December 2003 Questionnaire

I handed a few of these out at the last EAB get-together, but I would like to solicit input from you, the wider EAB web audience.

I am asking for your ideas on the future of Expats Against Bush leading into the next election (and beyond, if necessary).

Questions

1. What do you think Expats Against Bush’s goals should be moving into 2004? Obviously we want to work to get Bush voted out, but what concrete goals can we work towards to best serve that overall goal?
   
2. What’s the best way that we can ensure that expatriate Americans get registered to vote in time?
   
3. How can we best spread the word about Expats Against Bush to people in other countries around the world?
   
4. How can we keep public interest up in Expats Against Bush over the course of the next year?
   
5. What other organizations or groups might Expats Against Bush join forces with in order to combine strength? (American Voices Abroad, MoveOn.Org, expat candidate support groups, etc)
   

You're welcome to put in your 2 cents in the Comments for this post, or, if you prefer, email them to me.

Comments

[Chrish]

Luke,

I realize I really have no place in offering up any suggestions to you or the Expats on your future goals or direction nor would I be so presumptuous to suggest any.

I just wanted to say that i found it interesting that you brought this subject up as I had, believe it or not, been thinking about this very topic this morning while driving in to work......
Not just about this site but also about the Japan and Norway sites...

Oh God, I'm not a closet Expat am I?

In any event to you and all keep at it and remain focused....

[Luke]

Uh oh Chris, you're in danger of communing with the enemy :)

[Sarah Forrester]

1. Goals:
a) Although Dems Abroad and possibly other groups do this, we should have specific information in plain language that tells Expats how to vote from abroad. It would be great if there were a link to that right off the top of our main page, so it doesn't get archived and lost.
b) Research common misconceptions about voting from abroad and find accurate sources to clear up those misconceptions (i.e. "if I vote, they'll try to get me for taxes"). I see a possible FAQ page there. . .
c) Continue to get press exposure in venues read by Americans, in the U.S. and abroad.
d) Continue to develop relationships with other groups with similar goals.

2. Registering Expats to Vote
a) Make sure we have the correct information available and easily accessible on our website.
b) Perhaps a stupid idea, but this is brainstorming right?. . .we could do different types of promotion events where we have the forms and info available to Expats on the spot, and even provide the postage. I can just imagine a table set up by the nearest mailbox to Grosvenor Square in London, with Expats mailing off their ballot requests! Would be good publicity as well. We could do these maybe every two months up till the election.

3. Getting the word to other Expats
a) Research the English language newspapers available in other countries, try to make contact with press who might grab the story.
b) Use our own contacts in other countries (nearly every expat I've met lately has a dozen American friends who also live abroad--spread the word!)
c) Try to find webchats or forums where Expats might hang out, and see if they're interested.

4. Keeping Public Interest
a) Make sure the info on this site is updated continually, and add more guest authors.
b) Stay in the public eye, even if we aren't getting press coverage (thinking badges and bumper stickers. . .though I don't have a car...maybe I could slap it on a passing train. . )

5. Other Groups
a) Have an "add a link" thingy for authors on the site (they'd have to be responsible for determining that the content was in line with our goals and the image we're trying to portray). American Voices Abroad has a neat links page, divided into different categories, something like that would be nice.

For some of this stuff, we'd obviously need some money. . .not a lot, but some. My friend has agreed to come talk about her experiences with Cafe Press and running online stores--best thing is there are no start-up costs. If we sold things with the "proud of my country. . " slogan and/or an Expats Against Bush logo, we'd have the dual result of making a bit of money towards costs of photocopying forms, providing postage, and other minor expenses that build up (when just Luke is shelling out for them), and we'd get some publicity from Expats who buy the items. Anything left over we could use for an Election Evening party (though due to the time difference, I suppose we wouldn't know the result at the end of the evening!).

Also, what we talked about Tuesday, having an agenda when we meet up again would be helpful. . .though it was really nice to just chat and relax without any press there!

[Chrish]

Not meaning to intrude and sure hoping I don't elicit a lot of shouting. Perhaps presenting more alternatives to President Bush rather than focusing on the bashing? This article might explain it better than I can and please I don't mean this to be some "Right Wing" or some other Wing of anything thing. It's just an idea, suggestion, or "What About This?"....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2003-11-24-benedetto_x.htm

Finally a liberal that gets it!

Maybe you've heard of Susan Estrich...

This is one liberal that gets it and she wants to defeat Bush!

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/098743-5314-021.html

Hopefully for you this will help your cause...

