Monday, May 08, 2006

Perceiving Perception

Zeus must have been disappointed with the 2006 Olympic Winter Games. Not only did the U. S. come in second overall AGAIN – but those “Arian Supermen” from Germany came in first AGAIN. More importantly – nobody paid attention. What was the name of that city anyway?

On the other hand, all the Gods were probably very pleased with the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. First, while the rest of America and the world were still cowering in fear from the attacks of 9/11, Salt Lake City joyously received the winter version of celebration of Zeus through athletic excellence. On the opening night President Bush stepped forward and stood in the midst of the U.S. athletes to give respect to their efforts and congratulate their courage. The inspiration of the President’s class and courage reverberates to this day. The most important homage paid to the Ancient Gods was what happened on the figure skating rink. The world watched as a young couple, Jamie Sale and David Pelletier, skated circles around the Russian favorites, Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze. When the judges – some of whom (notably the French) later admitted to making deals – cheated by choosing the Russians, the challenge to their falsehood was immediate. Although the vast majority of spectators worldwide were in no way ice skating experts; quality was obvious to all and the outcry was powerful and unrelenting. The Olympic Committee accepted the judgment of truth, not the biased judges, and awarded gold medals to Sale and Pellertier as well. What pleased all who value divine reason was that the truth was recognized and justice demanded, in the face of those who would have lied, by the power of humans to recognize truth. When that truth prevailed, justice was done, and humanity’s ability to PERCIVE the true and the beautiful was vindicated.

We are able to apply that same perceptive ability to judging and acting of certain challenges to the President placed before the people of the US.

With several early May polls showing Bush’s popularity on the rise, it appears that more and more Americans are beginning to recognize the truth in several areas. Admittedly some polls show Bush at new lows – but it is telling that most reports fail to note the positive growth in the other polls and fail to point out that President Bush has still not fallen as low in the polls as most other Presidents since polling data has been compiled. He has still not fallen as low as Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, or Bush the first (who is now more popular than Bill Clinton).

Here are some stories that are beginning to become clear in the public’s conscience and from which the divine reason common to all mankind will yet perceive the truth.

1. The incongruity between the angry out cry by the media over Scooter Libby’s alleged leak about Valerie Plame (allegations which did not result in any direct charge by the grand jury which investigated them) and the rush to defend and even glorify CIA Agent Mary McCarthy whose leaks have undoubtedly cost the lives of Americans and prolonged the war against terror.

2. Consider the attacks on President Bush over the price of gasoline while it was President Bush who fought to allow, and the Democrats in the Senate who blocked, the recovery of energy from Alaska’s oil fields. Had this nation been able to follow the Bush energy plan we would now have our own crud oil flowing into our refineries today. It is also note worthy that it was the enviro-radical lobby that prevented the building of refineries that would be able to provide cheaper gas even under present supply conditions.

3. Many people are beginning to marvel at the fact that, although the economy is better than it has ever been; with unemployment and the trade deficit down, personal income up, and the stock market about to reach all time record levels on real not (e)maginary business; Democrats keep talking about the fiction of American economic troubles.

4. How ironic that weeks after taking the word of “has been” generals calling for the ouster of the civilian head of the Defense Department as though silver stars gave ability to the wearer to speak no wrong, the same people are now saying that a lifetime of military service and four stars disqualify Michael Hayden from holding the post of CIA Director.

5. It is shocking that while the President is the only one to offer any workable and realistic plan for handling immigration concerns between the US and Mexico, the “ hate Bush crowd” attack the President as having failed the nation on this issue. The blocking of the President’s agenda is at last being noticed; perceptive Americans are beginning to lay the blame where it belongs, on the obstructionists in the Congress.

6. While the chant of “culture of corruption” is still the number one Democrat talking point, a Democrat Congressman, (Kennedy by name) has been given a free pass by capital police for driving under the influence and reckless driving. At the same time Louisiana Democrat Congressman Bill Jefferson is facing indictment on bribery and his cohort in crime, Vernon Jackson is facing 7 – 9 years in prison after confessing to bribing Jefferson. It does seem reasonable that if the briber is going to jail for bribing the Congressman, the Congressman should be going to jail too. In spite of her incessant attacks on Republicans, for unsubstantiated and unproven allegations, Nancy Pelosi insists that the Jefferson case is different from “Republican corruption”. It is a line that won’t hold up to the scrutiny of the perceptive.

In the end, the truth will prevail. Every day the prejudice of the media becomes more and more evident to the same thinking human beings who called foul to the misjudgments of Olympic judges in 2002. There is hope for those who have the ability to perceive truth in the miscalls and politics of those who push lies in the name of news. We must all seek to perceive the misperception that is being foisted on us, to sense the bias and the bogus. We can all have hope in the ultimate success of right; Reason will celebrate the triumph of truth.


Anonymous said...

"With several early May polls showing Bush’s popularity on the rise, it appears that more and more Americans are beginning to recognize the truth in several areas. Admittedly some polls show Bush at new lows – but it is telling that most reports fail to note the positive growth in the other polls and fail to point out that President Bush has still not fallen as low in the polls as most other Presidents since polling data has been compiled. He has still not fallen as low as Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, or Bush the first (who is now more popular than Bill Clinton)."

Please show us the sources of this highly dubious information.

Lysis said...

Both Fox News and CNN have Bush on the rebound. Please read the story on “Fox News Polls Features” entitled “Bush Approval Rebounds Slightly”. Fox has him up to 38% from last week’s record low 33%. The information on the other Presidents ratings was presented by Bill O’Reilly, Monday night during a story on President Bush’s record low of last week. As for Bush I over Clinton, that is obvious to anyone!

I am glad you asked these questions, and understand why such things would sound dubious to someone who only gets their info from the hate “Bush Lobby”. Enjoy the Good News!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for sharing your sources for the misinformation. I did look at the Faux News poll conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation. It says, "Republicans may be overrepresented in the current survey. This, in turn, may have had a small effect in overstating the president’s current approval ratings." Well there you go, they report - biased news - you decide, to agree.

The CNN report, "Iraq Keeping Bush Approval Down," has Bush up two percentage points from 32% to 34% but acknowledges that this is well within the margin of error for the poll.

Meanwhile, the AP-Ipsos poll has Bush continuing his freefall to "Worst President Ever" title with only a 33% approval rating. CBS News also has Bush at a lowest ever 33% for May. Wall Street Journal-NBC shows an all new low for Bush with 36% two weeks ago. Also, Washington Post-ABC had Bush at a career low 38%. Admitedly, almost all responsible polls show the President continuing to plunge in public approval. We await to see if the plummet continues. As sure as this President stands for Corruption, Cronyism, and Incompetence you can bet it will.

Thank you for clearly citing the source of your Bush I's approval rating being greater than Clinton's approval rating claim: Your butt. And thanks for letting us in on where you get the "history" you teach in your classroom, "The O'Reilly Factor." I am not sure this classifies as being highly qualified to teach the subject under NCLB but I am not familiar with Utah having standards.

Gallup Poll, the largest and longest running of the polls mentioned here - in fact the poll that began tracking Presidential approval ratings, has Dubya at 31% as of May 9, 2006. That is also a new low. In historical comparison, (and in deep contrast to the bull you and O'Reilly are shovelling, LIEsis) the lowest approval ratings for the last seven presidents as recorded by Gallup are as follows:

Bill Clinton: 37 percent
George H. W. Bush: 29 percent
Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
Gerald Ford: 37 percent
Richard Nixon: 24 percent
Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent

You are wrong in your statements. Don't let that bother you, it never has before.

Let the Liesis Blather resume.

Cameron said...

Based on Anon's post, President Bush's approval ratings range from 31% to 38%.

The lowest approval ratings of the past seven presidents range from 24% to 37%. Which means that President Bush compares favorably with all of them. But it does bring up another, perhaps more important point.

President Clinton's lowest rating was 37%

President Reagan's lowest rating was 35%

President Ford's lowest rating was 37%

Does that mean that President Ford was a better, or at least as good a president than both Presidents Clinton and Reagan? I'm sure that if a new poll were conducted today, President Ford would not come close to matching the popularity and approval of Reagan and Clinton.

President Bush II's approval ratings have varied from over 90% to its current lows in the 30's. Was he really 90% "good"? Is he really 31% "bad"?

The Washington Post reported President Bush's approval ratings in December 2005. It shows his ratings to be at 39% on November 2, and then rising to 47% on December 18. What caused the huge increase? The Post attributes it to the President giving 5 speeches and a news conference in 19 days.

Is that all it takes? If the American public is that fickle and easliy manipulated, maybe President Bush has grown tired of playing the game.

It's interesting to note that President Clinton was known to follow the "whims of the polls", and President Bush is known for doing what he thinks is right regardless, and both presidents wound up with nearly identical approval results.

Lysis said...


Thank you for going to the trouble to verify all my statements in the paragraph which you have challenged. Your research has proven that both I and O’Reilly are right!

Let me sight the original paragraph and show how you prove my points, not only on the specific facts mentioned but on the entire post. You, like the French Judge at the Olympics, seem to think that if you can say things loudly and nasally enough and the rest of us will accept your aspersions. Once more, Truth and Reason prevail over obscenity, dissemblance, and bias. Here is the paragraph Flaccid quotes:

“With several early May polls showing Bush’s popularity on the rise, it appears that more and more Americans are beginning to recognize the truth in several areas. Admittedly some polls show Bush at new lows – but it is telling that most reports fail to note the positive growth in the other polls and fail to point out that President Bush has still not fallen as low in the polls as most other Presidents since polling data has been compiled. He has still not fallen as low as Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, or Bush the first (who is now more popular than Bill Clinton)."

Now let’s look at the individual claims and how Flaccid supports them:

1a) (Lysis says) "With several early May polls showing Bush’s popularity on the rise,”

1b) (Flaccid says) Opinion Dynamics Corporation . . . Flaccid (Flaccid fails to give the pole numbers but instead references the very creditable poll as saying Republicans may be over represented . . . may have had a small effect in overstating the president’s current approval ratings.” (Dear Flaccid – get the Child to dig out his dictionary and look up the word “May” for you. Your limp attempt to dissemble does not change the FACT that the poll shows Bush with a %5 up turn in the poll. It is what you don’t say that proves my point on both levels!)

1c) (Flaccid says) “The CNN report, “Iraq Keeping Bush Approval Down, has Bush UP two percentage points from 32% to 34%.”

2a) (Lysis says) “Admittedly some polls show Bush at new lows”

2b) (Flaccid says) “Gallup Poll. . . has Dubya at 31% as of May 9, 2006 A new low.”

3a) (Lysis says) He [Bush] has still not fallen as low in the polls as most other Presidents since polling data has been compiled.”

3b) (Flaccid says) Bill Clinton 37%, George H. W. Bush 29%, Ronald Reagan: 35%, Jimmy Carter: 28%, Gerald Ford: 37%, Nixon: 24%, Lyndon Johnson: 35%.” So if we take the “ABC Washington Post Poll” that Flaccid sights, which puts Bush at a career low of 38%, we see that Bush is still ahead of ALL the preceding Presidents. Even if you take the very low and biased numbers from the Gallup Poll at 31% - we see Bush ahead of three of six. The truth is no doubt in the middle and Bush is, as Lysis said, still ahead of a majority of Polled Presidents.

Therefore, Flaccid, you have proven that I have not been wrong in any of my statements. As Flaccid supports O’Reilly and me in all these things – and has given no evidence to the contrary, I am confident he agrees with my evaluation of George I’s popularity over Clinton’s too – no matter where Flaccid fantasizes I might have gotten my opinion from.

So now, Flaccid, WE are left to ponder, “What is your point?

All you have done is scream your frustration, lied about the very facts you have reported, and shown that Truth and Reason have devastated your hopes. As more people get the truth from O’Reilly, CNN, or the Agora, your position will continue to decay. The only blather WE have seen here is from you!

Lysis said...

Magic Valley Mormon;

Extremely well said! We can only hope as the truth comes out, the American people can make the right decisions in spite of the polls and those who would spin them!

MindMechanic said...

I dont really see much improvement in the polls. I also dont think that it is surprising considering we have heard nothing but 5 years of attacks from both the left and the media.

And to be fair, Bush has not done a good job IMO with informing the public as to his direction in Iraq, in fighting terrorism, and in the energy drive.

Perhaps if the media spent even a little time talking about the strength of the economy, the employment picture, and just a FEW of the positives the polling wouldnt be so negative. After all...we do want UNBIASED...right?

However-what we HAVE NOT heard from the left is ANSWERS, SOLUTIONS, or ANYTHING resembling policy. Education? Silence. Social Security reform? They cheered when reform failed but offered nothing in return. Terrorism? again...nothing. Illegal immigration? Please! Energy Independence? ANYTHING? Nope. No solutions. Nothing but the shrill sounds of anger and hatred. THATS leadership...

I only guess but I think it is a safe guess that the anon crowd is liberal leaning. That being the case...and since you probably voted for John Kerry...can you answer why? Can you name ANY substantive legislation that he has authored in his 26 years in congress? Can you name his platform for president?

How about some HELP in finding solutions to the problems-you know...for the good of the country and all. Heck...we dont even have to agree on the solutions...just engaging in productive discussion would be a start. Congress is elected to how about we do a little Civics 101 and re-educate them as to their JOB.

Lysis said...

Here is the actual quote from the O’Reilly. His “Talking Points” from Monday Night, May 8, 2006.

“Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup poll began tabulating Oval Office performance: Truman, Nixon, Carter and Bush the elder. The question now is: Can Bush the younger regain the confidence of the American people?”

Here’s a poll rating from the Rasmussen Reports as of today:

Tuesday May 09, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

Seems things are getting better and better.

MindMechanic said...

Had I not seen it I wouldnt have believed it. I wonder why we arent hearing about this from the media...

Anonymous said...

Because 41% for Rasmussen - an internet poll tracking daily approval - is not an increase. Far from getting better the daily approval rating of 41% for Tuesday is about the worst that poll has ever recorded for Bush. If you read the poll you will see that for the month of April, Bush had an approval rating of 40% - their lowest ever for the President. We await to see if he does any better for May. Don't hold your breath - or wait for promised assistance if you are a victim of Katrina, Iraq, Darfur, or were a lower Manhattan resident or Ground Zero rescue worker who were told, through Executive Order, by the EPA that there were no health risks in returning to lower Manhattan despite the science. What does science know anyways? Just pray that cough goes away before you die. Lord knows you can't afford the medication to treat it since an Executive Order also stopped subsidized medication from coming in from Canada. (Big Drugs have to make their money so they can donate to GOP Pac.) I digress. . .


You missed that in the CBS poll with Bush at 31% released yesterday it was also stated that only TWO Presidents in the last 50 years had lower approval ratings than this incompetent President.


Your insinuation that Bush has grown tired of "playing the game" on polls in the same breath you state that this President does not pay attention to polls is laughable. This President is all too aware of the polls, as every politician is, it accounts for the look of constipation he wears near constantly anymore.

MindMechanic said...


