I for one try not to overlook anything. I just don't see what baring his daughters have on his presidency. I just think as some other folks have said here, if you look hard enough, you can find fault with literally anyone in virtually any situation. Especially if you ad in the spin factor. Rick, the original post was so laden with BS it's difficult to tell what to address and what to ignore. And I for one have to throw a BS flag on your statement that you don’t hate Bush!

"do you have a flag?" eddie izzard

Like Lou Reed? How about Lou Reed's..."Rock and Roll Animal"?

Charlie

charloe

eddie izzard is an english comedian who was recently nominatd for a tony for the show "a day in the death of joe egg."

I know who
Eddie is? Just had to hit with the Lou Reed R & R Animal.

Charlie

Don't forget Eddy the Eagle.

And Rick, my day does not evolve around a bright star named Dubya. But when you make bogus accusations about irrelevent subject matter I will call you on it.

I have MORE respect for a President who did drugs (cocaine) and has refused to answer baited questions, than I ever will for a President who did drugs and lied about it (didn't inhale).

Character is not necessarily what you've done in your past, but rather what you do now and in the future based on learning from your past.

If we do not grow than we merely exist.

Good shot Joe! So damn true!

Charlie

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......you get my point. People, whether I love or hate either GW or Clinton is irrelevant, but what I can say is we are in a far worse state than we ever were during the Clinton years. GWB has indeed fallen short in many areas. And, these areas affect ALL of us......unless, of course, you are an elite member of that 1 percent........AND I'M A REPUBLICAN!

Don't respond to this posting in the Ostrich manner by sticking your head in the sand and blowing hot farts that you present as an argument. Do we honestly believe he is doing a good job? (Don't mention Clinton! I'm talkin' about GW!)

I think he's doing the best he can with what he has. i.e., econ on the way down when he came in, planes in bldgs, world primed for trouble, etc... I think he's doing a pretty good job, yes.

Sonny, perhaps you were trying to make a point, but you quickly lost credibility with me.
To imply that the "elite 1%" is somehow a negative is pure Liberal Tripe, regardless of how you vote.
Why do we continue to have such contempt for a group of people that have become a financial success?

And the economy will always have its ups and downs. It's how we handle BOTH of these that will define a person, an administration, and a President. As Robby pointed out, George W. Bush was dealt a sour hand. But the American people have found hope in our leader. The President has not raised a white flag at any juncture, although it would have been easy to sit back and recoil.
Perhaps in "normal" times, he would have been merely average. But these are not normal times, and he has shown grace under pressue when folks didn't think he could string two words together.
Only time makes a President, and while Bush may benefit from History, we have benefitted from his strength and resolve.

"""" Why do we continue to have such contempt for a group of people that have become a financial success? """""

Because few of them are self made.

Because they use some of that money to purchase our elected officials and corrupt our democratic form of govt., all in the name of enhancing their own wealth.

Because they are taxed at a higher rate yet they retain armies of lawyers and accountants who scour the tax code for loopholes so what they actually end up paying is a pittance compared to what they should be paying.

Because they own and or control major corpoations that extort huge tax breaks and outright tax waivers from communities so they won't pull out of town, then place their profits offshore so they can't be taxed on a federal level. (why I don't purchase Stanly Tools).

Because as members of the small elite group that fills the boards of these corporations, (Most individuals who sit on a board of directors actually sit on more then one and are the CEO, CFO etc of one of those corporations.) they award themselves huge compensation packages. and golden parachutes that are compleatly unrelated to the performance of the company. (In 2002, the average CEO compensation package equaled 10.83 million dollars. Median CEO pay raises in 2002 averaged 6%. More then double the average workers pay raises for the same period.) Even though there have been some publisized pay cuts recently among the wealthiest executives, most executives recieved pay raises during the past bear market.

Because rarely do they return anything of value to the communities they profit from that is close to comensurate with what they have made from same.


Those are just some of my reasons.......other then that, I could care less what they do

The Elite 1% is not comprise solely of multi-millionairs.
I have friends who would fall into the top 1%, and they are not corporate elitists. In fact, each of them made their own money (they were not from super-wealthy backgrounds).

And you speak of corporations like they're an evil entity. Cripes, I live in Massachusetts where we've all but chased out any type of manufacturing company. Towns are offering favorable tax incentives because for so many years companies have LOST profits simply by staying put and not following the masses across our borders.
People equate corporate Tax Incentives with corporate "welfare". Nothing could be further from the truth. Towns don't lose money when a corporation plants roots there. Instead, they reap the benefits of a strong tax base, as well as the good fortune to have jobs for its' residents. It oftentimes raises property values, which raise real estate tax revenue without raising the percentage rates (which pisses off home owners).

I feel our last Governors race was won based on one single exchange: The eventual loser (Shannon OBrien) cried about corporate "welfare" and the "evils" that you suggest exist as a majority amongst large companies. The winner (Mitt Romney) asked his opponent to name ONE fortune 500 company that she didn't want in Massachusetts.

For the record, in a state where 13% of the registered voters are Republican, the Republican candidate won by a convincing margin.

We need to deal with illegal corporate greed and seperate it from the assumption that all corporations are evil.

1 percent of families owns approxamatly 39 percent of total net wealth in the United States.

The top 10 percent owns 72 percent of total wealth.

The bottom 40 percent of american families owns less then 1 percent.

(From the "Survey of consumer finances" sponsered by the Federal Reserve Board. 1983 data but the disparity has only gotton worse.)