[Del]

Oops - the article above by Estrich was posted by me!

[abdul]

well, the obvious suggestion I have is to get out the vote! that means pestering friends back home about how concerned we are. Spreading the word about websites and groups like this while we are abroad is also helpful - are you aware of the many expats who have organized against Bush?! The Dean and Clark campaigns abroad have over 100,000 members between them! I have never seen americans so fired up before about elections. In the matter of the past 5 weeks, I have managed to get 4 anti-Bush expats (who did not vote in 2000) to register, I am working on 2 more. I challenge YOU to top that!

Last night, I met a group of about 10 expats here in Stockholm and we brainstormed about how we can be most effective while here. One thing we have decided to do is to get the message to american tourists when they come here over the summer. That means handing out voting info, passing info on the democratic candidate, etc. We also want to involve some Swedes who can help us out. They can give tourists a perspective on how George Bush's policies have affected them and Americas relationship with Sweden. It is important that we pick normal, credible and fairly educated individuals. We will do ourselves a disservice if we pick some loony anti-americans.

Write letters to the editor to your local papers back home. Tell them how awful you think Bush's policies look from your perspective abroad. Tell them of the impact he is having on our foreign relations and how negative America's image has become in the past 2 years.

Finally, money talks. It is probably unnecessary to say that whoever runs against Bush will need all the money we can afford to donate. Most of us are not in the top 3% of income levels, so it is not always that easy. But every bit helps, so lobby friends/family to do the same.

[Chrish]

Del,

Where the heck have you been? Thought you had fallen off the end of the Earth....
or your chair.... :o)

[abdul]

btw, there have to be a ton of expats in Canada, but they seem conspicously missing from this website. Anyone know any Canadians who have American friends living north of the international border? We should get them involved.

[Del]

Hi Chrish,

Nice of you to ask... actually got involved with some 'manual' construction labor...

Jack-of-all-trades - master of none...

Now catching up on PC business...

Read the article you referred to in USAToday - funny the one I posted by Estrich had the same tone. I yelled about that way back on this site.

Maybe the libs are getting it?

I was trying to give them a head start! he-he-he...

There is nothing better I like than a good election campaign with good debate. Hearing the nonsensical nine Democratic candidates hurts my head and it looks that many including their own are starting to figure that out.

Like I said - I love a good challenge - I'd hate to see out President blow out the competition - that's really no fun!

[bobo]

Abdul,

Good idea: A table somewhere where the tourists congregate would be quite direct.

[Harmony]

Apologies- my response is not addressing the Questionaire, but something I discovered just now when doing a google search under "against Bush"- out of 120,000 webpages in the search results, Expats Against Bush is #7! Congrats, Luke!

[Del]

Help your party - Democrats!

I know there is plenty of rhetoric about no link between Osama and Saddam...

Here's a link that gets into detail about the secret memo...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Now we know what the response has been and what it will be on this site concerning this memo.

PREDICTION

Funny thing is our President Bush has not said a word in response to this specific memo. Why?

Hold onto to your hats boys and girls – this is once again Bush being dumb as a fox!

There is no reason at this point for our President to show his hand. Why should he? At this point it will not have the input it will have soon…

He is allowing the Democrats to keep yelling at this point and drive their current campaign of Bush bashing with this being the lead storyline. The Dems are spending a lot of time on this issue.

Watch and you heard it from me – near election time - information – real documented information will be released that will prove the contents contained in the memo above!

The Democrats are doing themselves in – on their own! Instead of Bush bashing and criticizing everything that Bush is doing – they should really start putting together a real alternative on how they want to go forward.

Remember – you heard this from me… stay tuned…

Let's ask ourselves a question. Is it really ethical, in a time when his constituency is asking for evidence that the actions in Iraq are justified and that the lives that are being sacrificed there are for a valid reason, and at a time when much of the world community has lost trust in the leaders and motives of the United States, to withold any valid evidence of collaboration between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in order to "time" a revelation strategically during an election year? I mean, are you actually saying that you admire a leader who would do such a thing? Who would be more interested in the dramatic thrust of a well-timed revelation than acting as the leader of a straightforwardly accountable government? If you are right, this would be the case that proves the point.

This isn't a *game*.

Boggles the mind....

Gosh, I'm kind of _shocked_ to find out that the Weekly Standard is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

P.S. My sources in Iraq and Afghanistan assure me that everything in the memo is true....