There ARE parallels for comparison.

Would you wager that hurricane victims
recieved more or less support under Bush's FEMA than under Clintons FEMA?

Latest 'polls' out of Iraq show that the vast majority believe their country is heading in the right direction and shockingly...74% believe the war was worth it. to compare Clintons response (or in fact his support in all of Africa) vs Bush's response?

And I have to ask yet again...since you dont like the current medical care solution and since Clinton called Social Security reform a must and a system in crisis...what then is YOUR solution? Where is the liberal solution? (I mean besides the tried and failed quest for socialization...)

This isnt a defense of all things Bush. It IS I believe a legitimate comparison. Since you obviously hate Bush, how must you have responded to Clinton? Did you spend those 8 years in disgust as well?

Dan Simpson said...

Anon wants people here to be honest about Bush, but he is far from honest himself.

He cannot find it in himself to admit that the economy is booming, though almost everyone else in the nation believes so. Why? because of the mostly erroneous connection between economy and President.

Liberals were more than happy to declare that the economic boom of Clinton's era was to be laid squarely at the feet of a Democratic President who saved us from Bush I. No credit was extended to the Legislature, or technology boom from the end of the cold war.

Today, though all indicators show the economy doing incredibly well, it cannot even be admitted to for fear that this fact will be attributed to either a hated president or a republican held legislature.

While I do not claim that the President has nothing to do with the economy, I do think that this current situation in particular shows a decided lack of integrity. To boost prospects in the upcoming election, the left sees gloom and doom, or at the very least refuses to talk about the incredible positives, in a booming economy that has helped the entire country

Anonymous said...

Incredible positives?!?!

Have you considered the DEFICIT NOW when compared to Clinton?

This is the same kind of economic PROSPERITY my daughter experiences when she declaims that she can't be overdrawn because she still has CHECKS -- she just uses the "monies" that are offered by her credit cards and overdraft protection!!!!

Admittedly Halliburton and big oil are seeing MASSIVE improvements in their bottom line -- so is China in its enormous bottom line prosperity against U.S. debt!!!!

Cameron said...


You're right, every politician tracks the polls almost as much as the media does. My comment that "perhaps President Bush has grown tired of the game" was motivated more by sarcasm than by fact.

The larger point I attempted to make is that if the numbers can be manipulated so easily, perhaps the polls don't matter.

Is the public really that dumb? Are our opinions that easily bought? Do we completely lack the ability to think critically? Do we just blindly obey the Limbaughs and Frankens of the world? I would like to believe that we don't, but the polls suggest otherwise.

Cameron said...

The deficit is attributed to a Congress that approves tax cuts at the same time it approves massive spending increases. In its defense, our nation has been paying for a war on two fronts (so far), a tsunami, and a massive hurricane (not to mention hurricane victims' tattoos), to name a few. However, logic dictates that in lean financial times one must tighten the belt on spending to compensate. It sure would be nice if I could raise my own debt ceiling every time I wanted something new. I'm not sure why President Bush hasn't vetoed the excessive spending and sent a message to Congress.

Tax cuts are good. Money is what makes capitalism work. Capitalism is what built this country and what makes it unique. It is no coincidence that the rest of the world has copied our economic structure. It works.

Unfortunately, Tax cuts are met with fear and loathing by Democrats and the media. They say that the tax cuts are only for the rich and they hurt the poor. Hogwash. The poor don't pay taxes. I've been "poor", and frankly the gov't wanted to pay me to stay that way. There are numerous tax incentives to stay poor. Free healthcare, free food, cheap housing, and free money thru tax breaks like child tax credits, earned income credit, and others. In this country it pays to be poor. Furthermore, the majority of the "rich" in this country are small business owners. They're not rich. They've built a business from the ground up working long hours bearing all the risk of the venture. They deserve better than to hand over their money to the gov't so that it can continue to pay people to be poor.

If we really want to help the poor, we should excuse them from paying social security and medicare taxes. That's the only new way to help them thru tax cuts. But that wouldn't be fair.

Now, if we are going to compare President Clinton and President Bush II we could be here all day. Pres Clinton failed with health care reform. Failed miserably in fact. He failed to do anything about Social Security. He "allowed" the first World Trade Center bombing. Then followed that by decimating the military and security agencies into shells of their former selves. Which in turn "allowed" bin Laden to gain power and influence. His efforts to solve the Israel-Palestinian troubles failed. He "allowed" Saddam Hussein to appear powerful to his Middle Eastern neighbors. He "allowed" the environment to worsen while he was president. (As proven by the Kyoto agreement to get us back to pre-1990 levels. Which would be the presidencies of Bush I and Reagan. But I digress.) Finally, President Clinton took advantage of a young intern and disgraced himself, his office, and the country. He has a sordid history of sexual harrasment complaints stemming from years with a wandering eye and abuse of power. He was and is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

Your narrow-sightedness is infuriating.

"He cannot find it in himself to admit that the economy is booming, though almost everyone else in the nation believes so."

1. The U.S. economy grew by 4.8% for the first four months of 2006. That follows the slowest economic growth in 13 years from the last four months of 2005. Perspective is the theme of this post. Some more perspective for you:

2. In fact, only 28% of the country thinks the economy is doing well under President Bush. That is according to the CBS Poll of yesterday. According to Gallup less than half of Americans believe the economy is better after six years of Bush than before. And they are right to think so. The Dow Jones Industrial hit a six year high last week, it made big news. Think about it, in six years the Dow has fought back to where it began when Bush first took over as President.

3. Family income has fallen, in real terms, by 2% over the last three years. Big Oil compainies enjoying the highest profits ever in history has not generated value for the average American family. In the last six years the average family's economy has gotten smaller not bigger.

4. Spending deficits for almost every year that President Bush has had his economic way with this country have grown at staggering rates. That means we cannot pay for the things we used to be able to, when we had surplusses, the federal debt was projected to be zero by 2008. We are reliant on China to pay for the things like Medicare, Medicaid, Student Loans and public education today. We are fortunate they have agreed to do so, Bush has refused. Any "boom" you see in the economy (and you are in the minority of Americans) has been at the expense at of your children to be born.

5. The federal debt has increased by 43% in six years!! We are 9 TRILLION dollars in debt after six years after we had the largest supluss in history just six years ago! It is easy to shop 'till you drop, buy the latest bling and make it LOOK like you're part of the rich crowd when you are charging everything, but none of it has been bought yet. Congress is about to raise the debt cieling, AGAIN - after doing so a month ago! - just before Memorial Day. It is an admission that the tax cuts are not creating the necessary growth to keep government solvent.

The U.S. under George Bush's leadership, is now the World's number one candidate country for a program the U.S. created at the World Bank for 3rd World Debt Relief. It is the HIPC program set up for Sub-Saharan African countries that are Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. The U.S., saddled with our new debt, now far surpasses all other countries in that program in it's amount of long-term debt to GDP ratio. Shall we proud of that? Most Americans are not.

6. The increase in Petroleum Prices is expected to shave a half point off world growth rates this year. It has already shown up in some of the polls mentioned above as further depressing average family incomes. Higher petroleum is a tax on every industrialized economy except Brazil. They committed to energy independence and with good leadership have achieved it. This president has encouraged tax subidies to profiting oil companies and discouraged consumer conservation. This corrupt leadership prevents us from seeing what a truly booming economy would look like after taking over the greatest economy in history six years ago. We are still waiting to get back to that level.

7. The President has been searching for a replacement to John Snow at Treasurey for over 4 months. He cannot find anyone willing to take the post, even among the most conservative policy makers on Wall Street because no one is willing to put their name on what you call Bush's brand of a "Booming Economy." That is, an economy that has drunk itself silly and is awaiting the greatest financial hang-over of all time.

8. The Jobs report from the Labor Department for April showed slower than expected job growth, the slowest in seven months, and signaled a possible slowing of the economy. That is expected and not just by Democrats.

9. The U.S. dollar has continued to slide this week on the reports of slower job growth and projected increases in the already record deficit for this fiscal year. The U.S. dollar has lost 36% of it's value in the last five years. It shows no sign of regaining that value anytime soon. This affects all long-term loans held in dollars, including the average family with a mortgage. Shall we count this as another incredible positive of the economy?

10. The gap between rich and poor in the country is accelerating - following a closing of that gap during the previous administration. That is according to the Fed. The only people who really benefitted from the tax cuts on dividend investment were the very wealthy. How about some perspective, did you benefit from that tax cut? Did it make your household economy boom? It did nothing for most Americans. But it allowed the bank accounts for the super wealthy and biggest U.S. companies to grow. Has that helped us overall?

11. The Iraq War has now cost over $300 BILLION. That is according to the Congressional Research Service. It will be a $1 TRILLION choice the President made no matter what course is pursued there now and can only get worse, also from the CRS. It is not a boom to the economy.

12. Even if everything the President Bush has said is true - and it is not, nothing he has said according to the economy has been true from the tax cuts to the cost of the Iraq War to the "Job Growth Plan" his own officials said was akin flying a helicopter of Beverly Hills and dumping money out the windows - the U.S. deficit will only be cut in half by 2008! He has no plan to control his spending. He has no plan for returning America to even the level it was before he took office.

The economy is a mixed message at best. It is FAR, FAR AWAY from incredibly positive.


The first thing the Democrats will do when they take control of the House will be to roll back the special deals this corrupt President made with the Republican congress and the companies that gave them the kick-backs.

First, the medicare ammendment that does not allow the government to negotiate the price of the drugs it buys will be repealed. The government will be allowed to get the best price for drugs rather than the price Republican heads of Big Pharmacy set.

Second, Clinton-era Pay As You Go fundamentals will be passed again. They were repealed under the Bush tax cut. The tax cuts were never paid for and are the biggest reason the federal debt has mushroomed. Defecit spending will not be allowed to increase.

Third, tax cuts for the wealthiest under Bush's plans will be repealed. America will begin the long road of recovery to solvency again.

Fourth, and most importantly, a bi-partisan solution to many of the challenges this country faces including Social Security reform will be sought. Congress will be able to responsibly excersise their constitutional duty of oversight again.

Also, I am happy that you refer us to the World Opinion Survey conducted in association with ABC News and BBC. I wanted to mention it in January but did not. The survey is five months old now - the research was done in December, and things in Iraq are much worse but it holds some lessons. For example,

47% of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. forces, 88% of Sunnis;

67% believe day-to-day security will improve if the U.S. withdraws, 73% believe sectarian groups will be more likely to cooperate;

76% of Iraqis thought the U.S. will not withdraw if asked;

87% want a time line for withdrawal, 70% want it in the next 18 mons.;

21% of Iraqis want the U.S. to lead reconstruction (where oil and electricity are still below pre-invasion levels after 3 years of occupation!), 59% want the UN or a broader array of countries to take the lead (Bush had Rumsfeld freeze all countries out of reconstruction right after invasion);

19% of Sunnis agreed with assisting U.S. efforts without a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, 63% agreed to assisting the U.S. if they commit to a withdrawal.

Thank you for examining that poll. Perhaps I was too harsh in nick-naming you afterall.

MindMechanic said...

I have to say I agree with Anon somewhat.

Recognizing a few caveats here...we DID have to spend an enormous amount for recovering from 9/11, to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, to oust a regime that was allowed to flaunt international law for 8 years, to fight global terrorism, to financially support victims of natural disasters around the world, to provide billions in financial aid for African countries to fight disease, and to recover from hurricans in this country that were almost as bad as the cylces we experienced in the early and mid 1900's.

And so of COURSE that is going to contribute to the deficit...


Much of that spending went back into the US economy.

Tax cuts were indeed necessary and responsible for stimulating the economy.

and democrats and liberals didnt whine and complain when Bill Clinton gave Haliburton no-bid contracts to rebuild Bosnia.


The foreign trade deficit should/must be addressed.

We should have adjusted our spending to reduce the deficit spending.

The easiest way IMO to reduce federal spending is to shut down redundant federal agencies. Me...I'd like to see the shut down the federal education offices (we have state offices...reduce taxes and allow the states to govern themselves...what a concept...why, thats almost exactly what the founding fathers INTENDED). Id like to see the fed highway department shut down. We have state transportation departments.

Shrink Federal spending, shrink federal taxes, reduce deficitr spending. Invest in America more than we invest in foreign governments (I'd shut down ALL our foreign aid, open farms and textile mills, and send those nations cans of food with USA stamped right on top and propoganda all around it).

Its not JUST Bush but he does have veto power. It's also not JUST republicans because ALL of the elected officials have their snouts lined up to the trough.

We deserve better.

MindMechanic said...


Are you really surprised by the poll results? OF COURSE no citizen of ANY country would be happy with the presence of foreign troops. OF COURSE they want solvency. OF COURSE the presence of those troops will ALWAYS remind them that THEY were unable or unwilling (no judgement...just fact) to oust a regime that is responsible for multiple chemical attacks and the murder of some 1.5 million Iraqis. the end of the day...they DO believe en masse that they ARE better off today than yesterday and they have hope. And as much as they may HATE to admit was George Bush and the US military that won that opportunity for them.

No...those polls results dont surprise me nor scare me a bit...thats why I posted the link.

I also respect that 99% believe attacks against Iraqi citizens should stop and that what was it...93% said attacks against Iraqi security forces should stop. Do you think they would say the same thing if the Hussein and his sons storm troopers were still in power? Of course not. Because they would end up in the mass graves just like 1.5 million of their countrymen who dared to even verbally oppose them.

(And fairness...the estimates range from anywhere to 700 THOUSAND dead to 1.5 MILLION dead. Even accepting the lower numbers, thats STILL genocide and that equals democrat justification for war)

As to the rest of the rhetoric...

Its nice you think that if the dems control the house or senate THEN dems will work on solutions. That unfortunately has NOT been the history and why the HELL do you find that something to boast about??? Last I checked...that is their JOB, regardless of the "party in power". The fact that they have YET to engage proves the point. And you ACCEPT that???

Think what you will about tax cuts. The fact remains that the very rich still pay 90% of the taxes in this country. EVERYONE that PAID taxes benefitted from tax cuts. Do you believe they just sit on that money? Of course not...they reinvest. Thats what causes the creation of new jobs, of a strong economy. And the beauty of a captialist economy is that EVERYONE can benefit. thats why we are seeing growth in EVERY minority group. Captialism succeeds, socialism fails (or is it just a coincidence that people flock FROM socialist nations to the USA?).

When/IF the democrats when back the congress they will do what they have always done. They will raise taxes and increase social spending. Period. Thats their solution. They will enhance the victim class because keeping people poor keeps them dependent and keeps their voter base strong. They will pander to the poor but never offer anything resmbling solutions because the fact is democrats LIKE poor people right where they are...lining up like Oliver asking for more.

Oh happy days.

And BTW...just how many poor democrat politicians are there? How many ultra-rich liberals do you see giving away their wealth and living with the 'common folk'? (you think John Kerry REALLY needs those 13 mansions???) The myth that liberals give a damn about the poor is laughable. Or maybe there is some other explanation for liberals going our, buying their private Islands, flying in to their gala events, wearing outfits and recieving gift bags worth more than most poor people will earn in a lifetime and then lining up to the microphone decrying captialism and businessmen.

