowing this, I dare you to trash any tax cut, however small. Ok, the Bush plan says a 10% tax cut across the board (or some such). Yes, the rich gains most, assuredly. 10% of 1 million is 100,000 while 10% of 20,000 is only 2000.

The fact is, everyone gains. Period. The democrats try to make it out that the poor are getting reamed, which is untrue. They gain as much as the rich, evenly, in a wholly democratic manner. It may be a matter of scale, assuredly, but we all still win.

We, as a nation, prosper individualy, in the manner becoming a Republic. The average family (+- 35k a yr) will be up 1500 a year. So what, exactly, is wrong with that?

20. May 17, 2003

### Zero

The Bush tax cut is specifically staggered to most benefit teh rich, percentage wise. Of course, he's been lying about his numbers since teh first debate with Gore, but that's no big deal, huh? A better deal would be to cut nonsense missle defense programs, and the like.