[Del]

To anonymous…

You make claims of a constituency that is looking for answers and world opinion of the leadership of the US yet a recent poll showed our Presidents popularity is at 61%. As far as support from other nations – recently with terrorist attacks on our allies – it has hardened their resolve. We have over 20 nations that have troops on the ground in Iraq. Recently NATO announced that they would be sending more the beginning of the year.

The actions taken by President Bush were all driven with the resolution that was passed by the UN. Once the US went into Iraq – there was no question that there is no turning back. Answering the ‘naysayer’ now doesn’t change the fact that we need to finish the job.

I think it would be a bit naïve to believe that politics is a not sophisticated game. Heck Clinton was a master player!

At this point President Bush spilling his guts doesn’t change anything. In times of our national security being threatened – it is the responsibility of the commander and chief to make the hard decisions. When it comes to our nations security we empower our President to do what he or she believes must be done.

So a minority is yelling and screaming while the majority backs our President. Many of the Democratic contenders have flipped flopped over this issue. Clark and Kerry are making fools of themselves especially with their stand today and looking back at actual speeches they made fully backing the Presidents decision to go into Iraq in the past. Now that’s playing politics…

President Bush is doing a great job and it will be recorded in history as such. I don’t even want to imagine what the situation would have been if Gore was elected.

[Del]

Added note...

I was sincere about the Democratic Party needing help.

Yelling and bashing Bush only strengthens the resolve of those supporting Bush.

Today Dean is the leading contender for the Democratic nomination. In order to get there, he has gone away from the middle and went totally to the left. Historically this is NOT where he comes from. This can be proven with his continual refusal to release records during his five-term tenure as governor for Vermont.

The Democratic Party does not want Dean to win. The Republican Party wants Dean to win. Reason is – his only constituency will be the extreme left. Moderate Democrats and especially Reagan Democrats will vote for Bush. If Dean wins Terry McAuliffe is out. The Democrats and especially the ‘Clintonistas’ will not let this happen.

So as reflected in the two articles mentioned above – the Democrats and anyone else that wants to get Bush out of office need to stop the Bush bashing and concentrate on solutions that can be sold to moderate Democrats and hopefully moderate Republicans.

That’s the only way to unseat Bush this upcoming election. Now honestly the hierarchy at the Democratic Party including the Clintons has already conceded the election to Bush. At this point what they do not want happening is Dean taking the party way to the left. Mark my words – they will do whatever they need to do to make sure Dean does not win. They are betting on 2008 with Hilary Clinton leading the charge for the nomination.

[Chrish]

Del old man,

Regarding your statement about Clark and Kerry making fools of themselves and "Now that’s playing politics…" I would have to respectfully disagree. What it actually shows is a lack of decisiveness. A characteristic a true leader or a President shouldn't dare have, cannot have if they really want to lead a nation.

Whether or not the decision by President Bush to go into Iraq was a correct decision or a right decision at this point in time is irrelevant. The reality is we're there and must see it through to the finish. I too hear a lot of bashing, complaining, and moaning but I hear, as usual, no real alternative solutions or ideas except perhaps one offered by Abdul. Everything else is bashing, hatred, oh and the usual scare tactics. "Police state", "end of our rights", etc.

Contrary to what the Liberal's in my party, excuse me, the Progressives may wish us to believe they are no longer in the majority.

We, who are the moderates and perhaps even the conservatives have started a revolution to take back our party even if it means giving the reins of power over to a Republican for the time being. Case in point, California. This LIBERAL Democratically controlled state was on the brink of bankruptcy thanks to the irresponsible actions of Gov. Davis, a Progressive, and the Democratic legislature. We are taking back our state and We are going to take back our Party here in California. I, for one, hope that the example we have made here in California will be a call to arms to all moderates and conservatives in the Democratic Party across our country to take back our Party, our states, and eventually our country.

It is NOT these politicians nor the Special Interest Groups that own them who decide how things will be or going to be it is Us, We The People....

[abdul]

Crish/Del,

well said about offering solutions rather than complaints. I could not agree with you more. However, currently we are still in the primaries and the candidates are doing what they know will get them nominated. They are firing up the base of democratic voters. When the nation at large is polled, many people struggle to name even one democratic candidate and most can't name more than one. So, yes, you are right, in the long run they have to do more than just Bush-beating. But at is point in time, the candidates can get aways with it.
as for us, we can whine on this website and that is just fine. but we also need to do more than that. I have said it previously, these are our best options at this point in time:
1. register to vote!
2. get the anti-Bush contingent to vote. if you look at how many expats have been fired up by Bush's actions over the past few years, it is amazing. I have met a few who tell me that they have not voted in decades, but won't miss the election this time. I think as long as we can continue to reach out to them and have them spread the word to other expats, that is our biggest and best contribution.
3. money talks. I fall squarely into the middle-income class and cannot afford to pay the full $2000, but I will do my best to contribute as much as possible.
4. I will be home for a month over x-mas and plan on spending lots of time in register-to-vote drives in areas that are predominantly anti-Bush but tend not to come to the polls frequently.