Your hypocrisy would be laughable if
it werent so tragic.

Anonymous said...

Hi All, Vegimatic Here:

The poll numbers don't matter. I don't care if Bush is at 12% or 112% favorable. What does it prove?

The polls on both the right and the left "wag the dog" and "spin" what ever they want to spin.

What we as a country need to look at are results, short and long term, local, national, and globally.

So when we look at the litany of results listed on both sides we see that we have won some, lost some and unfortunely screwed way too many things up.

The priority of that list is what makes us democrat or republican.

The pollsters know that and skew the results by the priority they give topics.

What concerns me about the Republicans is that they say what they are for and then don't do it. What concerns me about the democrats is that they are for hating Bush and nothing else.

These concerns are shown in the makeup and results of all polls that I read in the paper.

So if we look at the polls, who gets lower numbers than the Bush Administration Now.

The House and Senate of the United States both Democrat and Republican.

What that tells me is that the polls say at least Bush is doing something. The Congress is jocking for power and doing zip.

We need to stop pole vaulting over mouse turds and put the heat on where the power and the problem is...


Have a great day!

Cameron said...

"1. The U.S. economy grew by 4.8% for the first four months of 2006. That follows the slowest economic growth in 13 years from the last four months of 2005"

Great, now blame for a massive hurricane slowing the economy is on President Bush?

Perhaps the stock market bubble burst was his fault too? Or Sep 11? Or the tsunami?

The fact is, the economy was on a downward spiral before President Bush took office.

Let's repeat: President Clinton did not leave the economy healthy when he left office. It was sick and failing.

"The Dow Jones Industrial hit a six year high last week, it made big news. Think about it, in six years the Dow has fought back to where it began when Bush first took over as President."

The stock market is soaring towards an all time high. And that with no appearance of an artificial bubble. And, again, it was in free fall before President Bush took office.

"4. Spending deficits for almost every year that President Bush has had his economic way with this country have grown at staggering rates
5. The federal debt has increased by 43% in six years!!"

We cannot expect the gov't to do what we ourselves refuse. Consumer debt continues to grow at all time high levels. It's sad. Our gov't is a reflection of ourselves.

"6. The increase in Petroleum Prices is expected to shave a half point off world growth rates this year. It has already shown up in some of the polls mentioned above as further depressing average family incomes. Higher petroleum is a tax on every industrialized economy except Brazil. They committed to energy independence and with good leadership have achieved it. This president has encouraged tax subidies to profiting oil companies and discouraged consumer conservation. This corrupt leadership prevents us from seeing what a truly booming economy would look like after taking over the greatest economy in history six years ago. We are still waiting to get back to that level."

You're right, gas prices suck. But they're still better than anywhere but Saudi Arabia. The blame for gas prices falls squarely on China and India, two economies that have grown by leaps and bounds and that are using more and more oil. Supply and demand at work. We cannot control the rest of the world's demand, and democrats refuse to allow us to affect our own supply, so prices rise. And this is our president's fault?

Do not go down the road of "good leadership in Brazil". Please.

It is not the President's fault that Americans don't conserve gas. We buy the cars, we drive the cars, we use the power. It's our fault. It's called personal responsibility.

"Second, Clinton-era Pay As You Go fundamentals will be passed again. They were repealed under the Bush tax cut. The tax cuts were never paid for and are the biggest reason the federal debt has mushroomed. Defecit spending will not be allowed to increase.

Third, tax cuts for the wealthiest under Bush's plans will be repealed. America will begin the long road of recovery to solvency again."

As I posted before, the tax cuts should have been followed by reduced spending. As for Clinton's philosophy, he accidentally found himself flush with money that no one predicted and instead of giving it back or saving it he generously spent it. Sure, the deficit was reduced, but federal programs increased and nothing was put away for a rainy day. It's easy to manage money when you have more than you know what to do with. When the economy started to slow in late 1999 and all of 2000, what did President Clinton do? Does anyone believe he would have cut spending in the face of less tax revenues coming in? I don't.

You post that "tax cuts for the wealthiest under Bush's plans will be repealed". Sounds like a tax increase to me. You're right, that's exactly what the democrats will do if they gain power. I repeat, the poor people of this country don't pay income tax. Repealing tax cuts will not help them.

"Fourth, and most importantly, a bi-partisan solution to many of the challenges this country faces including Social Security reform will be sought. Congress will be able to responsibly excersise their constitutional duty of oversight again."

The Democrats will seek a bi-partisan solution? Seriously? Nancy Pelosi is on record as saying that the first thing the dems will do is start impeachment proceedings. That's bi-partisan? Why do they have to wait until they are the majority party in Congress to be bi-partisan? Why haven't they been bi-partisan for the last six years? Why aren't they bi-partisan right now? Six years of complaining and filibusters and a dearth of innovative ideas to fix the country's problems does not instill confidence that when they have power they will suddenly change for the better. History shows the Dems to have no ideas of their own. They raise taxes, spend "rich" people's money and give freebies to the poor, and cut spending on the military. That is what history teaches us. And history has shown us that it doesn't work.

As for the Iraqi support poll numbers posted here. Those, like the presidential approval polls, are easily manipulated and therefore should not dictate policy. Beware anyone that uses only poll numbers as proof of or reason for anything.

Nation building is difficult and takes time. We spent the time and money necessary to rebuild Europe after WWII, even those counries that opposed us, and the world is better off for it. We spent the time and money necessary to rebuild Japan and the world is better off for it. We did nothing but run away in Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and Vietnam, and the world is worse because of it. If we want the world, especially the Middle East, to be better in the future it will require time and money. That is the only historically proven path to follow. Leaving now will result in Iraq falling back into dictatorship and the rest of the Middle East beating their chests at the cowardly yankees. If we stay and allow Iraq to succeed, they will respect us. And it will send a message to the world's dictators and terrorists that America will not be bullied.

Cameron said...

Some interesting info from

The unemployment rate is 4.7 percent - lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

GDP grew at a strong 4.8 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year. This follows our economic growth of 3.5 percent in 2005 - the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation.

Over The Past 12 Months, Employment Increased In 48 States. In March, four states set record low unemployment rates

If The Democrats In Congress Have Their Way And Let The Tax Relief Expire, The American People Will Be Hit With $2.4 Trillion In Higher Taxes Over The Next Decade. To keep our strong economy driving forward, Congress needs to make tax relief permanent.

Just 25 years ago, there were only 45 democracies. Today, Freedom House reports there are 122 democracies, and more people live in liberty than ever before. Since the beginning of 2005, remarkable democratic change has occurred across the globe in places like Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, and Iraq. Freedom House has declared 2005 "one of the most successful years for freedom since Freedom House began measuring world freedom" more than 30 years ago.

The argument that Iraq was "stable" under Saddam - and stability is now in danger because we removed him - is wrong. While liberation has brought its own challenges, Saddam's removal from power was the necessary first step in restoring stability and freedom to Iraqis

The Terrorists And Saddamists Are Failing To Stop Iraq's Democratic Progress. The enemy tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They tried to stop millions from voting in the January 2005 elections. They tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October constitutional referendum. And they tried to stop millions from voting in the December elections to form a government under that constitution. In each case, they failed. Every successive election has seen larger and broader participation. The Iraqi people have made clear they want to live in liberty and unity - and they are determined to chart their own destiny

The Enemy Is Trying To Stop The Formation Of A Unity Government. The enemy has learned they cannot succeed by facing Coalition and Iraqi forces on the battlefield. So they have taken their violence to a new level by attacking one of Shia Islam's holiest sites. They blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra hoping to provoke the Shia masses into widespread reprisals, which would provoke Sunnis to retaliate and drag the nation into civil war. Despite massive provocations, Iraq has not descended into civil war, most Iraqis have not turned to violence, and the Iraqi Security Forces have not broken up into sectarian groups waging war against each other. In recent weeks, these forces passed another important test, successfully protecting millions of Shia pilgrims who marched to the cities of Karbala and Najaf for an annual religious holiday. In the midst of today's sectarian tension, the ability of Iraqis to hold a peaceful gathering of millions of people is a hopeful sign for the future.

Our Work In Iraq Is Difficult But Vital To Our Security. The terrorists know that when freedom sets root in Iraq, it will be a mortal blow to their aspirations to dominate the region and advance their hateful vision. They are determined to stop the advance of freedom in Iraq, and we must be equally determined to stop them

If We Leave Iraq Before The Iraqi People Are Capable Of Defending Their Own Democracy, The Terrorists Will Win. The Iraqi government is still in transition, and Iraqi Security Forces are still gathering capacity. If we leave Iraq before they are capable of defending their own democracy, the terrorists will achieve their stated goal: they will turn Iraq into a safe haven, seek to arm themselves with weapons of mass murder, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East and launch more attacks against America and other free nations.

Anonymous said...

MVMoron - it had to be said this time:
Your two posts are so completely riddled with factual errors - vitually every single one of your claims is incorrect. I am going to have to put all of your posts in the bin with Liesis and O'Reilly from now on.

Can we get some of the others who actually read the newspapers to post again?

Cameron said...

I found a clear Democratic strategy for the War on Terror. It is found at

War on Terror
To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs."

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

That's great and all, but HOW?

What exactly will be done to:

"eliminate osama bin laden",
"increase intelligence abilities",
"eliminate terrorist breeding grounds",
"secure loose nuclear materials" and
"stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea"?

The Democrats had eight years to "eliminate bin Laden" and "increase intelligence abilities" and it resulted in Sep 11.

History shows that Democrats are all talk and no action.

Cameron said...


Please explain further which "factual errors" I made in my posts.

Was it that all it took for President Bush's approval ratings to jump to 47% was a few speeches? That was documented in the Washington Post.

Was it that tax cuts are good? I suppose that could just be a philisophical difference. However, money is power. The more money the gov't gets thru taxing its citizens, the more power the gov't has. This country was founded on principles of limited gov't power. Reducing taxes reduces the government's power. I think that in itself is a good thing. Economically, there are many economists who agree that tax cuts help the economy. When capital is free to move instead of being delayed by gov't intrusion, good things happen. Philisophically, I view taxes as gov't theft. I understand and support government's role in providing basic infrastrucure needs for the nation. But the inumerable gov't programs scream of socialism. Gov't should be minimally involved in its citizens' daily life. In fact, chapter 1 of my Tax 101 class said that taxes should not affect citizen or business decisions. I agree.

Was it that the poorest among us don't pay income tax? Check out a 1040 form,, or ask your tax advisor. 4 years of accounting classes taught me a little bit about taxes. Doing my own taxes while I went to school as well as working full time to support a family taught me a bit more. Because I was "poor", I elected to not have any witholdings taken out of my paychecks. Unfortunately, I still had to pay hundreds of dollars of social security and medicare taxes. Money that I will probably never see again. Thank you, Big Government.

Was it my critique of President Clinton? Feel free to respond to each of my points one by one. I would appreciate further enlightenment concerning his failures as a president and as a person.

Was it that the stock market was falling before President Bush took office? It began in 2000. Look it up.

Was it that we are individually responsible for our own conservation efforts? You're right, the government should make us.

Was it that Democrats will raise taxes if they gain control of Congress? I used your own words as proof. "They will repeal Bush's tax cuts". A repeal of a tax cut is a tax increase. The way to reduce the deficit is to stop spending.

Was it my disbelief that Democrats will suddenly become bi-partisan? I supported my opinion with the words of Congressional Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Look it up.

Was it my view on nation building? I used Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and Vietnam as examples of failures and Japan and Europe as examples of successes. Do you dispute that as being factual? Rwanda's genocidal butchering happened during President Clinton's watch. What did he do? Nothing. Somalia? Nothing. Interestingly, Vietnam is used by many as an example of what Iraq could become, while at the same time they advocate a stretegy strikingly similar to the one that lost us Vietnam and caused the death of countless innocent citizens of that country.

Please Anon, respond to my "factual innacuracies".

Dan Simpson said...

First, Anonymous has proven my first point.

He continues to speak of the 'Clinton Years' as if Bill himself oversaw every budgetary item, and single handedly pulled the economy onto his back and strode proudly into presidential history.

Either you are purposely misrepresenting, or you truly do not know how our government works.

If you want to post here to proclaim the Clinton years the superior economy years, by all means. But lets be honest. Who was the majority in the Legislature through those years? Who was the Speaker of the House? Are you going to praise Newt while you praise Bill? Or are you going to pretend that the president alone is responsible for the economy.

Lets look at two claims by anonymous, and assume that they are 100% true.

"The federal debt has increased by 43% in six years!! We are 9 TRILLION dollars in debt after six years"

"the U.S. deficit will only be cut in half by 2008!"

Lets see, 4.5 trillion in less than two years. That seems to be pretty good growth to me.

I would ask Anonymy one question. He seems to think that I have no idea what I am talking about, so I would like it explained.

How can you speak of the economy as if it is in a vacumn, unaffected by 9/11, Katrina, Tsunami, etc.? Do you truly believe that the downswing in the economy was due to Bush's incompetence and not due to these events?

I wonder why the only things you mention as economy busters are the war and the tax cuts? Is it because you are trying to make the economy completely political?

I have long criticized this president, and will continue to do so when I disagree with him (i.e. spending), but if you are going to make comparisons, at least be intellectually honest, as I am sure you have no admiration for the legislature's actions during the Clinton administration.

Reach Upward said...

The only political polls that *really* matter are the ones that occur inside voting booths on Election Day. It's not that other polls mean nothing, but even professional pollsters will admit that it's not exactly clear to anybody what polls really mean beyond a paycheck for polling firms.

And we give those firms plenty of paychecks. Our society seems to be completely obsessed with polls on just about every subject, but I'm not exactly sure why. The accuracy of polls (regardless of the fancy statistical models pollsters parade before their clients) is highly dubious. Pollsters know that respondents harbor no commitment to their answers because their answers have no real consequences. But when people actually vote, their answers mean something real because they have real consequences.

Hence, opinion polls of any kind are pretty much meaningless blather that wash about like flotsam and jetsam in the churning cesspool that passes for a worldwide news network.

Anonymous said...

Your wisecracking denigration of "freebies for the poor" while celebrating "tax-cuts" for the rich ; ie, Bush corporate welfare, certainly gives the LIE to your "PSEUDO-Christian" moniker -- maybe it IS true that Mormon's AREN'T Christian -- that greedy, mercenary, bazzarro "corporate" Christianity is a perverse version of TRUE Christian SACRIFICE and CHARITY!!!!

Self-centered, "religiosity" is the TRUE FAITH of Conservatives in more places than the Magic Valley and the White House!!!!

Also,I find your description of *Americans* to be insulting and self-centered . . . "It is not the President's fault that American's don't conserve gas. We buy the cars, drive the cars, we use the power. It's OUR fault. It's PERSONAL responsibility."

