[Plain Old Jane]

Originally Posted by Mike

YOu mentioned that the very poor stay poor and that the incredibly rich stay rich. Well, you missed the largest segment of our population: the middle class, who typically weign and wax between lower, middle, and upper class. WHen I said that YOU have the opportunity to make as much money as you want, then, legitimately YOU do. I don't think that you're in the poorest class of citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are desparately poor and instead of buying food or struggling to afford heat, you can buy a computer, a broadband internet connection, and hundreds of dollars of sexual cosmetics--or whatever. It's quite apparent that YOU can make as much money as YOU want to make. I did not say that "THE POOR" can make as much money as they want to make, I said you, and from my understanding of you, YOU must have the ability to get $350 and get a one way plane ticket to Europe. Sure, it won't be first class, but, hey, to sit in first class would be anti-democratic.

not sure what you were going for here, all I got was that I'm not poor... and that I lack lower class perspective... (fair enough)

A libertarian or republican model for economy is that which does not discriminate. The discriminations and the hitches in our economy that hold back individuals--hold back the poor from climbing out of poverty--are the discriminate systems created by "progressive liberals" (who are now more entrenched in the past than any other time) who want to make divisions between people. They want to give free money to black, job-less, despondent urbanites... because they want to keep those people jobless and despondent. They want to put those people in dire situations where they cannot climb out of ... so they give them free money, they perpetuate their laziness, and inturn, the people NEVER get out of the ghetto, but they ALWAYS vote Democrat.

can you cite an example of "free money" for me?

His stupid tax plans didn't fail big time. Why do you think that jobs went down in 1999, and throughout the first two years of his first reign as president? Because the rich--the corporate business owners--were still being fucked by taxes. Who do you think creates jobs? The rich, corporate business owners. You don't see the $2 ho on the corner of Main St. making jobs... You see the corporate businessman making jobs. They can only make jobs if they have money. We had an incredible surplus that was unstimulated... there was no stimulation in our economy, so naturally, it dropped.

yea, they did fail. Bush cut taxes to big business by a lot already, and jobs are still dissappearing... Bush gave "tax relief' to america, by giving a tax break of (on average) 50,000 to the rich, and about 600 to middle class. I'll give him that, he gave middle class 600 bucks, but his legislation raised fees by over 20 billion. His medical legislation alone gives more to pharmacuetical companys than anyone else. Americans spend 14% of their income on medical bills, and studies show a rise of 7% a year (due in part to the medicare bill)

Bush had a fantastic oppurtunity to use the surplus that clinton left behind towards the earned income tax credit program, one that would give proportional tax credits to blue collars and impoverished people, and help them move out of lower class. But he used it to propogate his failed tax cuts. He cut off his retreats and we (the middle class) have to cover the cost.

The map is not entirely accurate, because most of the counties of Maine went republican, and many of the greys that were not filled in were information that had not been divulged, or was not considered accurate. The rest is very accurate and is based off of the same information that can be accumulated by the public, from lawful websites. It doesn't mean that all of those counties went 99% Bush and 1% Kerry, they could be 50/50 percentage wise, with the majority going Bush. It's just a majoritive map. Not only that, but the massive populations are in urban centers--and those are accounted for. The West Coast of California, Seattle, the Missisippi River basin, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, much of Connecticut, Urban Maine, half of New Hampshire, all of Vermont... New York City.

I meant that the map should be based on score difference, bush won by about 3 percent of the popular vote, and only 12 electorals. The map is geographically correct, but geopolitically, the east and west coasts should be much bigger, and the space in between should be much smaller. but, we're splitting hairs here

Assuming that you're a democrat, you, like many democrats, are looking for excuses for why they lost--Men voting Bush, 23% of the population voting, the South, "Fuhrer Bush", perpetuating the liberal propaganda lies (the bit about the middle class disapearing, kids who voted for Kerry dying in wars.

The middle class IS dissappearing, downsizing continues and CEO salaries keep increasing by the hundred thousand, and the wages keep decreasing. Outsourcing is increasing, Jobs are decreasing. War spending is increasing, debt... is also increasing. The only good thing I can see coming of this is the corporatization of gov't (which is the inevitable next step. but from what I can tell, the neonate is severing its ties, which either means its stupid, or preparing to dine and dash and leave us with the bill.) Bush's policies are favoring this cycle.

By pointing fingers at anybody but your own party, you're part of the problem. If the democratic party wants to succeed, it has to change, and it has to change to reflect the opinions of the American people. The rumors of Hillary in '08 just mean that our presidency will be ruled by the Republican party until 2012.
Mike

extrapolating the answer before we even ask the question is the sign of an assumptive mind. Lets go over just what "the problem" is...