I am 6000 miles away from home (sunny SoCal), this is the best I can do from here. If you have other suggestions, I am all ears...!

[abdul]

Luke,

have you contacted Democrats Abroad? They have over 30 chapters. Some, such as Germany, are highly organized. Others are much more loosely defined. As we get past the primaries in spring, it would benefit us to get in touch with their members as well. Perhaps we can each volunteer to contact one of chapter and forge closer ties.

Americans Coming Together is a more recent group which has formed and they are now starting to spring ACT abroad chapters as well.

[Chrish]

Abdul,

Like you I had not voted in decades. I wasn't impressed with either party's candidates nor their directions. Quite honestly the first time I voted was just recently in the Recall election her in California. Why? Because I was and still am so infuriated at what Davis and the Liberal Democratic Legislature did to this state. As far as I'm concerned there should have been a recall to throw all of those incompetent AHoles out!!!
Quite honestly I don't really believe for one minute that the Decmocratic Party as it now is comes even close to the Party of JFK. The influences of Liberals and their Special Interest Groups within the Democratic Party have turned it into nothing more than a Socialist Party. To the point that they would completely destroy businesses and families for the sake of their socialist programs. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in helping the poor and giving them assistance. When I say helping I mean by providing them with the ability to stand on their own two feet and make a living. The liberal socialist however, seem more concerned with getting people on their social programs and keeping them there. And if that means undermining our educational system then they will and have done exactly that. If that means spending more money (our taxpayer money) than they have coming in (taxes, fees) they will do it. And if it means raising our taxes in order to pay for their stupidity they will do it. I read and hear about those Democratic politicians blasting Bush for his cutting taxes when We all know the Democrats, my party, if given half the chance would RAISE our taxes. For what, more of the same ill conceived, poorly thought out, and poorly planned Liberal Social Programs? Which don't accomplish much other than to put more of THEIR families, friends, business acquaintances into HIGH paying jobs with pensions at OUR expense!! Don't get me wrong the Republicans are no better BUT, they at least cut our taxes not increased them and it was the Republicans, here in California, that refused to give into the Democrats when they were trying to increase Our taxes to pay for their STUPIDITY AND INCOMPETENCE.

You say you're from SoCal perhaps you can explain to me or anybody else for that matter how any politician, educational beauracrat, or any group could possibly conceive of a socialist program that willingly passes failing kids onto the next grade under the absurd concept of "Self Esteem"?
The outcome being is that there are now several generations of kids who have graduated from high school who are functionaly illiterate. They can't read, they can't write, they can't do basic math.

The Jr. Colleges, Universities, and colleges had to set up remedial classes to get the incoming high school graduates up to speed. That's irresponsible and as far as I'm concerned those who came up with that idea and those who enacted it have violated the Constitutional Rights of those kids, their parents, their families, AND the People. By their act they have effectively hindered those kids opportunities to Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit of Happiness. That's an example of Liberalism in it's most obscene form.

Sorry but, this is one Democrat who is extremely infuriated with Liberal Politician's and the Special Interest Groups that own them.

Here's a suggestion you might wish to consider. How about presenting more about the solutions, ideas, or vision of the different Democratic candidates? Where do they stand on the issues, what are their solutions, what is their vision of the future? I realize I could go to their various sites and read what they have to say but, I'm also interested in what You of the Expats have to say about the various candidates. Surely there must be some concensus on that, isn't there?

If not that then what are your viewpoints, ideas, suggestions for solutions to what We, as a people, a country face now and for Our future?
In the areas of Foreign Policy, education, the environment, the economy, Energy, Space Exploration (sorry, that's one of my hopes for the future), Immigration (Legal vs Illegal), Concerns of Women & Men, the list goes on. Pick any one of them start with The Economy and tell me what you think should be done to bring our economy back to where it should be. Tell me which Democratic candidate comes closest to your way of thinking, where does President Bush differ on it?

Perhaps I'm asking something that goes beyond the scope of this site?

[Del]

Hi Chrish & Abdul,

Tough end of week – spent three days digging out of the snow. Close to 2 feet in my neck of the woods! Now I’m nursing an aching body – yes Chrish I certainly feel old!