The recent movie "Remember the Titan's" had a great response for such a whiny sentiment.

"Attitude reflects leadership!"
"Attitude reflects leadership!"
"Attitude reflects leadership!"

Cameron said...


I'm still waiting for proof of my factual inaccuracies. Instead you resort to name calling and religious bigotry.

If attitudes reflect leadership, then why did Americans' attitudes about the environment not change during the Clinton presidency? We had President Clinton and Vice President Gore to lead us to the environmental promised land and yet we never made it. No, I will not blame America's historic lack of action regarding oil consumption on our current or past presidents, both Democrat and Republican.

It is not my Christian belief that forcibly taking money from one person in order to give it to someone else deemed "needy" is the best way to help the less fortunate. How much money is wasted by the gov't processes required to take my money and redistribute it? Your much discussed data concerning the national debt sums it up nicely. How about letting me choose how to redistribute my money? Is that such a rotten idea? Is your estimation of Americans so low that you don't trust us to do good on our own? Do we really need politicians telling us how and who to help? No, I don't believe that is true Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Here are some facts for you, following your own bewildering appraisal of reality, try to pay attention. You have a lot to catch up on. Or you could just turn on O'Reilly or give Liesis a call - none of those conversations are rooted in reality either and you may find them more comforting that this direct refutation of your campaign of misinformation.

Your first statement about the hurricane accounting for the fourth quarter collapse is wrong. Do you know why? Because the government's own GDP report tells us so: "The biggest part of the slowdown was a 17 percent drop in spending on durable goods in the quarter, particulary on cars and aircraft, as well as an unexpected 13 percent drop in government spending on national defense. . . . auto purchases, which saw sales record in the summer due to "employee pricing" offers from the Big Three automakers, fell 8 percent compared to a year earlier and 18 percent compared to the third quarter of 2005 due to the lack of remaining 2005 models that normally would have been purchased in the fall. . . . The drop in spending on motor vehicles was responsible for a 2.06 percentage point drop in the GDP by itself. The drop in military spending accounted for another 0.66 percentage point decline in the fourth quarter GDP." S&P advisors explained that "when consumers are burdened with heavy debt loads, rising interest rates, higher energy costs, no personal savings and household income growth that falls below inflation, something had to give. This retrenchment in spending was generally foreseen, though economists weren't sure on the timing and magnitude." No mention of the Hurricane. That Bush failure deserves a category five disaster of its own, right next to the disaster Bush is making of the economy.

To your claim that the economy was on a downward spiral before Bush took office: a recession, as you are probably not aware, is a retracting of the economy in two or more consecutive quarters. If you had any grasp of history you would know that a fall in GDP - or any other measure for recession - occured only in the third quarter of 2000 and rebounded in the fourth quarter of that year. The economy began its downward spiral, as you put it, in the first quarter of 2001, retracting again in the third quarter, and the last half of 2002, and the last three quarters of 2003. In the first twelve quarters of Bush being president he saw 7 quarters of negative growth. I am sure Bush, then and today, would trade 2000's economic performance for the economic performance he saw at any time in his presidency. That is why it is such a big when the economy finally gets back to that standard.

You say that consumer debt continues to grwo at all time highs. Did it ever occur to you that this is happening because median family income has decreased by 2.2% during the time Bush has been President!? And how is this relevant to the discussion that Government debt has increased by 43% under Bush? It has no baring. We can count on the government to do things we as individuals cannot do. How do you think we got to the moon? Read the post above, we deserve better.

Your claim that gas prices are lower here than anywhere but Saudia Arabia came right from the same place most of Liesis' claims originate. Here are just some of the actual gas prices from around the world that are lower than in the U.S. compiled by CNN in April:

MEXICO $2.36
LAOS $1.66
CHINA $1.54
IRAQ $0.84
IRAN $0.33

Your claim that the president is blameless for ignoring the need to conserve gas flies right in the face of incompetent policy making. On May 7, 2001, at a White House press briefing the President's policy on fuel conservation was questioned by ABC News Terry Moran:

"Does the president believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?"

FLEISCHER: "That's a big no. The president believes that's an American way of life."

In October 2004 that the administration successfully opposed attempts by Democrats to increase federal fuel-efficiency standards for new cars; and supported only a small increase in the average fuel economy standard for light trucks.

Last week 10 states filed suit against the White House over their current gas mileage standards as not being adequate. The White House promises to fight the effort for greater accountability in S.U.V. gas mileage.

You also ridicule Brazil's leadership after their committment to and achievement of energy independence. The President's history on conservation should give even the staunchest Republican's like yourself pause. His "leadership" on the issue in light of current events will never be called good or imbued with foresight. Exactly opposite.

Your next question was "Does anyone believe [Clinton] would have cut spending in the face of less tax revenues coming in? I don't." But you fail to understand that Clinton had no choice because Pay As You Go was a budgetary rule enacted under Clinton. It is known ast the PAYGO rule and requires no increase in defecit spending wihout approval of 60 Senators. This rule led to a balanced budget and the greatest surplus in U.S. history. It was repealed with the first unpaid for Bush TRILLION dollar tax cut. Do I think Clinton would have decreased spending? He was forced to by law. Only two Presidents have held themselves above the law, Nixon and Bush.

Your claim that repealing the dividend tax cut for the uber wealthy of this country will do nothing to help the poor. You are too simple to understand that the target of repealing this tax cut is to restore governemnt revenues necessary to bring the budget into balance. Also, a balanced budget and a decrease in federal debt will help every American.

You next say, "Nancy Pelosi is on record as saying that the first thing the dems will do is start impeachment proceedings." Prove it? Where is this "record?" Please give us the source. I give you Nancy Pelosi on "Meet the Press," May 7th. "The first thing we will do is give repeal the ammendent in the medicare bill that does not allow the government to negotiate the price of drugs." She goes on to say the second thing Democrats will do is pass the PAYGO rule again. I think I just took you to school on how that ammendment works. Won't you support the Democrats in trying to force the goverment into solvency again? Of course you will not, you have already proven you belong in the same camp as O'Reilly and Liesis.

You dismiss the only poll conducted in Iraq - surveying 35,000 citizens over two months by four seperate news organizations. Your ignorance does not change the findings of the poll no matter how much you dislike the findings. Like the President you are making a dangerous mistake to ignore this intelligence of the situation.

You claim countries opposed the U.S. rebuilding after WWII. What countries did the U.S. rebuild that opposed that rebuilding? None. This is another case of your lips (read fingers) moving without your brain being awake. I see O'Reilly and Liesis do this often.

You post, in your next delusional statementpost, an erroneous White House press release on world economic growth. If you were truly a "long time reader" as you claimed, you would be aware that this was already addressed in the Agora. The following statistics were taken from the CIA's world factbook for 2005:

The U.S. didn't even come close to leading the industrialized world in economic growth last year. Just saying it doesn't make it true, though we all wish it did. Here is just a smattering of numerous industrialized nations - so classified by the CIA - from every region of the globe - two of them G8 members - whose economic growth outpaced the U.S.'s last year:

Argentina 8.2%
Chile 5.9%
China 9.2!%
Iceland 5.9%
Iran 4.8%
Ireland 4.9%
Israel 4.3%
Russia 5.9%
South Africa 4.5%
Botswana 4.5%
Cyprus 15.4!%
Czech 4.6%
Norway 3.8%
South Korea 3.7%
Singapore 4.5%
U.A.E. 6.7%
Ukraine 4.4%
Uruguay 6.2%
U.S. 3.5%

You claim if we fail in Iraq it will be become a safe haven for terrorists, quoting from the White House press release. The State Department delcared last week that despite three years of U.S. occupation Iraq is already a continuing "safe haven for terrorists." You cite Afghanistan as an example of free society. A society where people are sentenced to death for rejecting Islam, girls schools are burned and the Taliban is resurging because of a lack of U.S. presence to provide security, the U.S. being tied down in Iraq. Two new warlords pledged allegiance to the Taliban last week, warlords the U.S. had defeated at one time but has failed to keep on top of. You claim leaving Iraq will allow other countries to bully the U.S. and yet Iran and North Korea are bullying the U.S. because we are tied down in Iraq. You cite Lebanon as flourishing despite continuing political assasinations and assasinations of high profile journalists. You and Bush praise Kyrystan after that President's came to power last year in a violent coup that involved mass looting and killings! A year since, that country has been plagued with violence and crime and last week the government ministers threatened to resign if the President did not give up some of his dictatorial powers! He has been given until May 27 as an ultimatum to move towards democracy or face further political instability.

You, MVMoron, are, again, wrong, factualy inaccurate, in error, mistaken, wide off the mark, out, false, fallacious, off target, untrue, ill-advised, ill-considered, inapt, imprecise, silly to rely on the veracity of this President when making claims, especially about foreign governments.

You go on to rant in your following two posts against me and taxes. You refer to your Tax 101 text book. I know the policies of the World Bank are above the 101 level but if you can, and you probably cannot, ponder why, if taxes are so categorically bad, does the World Bank - chaired by neo-con(vict) Paul Wolfowitz - require all countries applying for aid and who are finacially insolvent to first raise taxes. It is because, despite your uninformed blustering, responsible taxation is a useful governmental policy, particularly in reigning in ballooning deficits and debt.

MVM: you are either lying or ignorant when you made all of these incorrect statements but you definitely live up to your new nick-name. I will remember it when you post from now on so I will not waste my time confusing it for any well informed conversation.

On the Clinton economy I refer you to PAYGO Budgetary Rules For Moron's lesson above, not that you are a Moron but you may find it useful. As for who deserves credit for the PAYGO rules, I refer you to Vote #38, U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session, March 16, 2006, "To fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement through 2011." The vote, requiring a simple majority to pass, failed. Not a single Democrat voted against it. If it was a Republican idea then why did Bush rescind it - the only President to do so in history - and why did the Republicans just vote against it? The answer for where the credit rests for balancing the budget under the Pay As You Go goes to the party making it part of their platform this year.

Also, you made the huge mistake of confusing the U.S. defecit with the U.S. debt. Bush's wing and a prayer is to cut the current deficit ($420 BILLION) in half by 2008. That means he still plans to spend more than $210 BILLION dollars more than the government takes in for the foreseeable future. I'm not kidding. That is Bush's hope, to just cut the deficit in half by the end of his Presidency! When he came in it was going to be debt paid off by 2008. He has no plan at all for balancing the budget let alone paying anything but interest on the U.S. debt, which is now $9 TRILLION! If we are lucky, really lucky, he might achieve this (though I have explained that none of his promises on the economy have ocurred) and in 2008 we will be $10 TRILLION in debt and spending more than $210 BILLION than we make each year. That is what he wants to happen. He ran on that election promise. And you voted for him!

Polls are a very good indicator of where public opinion rests. Right now, public opinion is moving towards an election day shake-up when this corrupt, crony-ridden, and incompetent party the President has spawned WILL wash down the drain like flotsam and jetsam in the churning cesspool they created with Pay To Play access rules. Give power back to the party the majority of Americans want in power!

MindMechanic said...


I'm impressed. I dont even agree with all your points, but at least your arguments arent SOLELY based on insults. I still disagree with your insistence on blaming the president (as if the president passed legislation...he doesnt...get that point). This is a bi-partisan effort. To change it will require the same bipartisan effort except this time it would be nice if they would work together for the good of the country.

I have said my peice and it doesnt appear to be up for discussion so I will watch for a while.

I would like to point out...if you are going to cite things like the CNN article on gas prices, dont just cite the favorable points. Here is the rest of the story...

Nation City Price in USD
Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Hungary Budapest $4.94
Luxembourg $4.82
Croatia Zagreb $4.81
Ireland Dublin $4.78
Switzerland Geneva $4.74
Spain Madrid $4.55
Japan Tokyo $4.24
Czech Republic Prague $4.19
Romania Bucharest $4.09
Andorra $4.08
Estonia Tallinn $3.62
Bulgaria Sofia $3.52
Brazil Brasilia $3.12
Cuba Havana $3.03
Taiwan Taipei $2.84
Lebanon Beirut $2.63
S/Africa Johannesburg $2.62

MindMechanic said...

A little perspective on the gas prices...

Venezuala-Gas US$.6
Average new home costs
US$6,200.00 Monthly payment US$35
Average annual income US$4020.00

It helps that Hugo Chavez is so bent on sticking it to Bush that he refuses to tax oil and as a result the estimates I saw showed that his people were losing out on at least 8 billion dollars a year. And guess who is driving...well...guess who can afford CARS.

Azerbaijan-Gas US$1.15
-45% of the population lives below the poverty line of around US$37 per month
-Average annual income US$ 950.00

Averbaijan is selling oil and the government is profiting. The people? not so much...

-Average annual income US$3,410.00

Couple that average income with an increasingly dismal employment and economic picture...well...gas price become reasonably irrelevant

United States-Gas US$2.79
-Average annual income US$41,400.00

Gas prices too high? Well...sure...I want lower gas prices too. Howsabout the fed, state,and local govts give up the 80 cents to $1.60 per gallon (depending on which state you live in) of tax money they rake in on a product they have no financial investment in producing?

Perspective is a valuable tool. There is an old saying...statistics dont lie...statisticians do.

All of the above statistics are taken from the UNICEF site. Thats a pretty fair liberal source...wouldnt you agree?

MindMechanic said...


I agree that polls are essentially meaningless...except in this way-polls are used by political parties and then trumpeted by the media and as a result, the majority (sadly) of Americans who dont bother to invest any time in actually LEARNING what is said fall easy prey to sound bite poitics.

Look back to the Clinton impeachment hearings. Poll after poll cited a great majority in favor of impeachment. Then the media machine went in full swing and in weeks, the polls were saying exactly what the media had been promoting...that the American public was tired of this and ready to move on.

Today its no different. Ask 100 people just what 'war' they want us to quit...and guess what they will tell you. The war with Iraq...right? Except we arent at WAR with Iraq. Now...ask that same 100 people if we should continue to fight terrorism. My guess is you will find the vast majority will agree with that comment as well.

MindMechanic said...

Last thing for the night.

Anon-I too am in favor of balancing the budget so the PAYGO talk is fine for me...just as it was when the republicans in congress forced it on Clinton (just like welfare reform). I know the republicans today dont want PAYGO because they want to continue the tax cuts and no one in Washington is willing to discuss significant spending cuts.

My question to you you support tax increases or government spending cuts?

One kills the economy. Guess which one...

This isnt an interrogation and no, I dont need a badge. For once I would like to see YOU actually state a position. Is it tax or cut?

The latest figures show the US took in the highest number of taxes in April ($315 billion) so income isnt a problem apparently-the tax cuts are stimulating revenue and growth. The problem is outgo.

Balance the budget. It shouldnt be any different than balancing your personal budget...right? When you need to get your finances in check, you cut back on spending till things are back on track. Thats my position.

What is yours?

Dan Simpson said...

I appreciate your correction. Here is where you have not quite taken my point head on. I went and looked up the PAYGO rules. I wholeheartedly agree with them. While there may be some small term emergency exceptions, I believe these rules should always be in place. I would in fact support an ammendment that required it.

Here is my point to you. You have been praising Lord Clinton and his saving of the economy, but from what I can see, these rules were enacted in 1990, reenacted in 1997.

So, lets be consistent. If the president is really responsible for this (which I do not believe) than we should be praising Bush I and Clinton. I haven't heard the former from you.

If, as I believe, the legislature deserves the credit. Then we can agree that the men (and women) in office in '90 and '97 deserve credit and praise for something that the current legislature doesn't have the courage, foresight, or intelligence to do.

Here's the kicker. I do not believe for one second that if the democrats were in power today they would do anything different on the PAYGO idea. I have seen to much of a headlong plummet in political intelligence, competency and integrity over the last decade. From both sides.

Dan Simpson said...


Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich

Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott

President, Bill Clinton.

So, we can clearly see that one cannot say Republicans did this, or Bill Clinton did this.

Republicans (and I am sure some democrats) voted for the PAYGO. Clinton signed it.

I don't care if it was 'forced' on him or not. He signed it, he gets as much credit as any president should (not a tremendous amount, but definitely some) for fiscal legislation.

MindMechanic said...

On budget items...

If April's tax intake was 315 billion, but that was inflated because of tax month at a rate 13.4%, and if we then subtract 13.4% (ok...we'll be generous and subtract 14%) and then multiply that figure by 12 months we get the average tax intake alone (not counting bond sales and other US investments) of 3 trillion, 727 billion, and 80 million (spelled out for perspective) dollars.

Katrina Costs-
"Spending tied to hurricane Katrina has hit as much as $2 billion per day, or about 10 times the amount the United States is spending on military operations in Iraq. The pace will slow, but the recovery effort could easily cost the federal government $150 billion" (thats the Congressional Budget office) shows the initial investment at 65 billion plus subsequent outlays of 32 and 14 billion.

Rita costs were interesting. The total bill was about 10 billion. The interesting part was that it cost more (just shy of 6 billion) to prepare for Rita than Rita did actual damage.

"Most major hurricanes to hit the U.S.: 4 (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Wilma). Previous record: 3 in 1893, 1909, 1933, 1954, and 2004. Most damage ever recorded in a hurricane season: $150 billion."

Total 2005 costs for GWOT-368 billion dollars

Here is what the Clinton administration had to say about US involvment in Bosnia-
"Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Toward Achieving the Dayton
Agreement’s Goals, GAO/NSAID-97-132, May 1997, and its update (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-
216, July 17, 1997). Fragile government institutions and continued ethnic antagonisms lead
most observers to believe that an international military force of substantial size will be
necessary in Bosnia for perhaps years, if further internecine warfare is to be averted."
To date we have spent 30 billion in Bosnia and spend approx 4 billion a year. Since 2002 the costs for Bosnian peacekeeping operations were no longer allocated by congressional funding and were assigned to the individual service branches as part of the DoD budget.

Here is the interesting thing about these cost figures...

The costs (like the GWOT costs) include costs to operate equipment and to pay the in-place troops. However...its kind of a smoke and mirrors thing. Whether the boots are on the ground in Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq, those troops will be getting paid one way or the other. The equipment would be used, be it in training or real world ops.

20 years of experience taught me a little about how the government and the services uses budget figures to justify funding. Keep that in mind when you start seeing the price tag for all of these operations.

Also...keep in mind that ALL of the money spent generally goes BACK into the US economy. Soldiers get paid but they have families and their kids like to eat. Equipment costs translate to civilian sector jobs. Hurrican costs are als re-absorbed into the economy in the form of equipment, new construction, jobs, etc. Keep all of that in mind when you start looking at dollar amounts and bottom lines.

Again...perspective is a valuable tool.

Dan Simpson said...

That, was a good post.

Cameron said...


Thank you for the information-filled post. I had thought you might quit like you did with Kyoto. Alas, I guess I will have to work harder this time.

Cameron said...


You had asked for proof of my Congressional Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claim. Here it is:

This is a commentary concerning Ms. Pelosi's statements to the Washington Post.

Here is an excerpt from the commentary:

"In a Washington Post interview, Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls. It was Contract With America lite—a point-by-point articulation meant to show what the party stands for and demonstrate that she and other Democratic leaders were actual adults. Then, as if to kill her plans in the same interview in which she was hatching them, Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure."

Here is the link to the Washington Post article:

Cameron said...


I found it interesting that you would bring up Ms. Pelosi's appearance on Meet the Press. I did not watch it. However, I looked up the transcripts from the show. Here is a link to it:

You were right, she did try damage control. I think she realized what a dangerous thing she had said to the Washington Post.

Cameron said...


Here are some excerpts from Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: ...and let me ask you about that, because you told The Washington Post that there will be investigations if the Democrats regain control of the House. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee would be someone named John Conyers. I went up to his Web site and this is what’s on his Web site: “Stand with Congressman Conyers. Demand an investigation of administration abuses of power and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.”

REP. PELOSI: Democrats are not about impeachment. Democrats are about bringing the country together. This is what we have to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But that’s the man who would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Cameron said...


In many of your posts you rail against Republican corruption. In my research of Democratic policy points, I found your posts to be nearly identical to theirs.

The Meet the Press transcripts are very enlightening on this point as well:

MR. RUSSERT: “The top Democrat on the ethics committee of the House of Representatives, Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, was reported, first by The Wall Street Journal, to have quietly directed at least $178 million dollars in taxpayer funds to a network of home-district friends, business partners, contributors, former employees. Along the way, he curiously became a multimillionaire in real estate, and federal investigators are looking at whether he failed to properly disclose scores of newly acquired assets.”
You have Congressman Jefferson of Louisiana, someone pleaded guilty and said he had paid him bribes. You have Cynthia McKinney investigated for roughing up a police officer. You have Congressman Kennedy who, in the wee hours, entangling himself with the police department. So the Democrats have ethical...

REP. PELOSI: May I respond to that?

MR. RUSSERT: ...the Democrats have ethical challenges, too, correct?

MR. RUSSERT: But wait, wait a minute. But what about the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, in terms of money from Jack Abramoff?

REP. PELOSI: What about him?

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let me show you. This is the Associated Press: “Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid portrays convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s activities as involving only Republicans. But Abramoff’s billing records and congressional correspondence tell a different story. They show Abramoff’s lobbying team billed for nearly two dozen contacts with Reid’s office in a single year. ... Reid also wrote at least four letters to the Bush administration helpful to Indian tribes Abramoff represented, often collecting donations from Abramoff-related sources around the same time. And in the midst of the contacts, Abramoff’s firm hired one of Reid’s top legislative aides to lobby for the tribal and Marianas clients. The aide then helped throw a fund-raiser for Reid at Abramoff’s office.”
Here’s the numbers in terms of lobbyist contributions: from 2004 to 2006, lobbyists gave Republicans $20 million dollars, Democrats 17.8.


MR. RUSSERT: You get your money—both parties get their money from lobbyists.

Cameron said...

More from Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gasoline prices. This is how Tom Friedman in The New York Times wrote about it. “What would OPEC do if it wanted to keep America addicted to oil? That’s easy. OPEC would urge the U.S. Congress to deal with the current spike in gasoline prices either by adopting the Republican proposal to give American drivers $100 dollars each, so they could continue driving gas-guzzling cars and buy gasoline at the current $3.50 a gallon, or by adopting the Democrats’ proposal for a 60-day lifting of the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents a gallon. Either one would be fine with OPEC. ... We now have a Congress proposing to do exactly what our worst enemies would like us to do - subsidize our addiction to gasoline by breaking into our kids’ piggy banks to make it easier for us to pay the prices demanded by our oil pushers. ... There is something really disturbing about the utterly shameless, utterly over-the-top Republican pandering and Democratic point-scoring that have been masquerading as governing in response to this energy crisis.”
Brazil has converted its entire automobile flight to sugar—fleet to sugar cane.
MR. RUSSERT: Will the Democrats propose a total energy independence, weaning us off of oil?
MR. RUSSERT: Within a very specific time?
REP. PELOSI: Absolutely and I don’t know...
REP. PELOSI: I don’t know—Democrats are pro—we have proposed in our real security, we rolled this out in March. We’ll roll it out again in June as part of our domestic—because this is a national security issue and it is a domestic issue. Democrats are proposing that we will be energy—are declaring energy independence for the American people and we intend to achieve it within 10 years.
REP. PELOSI: We intend to send our energy dollars to the Midwest and rural America, not to the Middle East. We intend to focus on biofuels, we intend—on alternative energy, conservation and efficiency. As you said, Brazil is doing this. These cars are made by GM and Ford.
MR. RUSSERT: But this will be huge subsidies to bring it about. Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cut to pay for it?
REP. PELOSI: This isn’t—we are willing to put all of our, our initiatives on the table. We think they compete very well. One thing we’ll roll back immediately are the Bush subsidies and royalty holidays which are around $20 billion dollars.
MR. RUSSERT: But would you repeal the Bush tax cut?
REP. PELOSI: Well, what I’m—what we’re talking about here on energy independence is something that will save the American people money.
MR. RUSSERT: But it will take—it all takes money, Congressman. The Brazilian government has subsidized their industry.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts?
REP. PELOSI: I’ll tell you something, if we could bring the war in Iraq to a conclusion, we would save a lot of money and could declare energy independence and this is the, this is the OPEC countries’ worst nightmare, that we would be energy independent. The technology is there, the commitment is there, Democrats have a goal. We have a plan. We have a timetable to accomplish it and we intend to do so. And you know what? Do you know what we spend? Fifty billion dollars a year just protecting the sea lanes for the oil to come from the Middle East. That money can be spent to invest in this.
MR. RUSSERT: But why are you so reluctant to say you’ll roll back the Bush tax cuts? Most Democrats voted against them.
REP. PELOSI: Well, I, myself, am against them. But the point is, is there are choices to be made in our budgets, and, and I will tell you more the Democrats are going to do when we take over the Congress of the United States. But this energy independence is worth—it is a high priority and I think the American people would agree. Now, we have a national security issue, an environmental issue, an economic issue and an energy issue, all well served by—by our energy independence. We have put this in writing. We are committed to it and this week our rural caucus will roll out, roll out.
MR. RUSSERT: But the concern people have, truth in packaging, honesty, authenticity. How are you going to pay for this?

Cameron said...

Again from Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: So wait a minute. So they’ll be no increase in spending if the Democrats take control of Congress?

REP. PELOSI: No deficit spending. I pledge that to you. No deficit spending, pay as you go. Pay as you go.

MR. RUSSERT: So even if you had to raise taxes to pay for the new program?

REP. PELOSI: Well, you put everything on the table and you decide what are the priorities for the American people. But a commitment to no deficit spending is a long-term one with the Democrats, and we were successful. When President Clinton was president, their last four budgets—his last four budgets were in surplus. We came out of the Clinton years $5.6 trillion dollars in surplus, surplus. The Bush policies turn that around. Now we’re $9 trillion dollars debt ceiling when we could’ve been eight—debt-free as a nation by 2008. This is a very high priority for us because it’s a responsibility to our country, it’s a responsibility to our children that we do not heap all of this debt on them. So this is—this is a new era. We’ve had a reversal of roles here. The Democrats, no deficit spending, pay as you go. And that’s what we will do on the first day of Congress is to pass that rule for, for budgeting in the House.

Cameron said...


Nancy Pelosi, Possible Future Speaker of the House, will not say if she will repeal the "Bush tax cuts". She also will not say how she will pay for the programs she and her party propose. What she did say when pressed on the matter was that we should leave Iraq and use that money for stuff.

Mr Russet asked her point blank:

"So even if you had to raise taxes to pay for the new program?"

What was Ms. Pelosi's reply?

"Well, you put everything on the table and you decide what are the priorities for the American people."

That answer does not bode well for next April 15 should Ms. Pelosi become Speaker of the House.

Cameron said...


Brazilian leadership? You are touting a South American country's leadership? Have you been to Brazil? Have you been to any country in South America? These are the countries that are turning to Cuba for political ideas.

As far as the environment is concerned. I promise you don't want to swim in South American rivers. I have seen with my own eyes what is pumped into them, and the diseases on the children that have dared to swim in them.

And Brazil in particular. Apparently they use cars that run on sugar. That sounds great. How much does it cost?

Ms. Pelosi would like us to do the same, but she won't tell us how we're going to pay for it.

Brazil used gov't subsidies to pay for it. We would have to do the same. I think Meet the Press called them "huge subsidies".

That means higher taxes.

Cameron said...


Here are some figures I looked up for the Dow. They can be found here:

11,497.12 Dec 1999
This was the high point for month-ending figures

10,787.99 Dec 2000
By 2000, the Dow had leveled off, and begun its decent.

9,878.78 March 2001
The Dow continued its fall thru the first months of President Bush's first term.

10,911.94 May 2001
By May it had begun to climb a bit

8,847.56 Sep 2001
Then Sep 11 crushed the stock market

10,021.57 Dec 2001
The Dow tried to rebound, but in 2002 we really felt the affects of worldwide terrorism and the economic uncertainty it brought

8,341.63 Dec 2002

10,453.92 Dec 2003

10,783.01 Dec 2004

10,717.50 Dec 2005

11,642.65 May 2006

These are the facts supporting my claim that the stock market had begun to stagnate and fall before President Bush took office. All was not well with "President Clinton's Economy". However, it has been able to threaten new highs in the recent months.

Reach Upward said...

It seems D.C. insider Tom Korologos is correct when he says that Congress can really do only two things, “Nothing and overreact.” Don't look to them for salvation.

A balanced budget would be admirable. It's certainly a foreign thought to our spendthrift Congress and sign-any-spending-bill President. But it's only part of the issue.

The real issue is government spending. The amount of spending is a direct statement of how much daily control government exercises over the lives of us citizens. We're supposed to own the government, not vice versa. Even if we balance the budget, we've simply got to cut spending in a massive way. Or we can say, "Go ahead and take my money. Go ahead and control my life. I'm not able to handle it myself."

Brazil's sugar-powered car nation (bad pun) is nifty. Has anyone stopped to ask how much rain forest has been burned and hacked to create enough cane growing land to support this objective? I read one report (can't find the link) that said that if we used 100% of the agricultural land in the U.S. for this purpose, we would still only produce 71% of the nation's over-the-road energy needs. Pie-in-the-sky looks nice until you stop to check out reality.

MindMechanic said...


I think we agree on the out of control government spending.

While I also agree that we cant completely solve our fuel needs by ag products, wouldnt it be cool if we could decrease our dependence on fossil fuels by, say, just 15%? And if we can access the Anwar reserves thats another estimated 3-5%. Off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico could easily add another 10%. through in the generational transition to hybrids...maybe another 5? 10? heck even personal distilling can contribute to the solution (brewing your own fuel is actually reasonably inexpensive and not particularly dangerous) as can the development of biodeisel techniques. Maybe that contributes just 1%.