Chrish, on your disagreement on Clark and Kerry – all one has to do is review the actual facts – both on tape and on paper. Did you hear the latest Kerry interview in Rolling Stone Mag – he has lost his mind! He used the F*** word! The article shows a candidate that is truly confused and very frustrated. His ranting sounds a bit surreal!

The points I tried to make is that the Democratic Party is at a very tough position. Most do not want the party going all the way to the left like Dean is pulling them. If that happens – it will alienate all Dems except those on the extreme left. I know it’s early in the process but this is not good. Today with the field of nine – Dean is blowing out the field. In another poll – they added Hillary Clinton to the choices and all of a sudden she blows away everyone including Dean! Hillary does not want to run now because she knows she can’t beat Bush. She also does not want Dean winning the nomination because it pulls the Dems too far left. She was on all the Sunday morning news shows (even with George Stephanopoulos) and you could see the uneasiness she is feeling with the current process.

I don’t care how early it is in the process. Just remember the primaries start in less than 30 days! The uncertainty of where the Democratic Party lies today is beyond the fact that there are nine candidates!

Like I mentioned before – the powers that control the Democratic Party have conceded the next election. They are rebuilding for the 2008 election with Hillary leading the charge. They will eat their own young to make sure Dean doesn’t win!

[Chrish]

Del,

Hope your toes are toasty and you didn't get frost bite. Nasty weather over there on the East Coast to be sure. So take care.

Perhaps "disagreeing with you" wasn't the correct way to say what I meant. What I was trying to say is that it also shows an indecisiveness in their character or position. But then again, it could also be, as you say, "Playing Politic's". The politician's will say anything they THINK the people want to hear just to get themselves elected.

Quite honestly Hillary Clinton doesn't impress me nor do I think I would vote for her and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with her gender.

Del, I believe you're correct in that most people do not want to go to the left. I, for one, am one of them. We've been to the Left for way too long and things are not better they're worse.

[Chrish]

To be fair about things and the fact that the Republicans are just as nefarious (I like that word) as the Democrats when it comes to the spending or should I say waste of taxpayer dollars. Here's another example of policiticans who just do not get it:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002064.asp?0sl=-12

I'm sure most of us can come up with other things that are of far greater importance than these things. What makes these kinds of spending bills so damn irritating is they tack it onto other extremely important bills with the hopes that its chances of being approved will be that much greater.

[abdul]

Chrish,

wow, tall order. I don't know if I can answer all of your questions without writing a 12-page thesis, so I will just address a few.

Well, foreign policy first. How about this one: instead of pissing off friends and creating more terrorist sympathizers and new enemies, why don't we not do that?
What else? Anytime I opened my mouth to try to warn about the folly of "liberating" Iraq, I was labeled a pacifist/appeaser/whatever. No point in me giving my opinion as to what to do now, not like anyone would listen anyways. I will just skirt that issue by saying we should have focused on al-Qaeda, not gotten side-tracked by the smell of crude oil.

As for which candidate I like, this website does not support any particular candidate, so I will refrain from giving my opinion as to whom I support. I do have to say, Sharpton is a funny man.

I will give you my opinion on the economy, however. I am not an economist by any means and do not profess to know ALL truth. Here goes:
Our current policies are simply unstustainable. Period. I won't blame Bush for the downturn, it started before he came to office. In general, his policies are appropriate to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts, low dollar to spur foreign investment, low interest rate are all necessary.
Here is the problem, the tax cut went to the wrong group. It is the middle-class that usually drives spending, not the rich. The very definition of rich is having too much money to spend, and the folks who got the bulk of the taxcut will invest most of it. Since a lot of investment goes overseas, it is hardly the best way of stimulating the economy. Somewhat effective, but certainly not the best way.
The dollar has dropped over 30% percent against the Swedish crown since I have come here. This was originally driven by Bush's own policies: make it easier for foreigners to invest and they will. So we have seen a large amount of foreign money injected into our economy - good. However, in recent months, the falling dollar has also been driven by another factor: lack of faith in our policies by foreigners. Major investors such as Japan and China are spending billions to keep the dollar afloat, but as our debt racks up, interest rates will inevitably have to rise. A debt that is too large to sustain will at some point get foreign nations to stop bailing us out and then you can watch the dollar freefall a la Argentina. Actually, Japan itself has been hammered for well over a decade now because of this same reason. It is only very recently that they have managed to turn the tide.
Our rising debt is, like I said, unsustainable. It will only be so long that we can get away with borrowing. So what are the solutions?