Best case scenario and with really just a minor transition, we are now reducing our fossil fuel use for transportation needs by 40%, we are employing more people to make the product, we are significantly reducing greenhouse emissions, and by putting vacated and foreclosed farms back into operation we are putting even more green plants back into the ecosystem.

No-in and of itself it is not THE solution. But I do think it is time to be PART of the solution. Or maybe it is all pie in the sky...but we'll never know till we actually research the possibilities.

I appreciate your hands on opinion regarding the picture in South America. Having lived and travelled around the world, that first hand experience is what piqued my curiosity when Anon posted just the lower half of the listing of global fuel prices. I knew there was more to the story because I have paid for fuel in several European countries and it was always way more expensive than the US.

Anonymous said...

Bush tax cuts are contributing to the elimination and reduction of LOCAL programs and services. Instead of sending aide to the states and cities, as the federal government did during other times of war and recessions, the Administration and Congress chose tax cuts which principally benefit the wealthy. As a result local governments are increasingly forced to choose between funding police departments, health care, education and recreation -- not to mention an avalance of Federal UNFUNDED mandates like NCLB placed on every state.

Since 2002 state governments have closed $200 billion in budget gaps by RAISING taxes and cutting services. During those same years, newly enacted FEDERAL tax cuts delivered about the same amount of money -- $197.3 billion in new tax breaks for the wealthies 1% of Americans.(households making more than 337,000 a year (Lysis and MVM: that ain't us)!!!!

Bush has chosen to force tax HIKES in STATES in order to give tax BREAKS to multi-millionaires.

Bush tax cuts are a SCAM -- Bush tax cuts (being "Bush-whacked) is purely and simply smug "back door" Social Darwinism. The poor and middle class play the role of losers in this EVIL game of 'survival of the fittest', while Bush and the "over-rich" give them the two thumbs down!!!!

Some at the Agora have been "programed" so that when they hear the two words *Tax Cuts*, with true Pavlovian mindless response, begin to salivate happily.

I, however, am suspicious -- increasing or decreasing taxes is ALWAYS a game of "whose ox gets gored".

Really, it is a very simple proposition -- pay for today's perennially unbudgetable wars and disasters TODAY by RESPONSIBLY raising taxes, or foister the debt upon future generations by DEFERRING payment to them; or SCAM and LIE to the public and offer a shell game to shills of CUTTING TAXES then OBSCENELY raising the debt and deficits to satisfy Big Oil and Big Haliburton cronies!!!! Trickle down B.S.!!!!

Cameron said...


The truth comes out. Ms. Pelosi would not say it, but you did. The answer to all our woes is to raise taxes. Ms. Pelosi won't say it because she knows that the majority of citizens do not want their taxes raised. She plans on diverting our attention long enough to get elected and then pulling the rug out from under us.

I suppose this is what truly divides us. You are ok with gov't continuing to spend money and tax its citizens. I support the current tax cuts and credit them for an improving economy despite wars and natural disasters.

The best way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending. If I want more money in my bank account, I can go get a second or third job, or I can stop shopping. I can buy generic food, drive less, stop going to the movie theater, and pack a lunch instead of eating out. I am confident that the gov't can find billions of dollars wasted on frivolous things in its budget. Find them and cut them out.

Not all states have to increase taxes. Didn't the state of Utah just spend their legislative session arguing over how to spend the tax surplus? I'm afraid that doesn't support your assertion that states have to raise taxes to offset lower federal taxes. Utah just knows how to run a relatively efficient gov't. In fact, "President Clinton's Economy" should have used the Utah model during the boom years and saved the extra money. That way when the inevitable hard times came, it would lessen the blow.

Finally, the tax cuts enacted under President Bush did not just help the wealthy. The lowest rate was dropped to 10%. It also added more tax rate divisions, which lessen the overall tax burden for everyone, especially for those that already pay less. It increased the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Credit. These credits are interesting in that they are basically free money. You have a child? Here's a thousand dollars. You're poor and you have children? Here's three thousand dollars. Credits are different than deductions. Even if you are too poor to pay any income tax, you can get a refund because of these credits. These principles are a bit more complicated than Tax 101, but still simple enough for you to understand, I hope.

In order to prevent further questioning of my Christianity, I will say that my previous paragraph was not a condemnation of money given to the poor. It is our duty and responsibility as human beings to help our neighbors. That certainly is the "Christian" thing to do. I think you will find that generally Mormons are pretty good at helping their neighbors. Both monetarily and with time.

However, I do not believe that gov't should be the middle man in dispersing that help. It has proven itself to be inefficient at best and corrupt at worst.

MindMechanic said...


pay for todays wars, especially the war on terror, because it beats the HELL out of the alternative, and then gut the ridiculous pork barrel federal spending.

heck...i'll go you one better...shut down all the redundant federal agencies and lower federal taxes and let the states tax appropriately. Do you REALLY believe it is a GOOD idea to tax citizens at the federal level, pay for a federal beauracracy, and then magnaminously allow the federal government to laddle back to the states a portion?

Use the education department as an example. Now...before I post this I will state up front that I DONT have the resource in front of me so my numbers may not be spot on, but with a little digging you will see they are pretty dang close.

In 2003 the Fed Ed dept was budgeted at 66 billion dollars. they PROUDLY announced they had distributed some 35 billion dollars to the states for education spending.

Cut it how you want...that is still a 31 billion dollar LOSS. Now...remove the fed ed. Remove the 66 billion dollar tax burden on the states (ummm...on the CITIZENS of the states...). Allow the states to tax and spend as required (and most importantly, with state citizen oversight and control).

Which is preferable? To me there is no question.

Trans is another good example. We have this massive federal dept of transportation with its beauracracy. Each state has its fed offices and fed employees. But look...the states ALSO has a transportation department.

How much more effective would tax dollars be spent if we didnt have to spend money supporting a federal and state level management beauracracy?

Homeland security is no different. After following the 9-11 commission guidelines, the fed created a new department that hired 1200 people without putting a single agent in the field...1200 management jobs.

the big dig...the bridge to think there are a TON of federal projects that would NEVER be funded if the states knew they ahd had to pay for them...

We dont need to raise taxes...we need to spend more wisely.

MindMechanic said...

Just 1 good place to start cutting.

hey...make you a deal...(like this matters and we have a say...)

YOU agree to cut pork, and when the pork is fully cut and we cant cut anymore...then I agree to raise taxes until the debt is paid...

Lysis said...

I have enjoyed the debate very much. It is good to read so much good information and get some good laughs along the way. It is comforting to have so apply demonstrated the undisputable power of truth. When the truth is presented the propaganda melts before it.

Only a few of thoughts, as it will be unnecessary and impractical to attempt to comment on all the great ideas presented above.

1. Vegimatic:

I agree with you on the dubious value of polls, and would only add that it is “America’s nature” to dislike governments – and governors. Most voters will, however, say they are happy with their own Congressman. It will take a lot more than the anger of Dan Russet and the spin of CNN to run the incumbents of either party out of office.

2. Magic Valley Mormon:

Let me bear my testimony to the sure knowlege, that however bad things get; they would have been worse with Kerry or Gore in the White House, and a Democrat majority in either house of the Congress. Look at all the trouble the Dems have caused America as obstructionists.

3. Flaccid:

a) To continue with the thought above. Whatever the cost of the Liberation of Iraq – it is less than the untold destruction that a Saddam Hussein armed with WMD would have wrought on mankind and especially America. If the terrorists fight so doggedly in defeat, think what they would have done had they had victory in the Middle East?

b) I know you don’t understand what “real wages” and “real costs” are. It is obvious when you compare US gas prices to those paid in “third world countries”. When the average America pays a few minuets of labor for a gallon of gas, and a Chinese pays a week’s earnings for the same amount, it is stupid to make the comparison and then claim that the Chinaman is paying less! It is even sillier to compare US prices with those paid by an Iranian who is probably not getting paid at all. However, if you would rather live in a country with lower gas prices, let me suggest you try Azerbaijan, you’d probably fit in amazingly well. I hear almost no one drives cars and the libraries there are open all night; of course there are no books.

4. Reach Upward:

On Brazil’s energy success – check out what happened last week when Uruguay found out that Brazil was in the cat-bird-seat energy-wise. They nationalized the Brazilian oil company holdings is Uruguay and started demanding more money for the oil. So much for the “World Wide Socialist Brotherhood”, and so much for the Brazilian “energy miracle!”

5. Danny Boy:

I only have one thing to say regarding the economic successes of Bush I and Clinton – Ronald Reagan.


I am willing to use all my clout to push through your cut pork plan. However, please remember that it is the economic boom spurred by the Bush tax cuts that is putting ever growing income into the national coffers.

Now another thought – going back to the original impetus of the post. For the last couple of days I have been playing a clip of Dr. Zhivago to my World History students. One of the bits it the part were Zhivago returns home from the war to find 13 families – all starving and reached - living in his father-in-laws house. The “local delegate” tells the doctor, that as a medical person he must report to the hospital at once.

“Oh yes,” says Zhivago, “I here there is typhus!”

“You have been listening to rumor mongers,” says the commissar, “there is no typhus in this city.”

There you go, the socialist lie, the “say it and its so” mentality of the left. As in all things in the Soviet Union, health existed only on paper. I find so much in common with this Socialist Realist attitude of now dead Communism and that of the “French Judges” that publish their attacks on America. It took seventy years for the “truth to out” in Russia. How long must we suffer?

Anonymous said...

Who is Dan Russet? Do you mean Tim Russert? Dan Rather? Were you trying to make a witty hybrid of the two? It is painful that others look to you for information and inspiration Lysis.

Lysis said...


I have hope for you. I come up with a tag name for the entire hate filled, lie generating, spin factory that is the “Old Media, News” and it only takes you 4 hours to figure it out. Rather gratifying that the rest of the Agora understood it on the spot! Flaccid, maybe you should go for your own show on ACN! But I guess you couln't call it Hard "Anything" could you.

Anonymous said...

Hey All!

Just wondered if anyone read conservative rag Wall Street Journal this morning. Their WSJ/Harris Poll has Bush at 29% approval! Woo-hoo!! How low can you go, how low can you go! Even most Republicans disbelieve the kind of lying drivel that comes out Liesis' mouth now. They aren't so dumb after all. Just slow. Really, really slow.

Enjoy the good news! Extra, extra, read all about it ....

Anonymous said...

I don't think it is anything to celebrate. The failure of this President is America's failure. After one of our most vulneralbe moments as a country the President made an enemy of the world, divided the country and has pursued reckless spending and government expansion programs that have depleted our precious resources.

He has severely hurt the good name America spent generations building. He has promoted democracy only to turn his back on it and cozied up to dictators to keep America addicted to oil. He threw away the greatest opportunity to unite this country in decades and do something positive, like dedicating the U.S. to energy independence freeing us up to pursue true democratic reforms around the world.

There is no celebrating that our leader has failed us so completely and that he continues to do so. We have to live with the consequences of his failures for years to come, he has only two more years to swagger through his inept decision making without having to ever bury the consequences of them.

If you want to celebrate then cheer the fact that Americans are having enough of being divided for political gain and are demanding better. Do not celebrate the failures of a corrupt man and his corruption of the American identity of truth and justice.

Cameron said...

The "Citizens Against Governement Waste" produces an annual "Pigbook". Their website is

You can look up pork spending by year, state, and by type of appropriation. Follow this link:

Lysis said...

Oh Flaccid;

Give your wilting little disciple a chance to celebrate. The polls are all he has. He like you has not noticed that neither America nor the President is failing. As the original post above illustrated, the “French Judges” can say what ever they please, thinking people will see the truth.

Having been devastated in the factual and logical combat above, (My thanks to all who took the trouble to debunk you) you and yours are left with nothing to do but recite the tired, limp, and empty incantations. You have no facts to back your bitter dribble and not logic to defend the deceitful ruling of your biased judgment.

Let “Little Sulky”, Osama, Mullah Omar, and Dan Russet celebrate the polls, it’s all they’ve got; the gods role their eyes and laugh!

Cameron said...


This link:

which is also from the Wall Street Journal, shows President Bush at 34.7% approval rating.

More importantly, especially to the current discussion, is that it shows the Congress at 23.6% approval.

I doubt Americans dissaprove of Congress because we want them to raise taxes. I'm confident that Americans dissaprove of Congress because Congress spends too much of Americans' money.

Lysis said...

Thanks, Magic Valley Mormon!

Little Sulky;

What is it you Frenchies say? Touché!

Anonymous said...

The "TRUTH" comes out, MVM claims that that Anon too says "that the answer to all our problems is/was to raise taxes????

That was NEVER ANYTHING I came close to saying -- My thesis was, (check the record) . . . "increasing or decreasing taxes is ALWAYS a game of whose OX gets gored." I then went on to explain that there were honest and dishonest ways to do BOTH and that Bush had been particularly dishonest with tax cuts offered over the past 5 years, because OVER ALL TAXES have INCREASED, especially for the poor and middle class, because of INCREASED STATE and LOCAL taxes, not to mention the "backdoor taxes" of INCREASED FEDERAL, LOCAL and STATE FEES of ALL KINDS!!!!
MVM responded with, "look at Utah taxes" -- yes, home of the "stack 'em deep and teach 'em cheap"; last place in educational spending (just keep 'em dumb) and dinged with every FEE known to man MOTHERLAND -- the just don't call increased government revenue increased government taxation SCAM!!!!

Let's simplify things -- MVM claims that Bush' tax cuts have "improved" the economy (the claim is just as absurd and unverifiable as Mullah Lysis' claim to "KNOW" what a Gore or Kerry Presidency would be like --present something more SCIENTIFIC and credible than testimonials from the Oxycontin jailbird and the Hannitizer)

On the other hand, I claim that the dishonest Bush tax cuts have INCREASED, and will CONTINUE to harmfully increase, the DEBT and DEFICIT of the country -- the best evidence is LOGIC. The bill's have to be paid NOW or LATER; Bush has chosen to defer payment 'till later, because just servicing the INTEREST on the National debt has jeopardize the pet discretionary ventures with which Bush and the Republican Congress have woefully encumbered the country -- THAT'S the place to CUT!!!! Has the deficit increased over the years of the Bush tax cuts? -- try a new strategy and answer the question honestly for a change!!!!

Cameron said...


You miss the point. The deficit is increasing because the gov't spends more than it takes in. You want to stop deficit spending by increasing the amount of money the gov't takes in. I want the gov't to spend less, thereby decreasing the deficit.

Cameron said...

Anon, RESPONSIBLY raising taxes...

Your words.

Cameron said...


....The best way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending....

My words.

Anonymous said...

. . . and DECREASING government revenues through tax cuts is going to force Bush to spend LESS??? Apparently not when he can saddle up future generations with crushing debt covering his spendthrift notions of today!!!!

I want IN come to NOT be so horrendously lopsided to OUT go -- I guess MVM' "tax cut" zeal would even embrace defaulting on the National Debt???? Not to mention what the enormous deficit is doing to the U.S. dollar and U.S. worldwide creditworthiness.

Read more thoroughly, I made some suggestions about cuts in spending.

Anonymous said...

There are two OR's affixed to the FRAGMENT of the SENTENCE whose WHOLE sense you have chosen to IGNORE, but rather fixate on the three words . . . responsibly raise taxes . . . as if many many other words had not followed.

Choose rather to respond to the ARGUMENTS that ARE made rather than dim witted drivel you choose to concoct!!!!

Also, in your religious utterings I find very little Christianity to condemn.

Cameron said...


You wrote:

Really, it is a very simple proposition -- pay for today's perennially unbudgetable wars and disasters TODAY by RESPONSIBLY raising taxes, or foister the debt upon future generations by DEFERRING payment to them; or SCAM and LIE to the public and offer a shell game to shills of CUTTING TAXES then OBSCENELY raising the debt and deficits to satisfy Big Oil and Big Haliburton cronies!!!! Trickle down B.S.!!!!

Which means raise taxes.

Brainmechanic wrote:

The latest figures show the US took in the highest number of taxes in April ($315 billion) so income isnt a problem apparently-the tax cuts are stimulating revenue and growth. The problem is outgo.

Which means cut spending.

Brainmechanic also wrote:

Gas prices too high? Well...sure...I want lower gas prices too. Howsabout the fed, state,and local govts give up the 80 cents to $1.60 per gallon (depending on which state you live in) of tax money they rake in on a product they have no financial investment in producing?

Which means that taxes are already high on gasoline.

Anon wrote:

Your claim that repealing the dividend tax cut for the uber wealthy of this country will do nothing to help the poor. You are too simple to understand that the target of repealing this tax cut is to restore governemnt revenues necessary to bring the budget into balance

Which means raise taxes. Even if it is disguised as "repeal tax cut" and "restore government revenues".

Anon wrote:

"Second, Clinton-era Pay As You Go fundamentals will be passed again. They were repealed under the Bush tax cut. The tax cuts were never paid for and are the biggest reason the federal debt has mushroomed. Defecit spending will not be allowed to increase."

Anon did not say that spending increases were not paid for, rather that tax cuts were not paid for. What does it take to "pay for" tax cuts? A reduction in spending.

I've read you're posts further to verify my opinion that you are advocating increased taxes. I have seen nothing to change my opinion.

Anonymous said...

If I borrow $20,000 to buy a car that turns out to be a lemmon, with a payment of $500.00 a month of which I can afford only $300.00, MVM explains that the situation can be corrected by avoiding FUTURE deficit spending!!!!

MVM, my man, I think the 2006 Toyota Camry is "the bomb". Come be the co-signer for my deficit spending ways!!!!

Cameron said...


Just say it, you want to raise taxes.

If you buy a car that you can't pay for, you're an idiot. That applies to Congress as well.

If you have expenses you can't cover with your income, you first find expenses to cut. I have already posted on this principle. Feel free to read it again.

If we let Congress raise taxes to fix Congress's own mistakes, they will never give the money back.

I have attempted time and again to convince you by your own words that you advocate raising taxes. You have thus far refused to admit it. The national Democratic Party behaves the same way. Please explain to us all what your grand plan is then.

Lysis said...


Doesn’t it impress you at all Flaccid that, although Utah is at the bottom in per pupil spending, they are well up in the pile as to educational quality. I think the Magic Valley Mormon has you here. Money, misspent, is not the answer to educational problems.

You say I have no scientific proof that Kerry would have ruined the world. Your right; I made that call on faith, and I thank God that neither Kerry nor Gore ever got the chance to surrender the West into the hands of terrorists. What is demonstrable is that Bush has driven the terrorists into holes from which they have not been able to strike at America. Facts are facts, even in your “science”, Flaccid.

Of course your whole argument on taxes is the same Faith - vs. - Fact situation you chide me for presenting in the area of the War on Terror. Your faith is that somehow “tax and spend” Democrats, who are in the pocket of every special interest group under the sun, would spend less than the Republicans. Let me warn you, with such misplaced faith, you’re headed for Jones Town.

Lysis said...

Please allow me to correct my post above, (way above). I said that Uruguay had nationalized Brazilian Oil interests in a show of Socialist Solidarity. I was wrong. It was Bolivia, not Uruguay. I hope Uruguay will forgive me.

Anonymous said...

Oh this is great! Did you see CNN's new poll? It shows how completely ostracized from MSA (main-stream America) you Liesis people are. It's on t.v. I'll copy it here for you, have a look and think of more ways to rationalize how all of America is wrong and you are right - something about all of America turning French or wanting to live in South America or some other stupid nonsensical reasoning.

"Friday, May 12 (CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided but Clinton was still preferred, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate."

Wouldn't it be cool to have a President who's only crime was infedelity instead of murdering thousands, systematically destroying the constitution and impoverishing millions of Americans for years to come? Of course it would. The more you say otherwise the more you sound like you aren't even from this planet. Or that you are from that even more bizarre place, Utah!

MindMechanic said...

Interesting the spin on polling. Take this article, pulled word for word and where from...some conservative rag? No...the Ultra Liberal DailyKOS-

"Polls lie

I had been meaning to post about this for some time, but Dick Morris beat me to it: polling sucks. In short, the number of hangups and opt-outs are providing pollsters with skewed demographic data. In some states, up to 30 percent of households are off-limits to pollsters.

In addition to Morris' arguments, there are also problems with poll questions (who would answer "no" to the question, "Do you support President Bush's efforts to ensure the national security of the United States?") and even methodology. For example, many polls try to pinpoint "likely voters" by identifying those who have voted in the previous three elections. However, that approach cannot measure the effects of Get Out The Vote efforts in poor communities, or new immigrant voters in states like Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. Or new, younger voters.

Which ultimately means that polls are becoming increasingly inaccurate.

I've never taken polls as accurate measures of a race's final outcome. They are useful in other ways -- to gauge momentum, to get a feel of who is the frontrunner, to measure the effects of debates, speeches, gaffes, etc.

So, whenever you look at the "Poll Watch" on the right column of the homepage, just remember, the numbers are all foma: they are lies."

SOmething to keep in mind...Opinion Research Corp, the company that did the polling, is a for hire company hired by corporations like GM, Exxon, and oh this particular case...CNN...

"The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN."

Just some perspective.

Polls are easily manipulated. For example...if I want consrrvative results for my poll...I contact working professionals or men in malls after 6pm or on the weekends. If I want liberal results I poll college students, unemployed works, counduct my polls between 9am and 4 pm, etc.

And dont worry...because everyone does it. The NRA, the right to life groups, the republican party, they are just as likely to poll positively as the left groups.

MindMechanic said...

On Clinton-

Just a few things.

Clinton didt go on trial for an affair w/ Lewinsky. He was on trial because he asked a trooper to invite a young female staffer to his room for some help on a campaign and when she did she found him sitting on a couch with his pants around his ankles and a towel over his lap. When she walked in, he stood up, let the towel drop, and asked her to "kiss it" (BTW...she didnt take him up on her offer, but was still labelled a bimbo and slut by the liberal attack machine). The staffer thought that was insulting, degrading, and inappropriate and filed suit.

During the deposition Clinton was asked if he had any other such occaisions or occaisions where he had been unfaithful. He lied, under oath.

But there IS more...Juanita Broderick told democrat campaign staffers immediately after she was raped by Clinton, yet she was pressured to keep silent.

Jennifer Flowers was labelled a liar and a slut after she admitted to a 12 year affair w/ Clinton (complete w/ tapes).

Kathleen Wiley was pinned in a doorway and groped by Clinton on the DAY OF HER HUSBANDS FUNERAL.

But the focus was on Lewinsky. Fact is...that was nothing but a lucky break for Clinton. Here the man was up on charges of sexual harassment and had been accused by numerous other women not just of affairs but of unwanted groping...and all the world thinks about is an agreed to affair. Sure...between the president of the united states and a woman who under his own definitions (see Clintons positions on gun control and 'child' victims) would be labelled a child.

“I am proud that my husband has stood up as president to confront the violence and to protect American women.” But Kuiper also accurately recounts how Hillary privately revealed a complete lack of concern for “protecting women against violence” when she asked to meet Juanita Broaddrick just weeks after Juanita had been raped by Bill Clinton. Hillary was willing to do whatever it took to prevent Juanita from holding her husband accountable for an unspeakable act of violence.

Kuiper also quotes Hillary Clinton as saying of the many women who have reported having sexual encounters with Bill Clinton (forced or otherwise): “These women are all trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” This is hardly how “Jesus himself” would respond to women reporting what often amounted to sexual mistreatment, and we doubt that He would “crucify” Gennifer Flowers for daring to disclose her affair with Hillary’s husband -- even though Bill Clinton himself eventually admitted under oath to having the affair with Flowers. Hillary professes to be “a voice for America’s children,” yet at an event with preschoolers at the governor’s mansion as first lady of Arkansas Mother Clinton was overheard on the intercom system saying, “I want to get this s--- over with and get these damn people out of here.”

MindMechanic said...

More Clinton-

Foreign policy...

DIDNT we go to WAR against a sovereign nation under Clinton...a nation who never fired a shot at us?

Didnt we tuck tail and run in Somalia after Clinton first demanded action and then second denied armor for the military because "he didnt like the message it would send" if we sent more armored support and then third when things went horribly bad after one operation?

Didnt Bill Clinton pay off North Korea every time Kim Il Jung rattled his little much so that Kim saw America as a dog ready to dance every time he pulled his strings? And didnt Kim STILL go ahead and develop his nuclear technology even though Clinton bribed him not to?

Wasnt that Clinton that turned an absolute blind eye to Rwanda but today says we should have done more in Darfur?

Wasnt that Bill Clinton that supported regime change and economic sanctions against Iraq for 8 years...the same policies that liberals like Sean Penn attributed to George Bush and called them respinsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqi children?

And yes...I suppose it IS fair to say that socialist nations like France favored Bill. Socialists know their own.

On can do your own work on Iraq...just do a search for Clintons 8 year position on Iraq, especially focusing on his public speeches after he atacked them on 8 seperate occasions...

Bill...Madelline Albright, William a little digging on ALL of the Clinton administrations top foreign policy people and watch how they say one thing for 8 years and then do an absolute 180 when a republican is in office.

And BTW...I am not even a hater of Bill. Bill is Bubba. He is the same guy today as he was before he was elected. Anyone that didnt expect the bimbo eruptions, the cash and carry white house access, the FOB mentallity at all levels of his staff just werent paying attenting during the election run-up. He ran Arkansas the same way. I didnt vote for him but didnt expect him to be anything other than what he was ultimately proved to be.

MindMechanic said...

On tax cuts and the economy-

There are some very simple, very basic and very effective economic concepts at work. Tax cuts stimulate spending. Spending equals federal and state tax collection. Spending stimultes economic growth. Economic gowth spurs job creation and low unemployment. Low unemployment (4.7% is described as pretty much zero unemployment in that ANYONE that wants a job can find a job) stimulates federal and state tax collection. And the cycle repeats itself. Its not magic and its not hard to understand. Anyone that has taken any basic economics classes can figure this out.

The flip side...

Higher taxes equals stunted economic growth. Businesses lay off workers to protect operating investment. Investors put their money in safe and long term growth which causes increased economic uncertainty and higher unemployment. More people out of work means higher social spending which results in the need for higher taxes.And the cycle repeats.

The problem here is that while tax cuts did PRECISELY what they were expected to do (and the economy is a witness to that) the congress AND the president have not fullfilled part two, which is control federal spending.

I think we have to stress again...a little civics 101 on constitutional policy. The president does not pass legislation, the president SIGNS legislation. CONGRESS passes legislation, including federal budgets. Which is NOT to say the president doesnt have input. However congress is so keen on stuffing an already bloated federal budget with their own pork projects that what is proposed is ALWAYS what is NEEDED PLUS the pork.

I wish the "advocates of the people" had a better understanding of economics. For example (and we have seen it here) liberals are for increasing the minimum wage and for increased social spending. OK...but guess what happens as soon as the minimum wage increase. Small businesses begin firing people. Prices on moderate cost foods increase. Everyone wants their little slice. The minimum wage worker is WORSE OFF than before...but politicians get to go out and say "look what we did...we care". They say the same thing about raising taxes on the rich, and with no regard to what the policy actually does.

MindMechanic said...

Just for fun...I went back and did a little comparison of CNN polls over the last few months. Whoever it is they are polling...some things remain pretty much constant. The number of disaprovals hasnt budged. The difference is in the approval ratings and the unsure ratings.


CNN 5/5-7/06 34 58 8 -24

CNN 1/6-8/06 43 54 3 -11

CNN 12/16-18/05 41 56 3 -15

CNN 10/28-30/05 41 56 3 -15

CNN 10/13-16/05 39 58 3 -19

To be blunt...the Fox polling (I know some people dont like "faux") has been the most honest. The Fox polling does in fact show a steady decrease...from disapproval ratings of 47% in October to 53% curently, with minor cyclical wavering in between.

And BTW...someone here recently cited the Harris about a biased polling center. Do you actually realize what the Harris center does? The 'open' their polls for anyone that wants to login and post. So...if Newsmax posts a link to a poll...guess who will be responding. Or Drudge, or the DAILY KOS...etc. You find THAT reliable???

BTW...CBS, USA Today, And Gallup have for the same period polled disapproval ratings consistently in the 60's.

MindMechanic said...

Last comment-

The difference between the Clinton economy and the current economy is night and day. Clinton's economic growth was spurred by the dot com boom. The problem with that was that it showed massive growth and then massive bust potential.

The Bush economy has been driven primarily by new job creation especially in the home development sector.

The downside to all of this is that it ignores what history has taught us is a must when it comes to economic security-the economic security of a nation depends on its INDUSTRIAL base. Until that situation is rectified...and BOTH parties ignore this...we are a step away from economic disaster. We CANNOT maintain economic growth based solely on a sevrice based economy. Thats just my own personal opinion...

Anonymous said...

Ha ha!

I just saw a poll on CNN that a huge majority of Americans think Bill Clinton was a better president than George Dubya Bush, by 65% to 25%! According to a majority of Americans - what better source to ask - Bill Clinton was better in EVERYTHING from handling the economy, fighting terrorism, and even trustworthiness. You know you're in trouble when Republican support has ebbed so low for the current G-man that it can't even stop people from picking their mortal enemy as a more trustworthy pres (after they spent all those millions and millions of dollars to paint him otherwise). I think where the cracks first started to show were at the State of the Union when Dubya admitted Clinton was one of his dad's favorite people. I wonder who his dad thinks was the better president!? (If you believe all of the old gaurd from Bush I, the articles they have written and fights they have had with II's advisors, it is Clinton!)

This really has become the elephant in the room. Great that they are asking these questions now. We are finally back to that famous question of Ronald Reagan: Are you better off today than you were [6] years ago? (Majoriity of Americans) NO!

Anonymous said...