1. one of Bush's first acts was to sign a $190B farm subsidy to swing state farmers (so much for fiscal conservatism). GET RID OF IT!
2. $400B expansion of Medicare that is largely a subsidy to pharmaceutical industry. A mistake.
3. Tariffs on steel/lumber/sugar/etc. may help the heads of whatever industry, but it does not promote lower consumer prices and is detrimental to the economy at large. STOP IT! (i am aware that he repealed the steel one.)
4. Start saving money. How? Stop spending? Where? Military. ARGH, blasphemy! The country is at war, how dare this pacifist/appeaser suggest this?!! Well, we currently spend $405B/year on defense. Add to that the $166B we have spent so far on Iraq, that is a lot of money.
I never believed Iraq was a threat to us (any objective person would not believe it, turns out I was right.) The Germans tried to tell us as much. Ja, die Deutschen koennen doch auch Recht haben. So, right there, we could have saved $166B plus whatever it will cost next year and the following, etc.
Rumsfeld used 9/11 as a pretense to deploy an $18B/year missile defense shield. In principle, I support the idea. However, the system has failed 70% of the time under perfect test conditions. Since terrorists have no missiles and any nation knows what would happen if they attacked us, I can't help but wonder what the point of deploying it so hastily was.
A war on terrorism needs more Special Ops, Counter-terrorism, Intelligence, etc. We have enough bombers and nuclear submarines, ships, etc. We don't need more. I am not a soldier, but I bet we can re-allocate money to counter-terrorism, decrease the size of our Cold War era military infrastructure and end up saving money while we improve our ability to fight al-Qaeda.
One important lesson that world visionist Bush has learned the hard way is that we need the rest of the world. He once said, "We are America, we can do this on our own." Well, maybe, but it is a hell of a lot more difficult/expensive on our own. We need the Germans (Was? Nicht doch das Deutsche Folk.) and the rest.
Under this category, did I mention that it would help us economically if we didn't blow $166B on Iraq?
Before 9/11, we spent $343B/year on military. Is that not a lot in itself? Can't we re-allocate money from that already overblown budget? Well, maybe not. Like I said, I am not a soldier.
5. The government needs money. I am intrinsically against raising too much taxes cause it will stop the economy just as it is coming out of its slowdown. But I do believe that a modest gasoline tax is in order. Of course, that would include a tax credit to transportation companies, etc. because we can't afford for them to take a hit. But the average consumer can kiss my ass and pay an extra 5-10cents/gallon. After all, it is the consumer who is driving this insatiable thirst for oil.
6. That bs taxcut that Bush passed. It is nothing but Bushit, sorry, but I like that word. It needs to get re-allocated (apparently I like that word as well.) Aim it at the middle class cause they are the one's who will spend it. Give some to the poor cause they need it. If you make over $300,000, you can kiss my ass as well. That group definitely does not need such a large tax cut.
7. oh crap, I could go on Chrish, but I wonder if you are even reading anymore and I am tired of typing. Hope this answered some of your questions as to what "I" think should be done.

hope that answers some of your questions.

[Chrish]

Abdul,

Calm down, don't get your skivvies all into a bunch. Chill a while. You've given me a lot more to think about than I expected and it will take me a little time to digest it and consider it all....

And Yes, I am reading these posts including yours.
If you'll recall I did state that I was very intriqued about your idea regarding the Iraq situation/solution. Got you there, hmmmm?

Meanwhile, kick back and keep your feet warm... :o)

[bobo]

Hope this discussion can continue. Abdul's post was full of information.....yummy!

Abdul,

Well to begin with,
1) Was that to swing or save state farmers and
how do you come to the conclusion that his
action was for the sole purpose of winning
votes? The Democrats don't enage in that?
2) Didn't AARP endorse the Medicare Bill that
Bush signed? In regards to the Pharmaceutical
Companies yes, I agree in some part however,
lets face the facts that The Democracts are
equally quilty of fraternizing with
companies for their own gain. Consider this
article which, to my way of thinking, is a
testament against both the Republicans and the
Democrats.
http://www.ozchiropractic.com/Inform/fda_approval.htm