"Did you see CNN's new poll? It shows how completely ostracized from MSA (main-stream America) you Liesis people are. It's on t.v. I'll copy it here for you, have a look and think of more ways to rationalize how all of America is wrong and you are right - something about all of America turning French or wanting to live in South America or some other stupid nonsensical reasoning."

-So True!! Just check at how Irrelevant reacted! Blah blah blah, polls are wrong, Clinton was wrong, America is wrong, we're all turning into French people.

You see the best thing about that opinion poll? 51% think Clinton did a better job on tax policy compared to 35% for Bush. Probably because Bill Clinton knew how to pay for everything instead of passing it on to the next President. This president is an expert at that.

I've been watching that Rasmussen daily poll since it was mentioned by Liesis. Bush hit a new all time low in the poll yesterday, 39%. He just can't get a break.

Hope all of you Republicans in the Cult of Liesis are happy. We got a big hang over coming from all of this deficit spending and Big Oil, Big Pharm subsidies your leaders have been handing out in D.C.

MindMechanic said...


You are in common form.

If you think I am a defender of all things republican or conservative then you have missed every post I have ever made.

Silly me...trying to inject some actual point/counterpoint into the debate instead of the all too common and incredibly childish tit-for-tat nonsense.

Ive said it before. I dont need to make insulting comments here. Your own words damn you far more than mere antagonistic rhetoric.

Lysis said...


Thanks for the good stuff; you should not be surprised that Flaccid thinks that facts are a defense of things conservative. His arguments are often at odds with the truth.

I too am tired of tit-for-tat, but find it hard to be titted without tatting back.


To your claims about the popularity of Clinton, I am impressed that there are many in Russia who, in their ignorance, are nostalgic for Stalin. I have even met people who would remember Mao with honor. Again, polls and opinions are of little value until won puts them in context of the truth.

If you would read my original post above you will see that my point has always been that it takes witnessing the truth to counter the lies of the “French Judges” of the world. You keep rooting for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, their truth will out. The truth will also speak for or against President Bush and the spinning politicos who seek their own power at the expense of their own nation. I am very confident the truth will reveal the courage and excellence of this President. I am not as hopeful with Clinton; and as for Gore and Kerry, we can all be glad that they have dropped off the pages of history at last.

Cameron said...


You guys kill me. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction to facts and data, but it's hard not to be. Here Brainmechanic spent so much time and effort reading and researching and posting all this information, and the two of you stick your heads in the sand and call people names.

Have you nothing to say about what Brainmechanic posted? He revealed some pretty damning evidence about President Clinton, and you two responded with poll numbers.

I thought we had already talked this whole polling issue to death. I guess not. Well, instead of finding new ways to say the same thing, I'll just copy and paste from a previous post where I used information that one of the Anons posted. Here goes:

"President Clinton's lowest rating was 37%
President Ford's lowest rating was 37%"

Well that proves it! President Clinton was just about as good a president as Gerald Ford was. Case closed.

Go ahead and call me names now. Go on, be creative....

MindMechanic said...

I find it not a little bit amusing that the anon collective revels in Clintonicity. They arent alone. Many liberals were willing to swallow anything (ummm....never mind...) that Clinton sent their way because he was their champion.

NOW ignored the fact that Clinton is an accused rapist, masher, repeat adulter, and lets face it, first rate dirtbag when it comes to the whole "being a man" thing because he was their champion when it came to protecting abortion. His wife ignored it because she knew he was her best path to power.

As long as he leads their cause, they and his apologists will gladly carry his load for him.

Want a little bit of fun? Break out the DSM IV and do some Axis 1 personality profiles of Clinton and his choice of women. Its very enlightening. Not for judgement...just for understanding.

And as I said earlier...anyone that was paying attention in the 1992 democrat primaries had Clinton figured out a long time ago. He didnt just go to the White House and become who he was-he was always the same guy.

Cameron said...

Seriously though, I found this article as I researched a few other things and I think it pertains nicely to some of our conversations. Here is the link:

Here are a few excerpts:

"Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years."

"Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes."

"Although Americans were making some of the largest per-household tax payments in our nation's history, revenues plummeted in 2002 and 2003."

"If we really want to avoid burdening our children and grandchildren with debt -- which does represent a major problem -- we need to reform entitlement programs. Within the lifetimes of today's college students, the combined budgets of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will consume all federal revenues, leaving nothing for defense, education, housing or any other program"

Now, I would like to point out that this article was written by Sen. Bill Frist, a Republican. Republicans have incentive to write about the benefits of tax cuts vs. tax increases. So perhaps his statments could be taken with a grain of salt. If either of the Anons, or anyone else for that matter, has information to prove or disprove Senator Frist's statments I would like to read it.

Cameron said...


I find it abhorrent that a man who behaved like President Clinton is reveared by so many. How are actions like his ignored? They're not rumors or propoganda either. These are actions verified by many people over a long period of time. I was particularly dismayed when Anon basically called it "only infidelity". Talk about sweeping under the rug. His actions were much more than just "harmless" affairs.

Cameron said...


I've been doing some reading. I have to admit, this whole PAYGO item you posted on sounded awfully neato. Here's a sampling of what you wrote on this topic:

"Your next question was "Does anyone believe [Clinton] would have cut spending in the face of less tax revenues coming in? I don't." But you fail to understand that Clinton had no choice because Pay As You Go was a budgetary rule enacted under Clinton. It is known ast the PAYGO rule and requires no increase in defecit spending wihout approval of 60 Senators. This rule led to a balanced budget and the greatest surplus in U.S. history. It was repealed with the first unpaid for Bush TRILLION dollar tax cut. Do I think Clinton would have decreased spending? He was forced to by law. Only two Presidents have held themselves above the law, Nixon and Bush."

It got me thinking. Was President Clinton and the Congress forced to cut spending because of PAYGO?


Cameron said...

According to C-Span,

PAYGO means this:

The PAYGO or pay-as-you-go rule compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit.
New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds.

Cameron said...

I read this to mean that under PAYGO rules, any increase in spending or decrease in taxes must be:

Budget Neutral or Offset by Savings.

Budget neutral would mean being offset by either an increase in taxes (in the case of proposed spending increase), or a decrease in spending (in the case of proposed tax cut).

Offset by savings would mean find inneficiencies in other places and use those savings to pay for changes to the budget, whether those changes be tax cuts or spending increases.

Cameron said...

Therefore, when President Clinton was faced with falling tax revenues he would not have been "forced" to cut spending as you suggested.

He would have been "forced" to raise taxes.

Cameron said...

But my research did not stop there:

This article discusses a previous proposal to reinstate the PAYGO rules. Here are some excerpts:

Pay as you go, or "Paygo," is a budgeting rule requiring any revenue lost as the result of a tax cut, or spent through the enactment of new entitlement programs, to be paid for either by raising other federal taxes or reducing other federal entitlement spending. Paygo rules don't apply to the growth of existing entitlement programs; they increase automatically every year. Social Security grows about 5% annually, and it is exempt. Medicare grows about 9%, Medicaid about 7%; they and President Bush's new drug benefit can all continue to grow without limitation. Existing entitlement programs total about $1.3 trillion in annual spending, and are expected to double in the next 10 years. They are all unaffected by Paygo, on autopilot.

But tax cuts aren't exempt. Under the Senate's Paygo the existing Bush tax cuts would one by one expire over the next few years unless they get 60 votes in the Senate. New tax cuts would require 60 votes to pass unless accompanied by equivalent spending reductions. So entitlements like Social Security or Medicare would have to absorb very large reductions to pay for tax cuts. Obviously that would cause political pain and suffering, helping Senate Democrats reach their goal of making sure that tax cuts never happen and higher government spending always happens.

Make no mistake about how Paygo would be applied in the future: a 60-vote majority, very difficult to muster, would be needed to continue the Bush tax cuts when they begin to expire in 2005 and 2006. But on the spending side we have already seen that Paygo would regularly be waived. Three times since the four liberal Republicans ensured its adoption, each has voted to waive another 60-vote requirement for new spending programs, including a $35 billion entitlement expansion for disabilities education. How do you suppose they will vote if John Kerry is elected and pushes his $653 billion catastrophic care insurance plan?

Cameron said...

So, entitlement programs are not affected by PAYGO. This is interesting since these programs are growing at increased rates and will soon consume the entire federal budget.

President Bush tried to revamp and fix one of these entitlement programs: Social Security.

Congressional Democrats cheered its demise on national television and then offered zilch as an alternative.

These are your "bi-partisan" Congressional Democrats.

Cameron said...

"Existing entitlement programs total about $1.3 trillion in annual spending, and are expected to double in the next 10 years."

I thought this part in particular warranted a repeat.

Yes that's "trillion", and "double in the next 10 years".

All unaffected by PAYGO.

Cameron said...

More on PAYGO:

"Consider the case of the Medicare drug bill. Had PAYGO been in place in 2003, it likely would have prevented this unaffordable expansion of government. Instead, lawmakers demanded no offsets to the expensive Medicare drug benefit. The year before, they demanded no offsets to the budget-busting farm bill. Now that the spending damage has been done and the debate has turned to taxes, some of these same lawmakers have suddenly discovered budget deficits – and are calling for strict PAYGO rules that would raise taxes"

Raise taxes? That sounds like Anon's solution.

Actually, this article goes on to suggest ways that PAYGO could be modified to force cuts in spending. I think that's the better way to go.

Cameron said...

A reminder from Possible Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: So wait a minute. So they’ll be no increase in spending if the Democrats take control of Congress?

REP. PELOSI: No deficit spending. I pledge that to you. No deficit spending, pay as you go. Pay as you go.

MR. RUSSERT: So even if you had to raise taxes to pay for the new program?

REP. PELOSI: Well, you put everything on the table and you decide what are the priorities for the American people

Cameron said...

She continues her mantra of "no deficit spending".

But her solution is to raise taxes.

Cameron said...


I hope this clears up the PAYGO issue. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

Cameron said...


Despite my best efforts, in previous posts you still seemed to cling to the idea that repealing the "Bush Tax Cuts" would help the poor and middle class.

I thought this post:

"Finally, the tax cuts enacted under President Bush did not just help the wealthy. The lowest rate was dropped to 10%. It also added more tax rate divisions, which lessen the overall tax burden for everyone, especially for those that already pay less. It increased the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Credit. These credits are interesting in that they are basically free money. You have a child? Here's a thousand dollars. You're poor and you have children? Here's three thousand dollars. Credits are different than deductions. Even if you are too poor to pay any income tax, you can get a refund because of these credits. These principles are a bit more complicated than Tax 101, but still simple enough for you to understand, I hope."

would have cleared up the matter for you. Did you just miss that one? Maybe it's that you don't believe me? I thought of that one, so I found someone else's research concerning the effect of "Bush's Tax Cuts" on the poor and middle class:

"If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, a married couple with two children and a combined income of $40,000 would see their annual income tax burden rise from $45 to $1,978"

This information can be found here:

Cameron said...

Maybe something less generic would help as well:

My old next door neighbor makes $10/hour. He does get some overtime hours each week, but I'm pretty sure he still qualifies as "poor". He is married and has two children.

His tax return for 2005 got him a refund of a little over $5,000.

MindMechanic said...


Thanks for all the research. It pretty much coincides with what I read as to the reason why it was not adopted in recent votes. Congress is/was unwilling to cut spending and that would leave only one option-repeal the tax cuts (which absolutely HAVE stimulated the economy) and raise taxes to match government spending (which would ABSOLUTELY have a negative impact on the economy).

The downside to this of course is that congress insists on increasing spending and that position from both parties IS reckless, irresponsible, and will have lasting negative affects.

Cameron said...


PAYGO just sounded too good to be true, and unfortunately it was.

But there are some modifications that could be made to it that would affect spending instead of taxes.

Also, I've been looking at the "pork projects" and many of them are federal gov't grants for research projects or transportation projects. At first glance they appeared to be quite benign. My father is a elementary school teacher and he has used grants in the past to fund projects for his class. My mindset has always been that these federal grants were good.

However, my thinking has evolved over the past few days. It has been influenced by my experience working at the Univesity of Utah while I was studying there.

I worked for the Energy & Geoscience Institute. It consisted of mostly geologists who partner with oil companies to conduct studies around the world. "Big Oil", as we are fond of calling them, gave these scientists grant money, hundreds of thousands per study, to conduct research projects. There was no gov't money involved. In addition to individual studies, we had over a dozen of these companies paying $20,000 a year for access to past sudies kept in our library. This money was used to fund the administration of the department.

As I said before, Utah and Idaho recieve many of these "pork projects", and most of them are for research of various causes.

I'm beginning to think that these projects should be privatised in much the same way as the Energy & Geoscience folks have done. Take the gov't out of the loop.

Lysis said...


I think you are “spot on” in your assessment of the support Clinton enjoyed and continues to enjoy. It all comes down to Abortion. It always amazed me that feminists” were willing to allow sexual harassment and exploitation by Clinton – crimes they would never permitted any conservative. It was a masterful application of say it isn’t so and it won’t be for me mentality. The pass given to Clinton – the justification of sexual harassment and infidelity for political power is symptomatic of the left in America, of Liberals world wide. The facts don’t matter, its how one can “push the polls”.

Mao and Uncle Joe benefit from the same misrepresentation in history classes throughout this country. When challenged on the lies, most “left wing” professors simply dodge, giggle, or change the subject; some will sight polling data. I’ve watched this for 35 years. I saw it last semester at a class at WUS.

Magic Valley Mormon:

Thanks for all the facts on taxes and federal spending.

It has always amazed me that the “modern liberals” are willing to hand the future over to the government rather than to discipline themselves or encourage their children to build stability in their own lives. The idea of a prosperous nation constituting a multitude of successful individuals is incomprehensible to them. It is also threatening. What power could they gain in a world so free and successful? Where would the huddled masses they need to poll be found? As wisely noted above, the “economic growth” under Clinton was all a fantasy. It is the point of this discussion brought to bear on economics. It is what they say, not what really is, that counts to the “French Judges”.

Dan Simpson said...

I'm curious if the people polled in the CNN poll are the same ones that couldn't find Louisiana, Mississippi, or Iraq on a map.

That's what happens when you poll America.

Moon Knight said...

GOD this is fun! I wish i was an smart as you guys but this I can say,

FLACCID, you need to get a better life and find your meaning.

Brain Man, just keep being yourself, I enjoy what you express and look further to your opinons.

Dannyboy, I don't really understand you, but keep it up?

and Finally!

MAGIC VALLEY MORMON, what do you really believe in, is there really a God? and if there is, why did he pay his life to make our lives a living hell??? I can understand your faith, I was once like you I was once "Mormon" but then one word made the whole world clear all of a sudden, what word you ask? "CULT" every faith is one and I can prove it, my answer, The Webster Dictionary! there is your proof and your answer, that is all I need to say about that topic.

Thank you for all of your support!


Anonymous said...

You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it film editing schools

Anonymous said...

Very nice site! Fioricet prescription tramadol on line Digital card size surveillance camera Viper car alarm Fucked ass chevrolet dealers Zoloft antipressant lopid and zocor internet marketing Gay insest photos minivan