3) In regards to defense spending I am in support
of it. To do otherwise would only serve to
weaken our abilities to defend ourselves, i.e.
Terrorist groups, fanatics, etc. That does not
mean that I am all for uncontrolled defense
spending. I think it has been amply shown that
the defense industry has a propensity for over
charging, waste, and other unethical practices
and that should be stopped and prosecuted.
In addition to that I would also suggest that
there are also other "programs" which are
nothing more than beauracratic welfare the
Democrats have created that really accomplish
nothing other than to employ their friends,
family members, business associates at
ridiculous salaries. Yes, the Republicans do
the same. From what I've seen the Liberal
Democrats have created a subsidized Illegal
Immigration policy or program at our expense.
Want to cut government waste then both sides
need to be put on notice for both sides are
equally guilty.
Was Iraq a threat? At this point in time I
don't know and the question now is irrelevant
as we are already there. I'm not so naive to
completely believe that Saddam was not a threat
nor so naive as to believe that both Saddam and
Bin Laden weren't or might have been using each
other for their own agendas and or gains.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Hussein
paying out something like $25k to family
members of suicide bombers? Tell me he didn't
have some kind of connection to Terrorist
Groups.
5) I am completely against and I believe the
majority of us are in agreement, No More Taxes!
No more. We don't need more taxes we need more
wisdom, reason, and above all common sense when
it comes to How Our Taxpayer Dollars are Used.
That applies to both sides. As it stands now,
as far as I'm concerned, we have gone full
and are, once again, experiencing "Taxation
Without Representation". Does that phrase
ring a bell? It seems that politicians are
quick to jack up our taxes but, completely
unwilling to reduce them. What do they do with
Our Money? They spend, and spend, and spend
and when they run out they want to increase our
taxes using some End Of The World As We Know It
scenario in order to get us to agree. No!!! No
More Taxes {Period}. Let them cut their
spending where they've wasted it.
6) I'm no millionare, hell I'm not even a
thousandaire. I, for one, was thankful for the
tax cut and the money I got back. The rich
also pay taxes, believe it or not. Of course
they're going to get more back they've paid
more in. Why on earth should anybody get some
back when they haven't paid anything into it in
the first place for God's sakes? Do you
honestly believe that's fair or equitable? If
I'm getting several hundred bucks taken out of
my paycheck each month while some other fellow
isn't getting jack taken out why should that
fellow be getting something back?

In regards to the insatiable thirst for oil I do agree. It's also the cause of many woes this world is suffering. And yes, I do believe that Oil interests of the Oil companies drive or create many of the problems we are creating for ourselves and having to deal with. I for one would be all for a true and real program to research alternative energies with a specific goal. I'm tired of the politicians including Bush giving speeches about how we must research alternative energy sources but nothing happens. I'm tired of the political crap regarding that subject and believe we need to seriously research alternative energy sources with the goal of 10, 15, or 20 years wheened off of oil and onto cheaper cleaner energy and to hell with the Oil companies and the oil producing nations.

Wheew, Good God did I say all that??

[bobo]

The money you got back for your tax cut. Where do you think it came from? It was borrowed against the Social Security and Medicare funds that you've been contributing to, through your payroll taxes, for your old age. The funds that you've been contributing to in order to secure your future are currently being depleted at an alarming rate in order, partially, to give the very rich some tax relief that they simply do not need.

And the social programs that get cut, do you think that these only affect the poor class? No, sorry. The funds that are getting hit right now affect the average American. People who depend on public transportation, who send their children to school, who drink water, etc. The middle class is getting screwed right now, for the benefit of the very rich. And, as Abdul stated, it is the spending of the middle class that funds economic growth. So why is screwing the middle class a good thing?

You say that you don't want to pay any more taxes. If the rich were taxed at only a slightly higher rate than the middle class, they wouldn't notice the difference, but you can bet you would. That's why taxing the very rich at a slightly higher rate is widely considered to be fair. If you cut back their income at a rate that they won't even notice, you may be able to provide some support the middle class and save some of the people who are teetering at the vulnerable edge of the middle class (like it sounds like you are, if you're "not a thousandaire") from falling into poverty. You may also be able to help some of the people who are the “top” of the poor class, who need only a little help to join the middle class. We’re not talking about support for people who are currently sitting at home in front of the TV collecting welfare – we’re talking about people who are working their asses off and still not getting ahead.

How do you think that the Bush Administration pays for increases in defense spending? You may not be paying for it now, but you will. If you are under 70 years old, you will live to pay for our administration's spending. You'll even pay for the equipment they purchase that they're never going to use!

America's defense spending was already, before Bush increased it, bigger in total that all of the other nations in the world combined. Does more defense spending = more security? Not necessarily. Like Abdul commented, our Administration is currently developing missile programs that have absolutely nothing to do with the war against terror, or our fear of Saddam. This spending, might however, make a few dozen billionaires more wealthy, because they are big players in the defense-related industries. Our defense spending is the highest it’s been since the Cold War when we simply wanted a bigger pile of nukes than the Soviet Union. (Remember that statistic about how we had enough nukes to blow up the world at least several times? Why did we have that - was that rational?)

Not all social programs are worthy, it's true. Some of them enable poverty - there should be accountability in these programs and not all of them should get funding.

However, some of the most successful social programs, that benefited all of society, especially the middle class, are getting cut right now, and guess what? They were cheap to begin with, they cost very very little of our tax money, especially when you compare them extremely expensive defense spending.
At the same time, the mega-rich are getting big breaks. The phase out and eventual repeal of the estate tax will benefit only 2% of Americans. Instead of giving $60 billion a year to a VERY small number of our nation’s richest people WHO DON’T NEED IT, we could be paying for things like after-school programs, schools on military bases, prosecution of polluters, health care for veterans – all things Bush has cut.
Paul Krugman wrote a good editorial in the NYT on 20 October 2002 that analysed exactly who benefits from the Estate tax rollback that the Bush Administration has pushed through Congress. Here’s an abstract from that article if you are interested in looking it up:

“Paul Krugman article outlines how permissive capitalism of economic boom has destroyed American equality; says there have been tectonic shifts in distribution of income and wealth in America, and middle-class America of his youth is gone; fears that few people are aware of just how much gap between very rich and rest has widened over relatively short period of time; says 13,000 richest families in America now have almost as much income as 20 million poorest; says bringing up subject exposes person to charges of 'class warfare' and finds few people willing to talk about profound effects--economic, social and political--of that widening gap; says concentration of income at top is key reason that United States, for all its economic achievements, has more poverty and lower life expectancy than any other major advanced nation.”

And the link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0F1EF83A5E0C738EDDA90994DA404482

I'll be back, but right now I really need to get some work done......

[Chrish]

Bobo,

Thanks I'll read the article you sent. No, I'm not on the brink of poverty, I am in the middle class and yes, I am tired of the constant taking of my hard earned money for failed programs as I'm sure everyone else is. I agree as regards supporting those who sit in front of a TV while collecting welfare but, wasn't it also liberal Democrats who raised a stink when the idea was floated that those same people should do some work before getting that welfare check or getting them trained and moved into the job sector as it should have been? As I recall there was the usual claim of "It's a violation of their Constitutional Rights". What Constitutional Rights? Their rights to sit on their asses watch TV and collect a pay check for doing that?

If you'll recall I also stated that I am for defense spending BUT not for the out of control spending, waste, and rip off's by the defense industry or the defense department. I agree we don't need more missles we need more common sense when it comes to the areas of defense and spending.

Yes, I'm aware that money is being drained out of Social Security and Medicare but, do you think it's just the Republicans who are doing that? The Democrats have their faces in the trough just as much as the Republicans and both should be held accountable and put on notice.

Quite honestly I would be for a flat tax or better yet two flat tax rates one for the middle class and one for the rich. I agree with you they are getting rich off of our blood and sweat but it's also others who are sucking at our blood. I would love to see more given to education so long as it's understood that that funding goes to the classroom NOT the board of education or the other parasites draining off that money into their nonsensical programs. Absolutely yes on after school programs, more emphasis on the basics instead of the social agendaa that have been pushed onto the classes.

Yes, I'm aware of what the Republicans have done just as I'm aware of what the Democrats have done. It all seems that the few get whatever off our backs and we really don't have much in the way of Representation.

What I'm trying to say is that both sides really need a wake up call. We don't work for them they work for us and quite frankly I don't see that happening.

Again thanks for the article I will read it. Now
get back to work.....

[bobo]

chrish,

I agree that it is both democrats and republicans that are sometimes guilty of the bad decisions and misallocation of funds.

But, what we're talking about specifically here are the actions of the Bush Administration:

1. Tax cuts for the rich - not just income tax, but estate taxes and capital gains taxes, etc.
2. Increases in defense spending
3. Cuts in essential programs, that protect and support everyone, especially the middle class

I think you are missing my main point: social programs for the poor and the middle class are relatively cheap. They are easy to pay for if you aren't giving tax cuts to the rich and massively overspending in the area of defense.

So, do you think the taxes you are paying are going to the poor, or to the rich? Do you think your taxes are being spent on welfare, or missile programs? Which do you think is more expensive - low income healthcare, or military equipment and tax breaks for billionaires?

[bobo]

On a lighter note?

http://www.theonion.com/3948/news1.html

I especially like the last 6 paragraphs.