I don't begrudge the rich their money. I am however highly offended that they are able to have such a disproportionate influance on public policy in a country that used to believe that...

"ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL etc........."

Those bottom 40 percent of Americans couldn't get into see their congressman on a bet but I can assure you that a member of the top 1 percent could.

Perhaps we should rewrite our constitution to read....






"Money talks and suckers walk!"

Spiny, I'm curious,
"Because rarely do they return anything of value to the communities they profit from that is close to commensurate with what they have made from same."

In your opinion, what exactly are we required to return? I work hard, support my family, pay taxes, what more am I required to do in your opinion? How much, in your opinion should I be "allowed" to leave my new son? Keeping in mind the whole freedom thing please. Please respond, I'm VERY curious in your opinion on this matter. Thanks.

Spiney,
"All men are created equal"
CREATED is the key word.
Nobody is preventing the bottom 40% from climbing the ladder.
Nobody, that is, but themselves.

Also,
Your numbers do nothing more than prove the proverbial "80/20 rule".

And it's a useful tool in business.
I know that as my company grows, 20% of my customers will make up 80% of my total business.
It's no different in life. I bet that the 20% of the people who graduated with you in High School earn 80% of your graduating class's total income.

Now you've got to ask yourself, what makes those 20% so evil?

In that statement I was referring more to corporations then individuals. I should have been more clear.

""In your opinion, what exactly are we required to return? I work hard, support my family, pay taxes, what more am I required to do in your opinion? """

As an individual? Whatever your moral compass dictates. IMHO, you are not required, (your word, not mine) to return anything.

"""How much, in your opinion should I be "allowed" to leave my new son? Keeping in mind the whole freedom thing please. Please respond, I'm VERY curious in your opinion on this matter. Thanks. """

Again, as an individual, you should be "allowed" (your word, not mine), to keep whatever your moral compass dictates.

I view Corporations differantly. I don't think they and those who run them should be able to exploit the whole "FREEDOM" thing to destroy local enviroments, and leave the locals to clean it up. (For example, Addington Enterprise's 6,200-acre Starfire mine -- has damaged or destroyed the water supplies for an estimated 700 families. ) YOU MAKE THE MESS, YOU CLEAN IT UP!
I dont think corporations should be able to force their employees to use unsafe work practices then use their profits and influance to weaken regulations and limit the liability that they would have to pay. (You may remember in 1989 when Chicken Magnate Bo Pilgrim was caught handing out $10,000 checks on the Texas Senate floor just prior to a vote on workers compensation. Something that has a big effect on his industry.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, poultry processing is one of the most dangerous occupations around, with injuries occurring at a rate of 12 per 100 full-time workers. Other sources estimate the injury rate to be as high as 30 percent. He still buys his politicians, just not as flagrantly as before. )

So you're saying that there is corruption in politics and corporations?
!!!!!!
That doesn't mean you should paint all corporations with the same broad stroke.
Some Catholic priests molested young boys. Does that make them ALL evil?
We all know that there are bad cops out there. Should we assume that they are all crooked?

I think we all agree that the Ken Lay's of the world need to be dealt with. Swiftly and Harshly.
But I can not buy into your notion that the rich don't pay their fair share when in fact they pay MORE.

Enron didnt pay any taxes the past 4 out 5 years! They also asked for and recieved federal subsidies.

A rare exeception that one..... Just like these huh?
McDonalds (to advertise overseas)
Gallo Winery (to advertise overseas)
Plush Colorado Ski Resorts
Weyerhauser
Georgia Pacific
Walt Disney (Also received special patent
extensions to keep product prices inflated and
uncompetitive -- granted by "y'our" government)
Martin Marietta
Mining Industry interests
National Meat Association
Energy and Petrochemical Industries
Pepsico's Frito-Lay
Anchor Glass Container Corp.
Federal Express
Nucor
Kidder Peabody Group, Inc.
Nebraska Beef, Ltd.
Mercedes-Benz (bends?)
Time Warner (Ted Turner gave a big
chunk to the UN...?) Check out Bill
Moyers' "Free Speech: For Sale", on
video (1-800-336-1917), where it is
shown that the
broadcast-media-monopoly and cartel
was given $70 + billion in public
airwave channel rights free of charge...
by y'our gov't.
General Electric (GE)
ABB Instrumentation Inc (subsidy of
ABB Asea Brown Boveri Lt., the giant
Swiss and Swedish power generation
and distribution conglomerate)
General Motors (who takes the goodies
then moves its operations south)
Intel
Allied Signal
Eastman Kodak
Caterpiller
Union Carbide
Georgia Pacific
Microsoft
Hughes Aircraft (now part of Ratheon)
Motorola
Boeing
Corporate farmers
Sugar industry subsidies
RCA (now part of GE)
Searle & Co.

You do realize, don't you, that government subsidies and tax breaks are intended to bring in more money in the long run.

A good example is a Shopping Mall. Private businesses benefit from building a shopping mall or plaza. The cost usually from private funds, but the infrastructure to route traffic efficiently is at the taxpayers "expense". It can cost millions of dollars. But it will also bring in many millions more in tax revenu from the sale of goods and employment it creates.
To look solely at the initial expenditure is short-sighted to say the very least.

But I also feel that the cost/benefit ratio has to be looked at and monitored to make certain that the pay off risk is minimized.

Overseas advertising? Sounds incredible, but think about it. If McDonalds is setting up shop in Brazil, and the sale of McPollo sandwiches is down, there would be no profit for Ronald. So the government chips in some cash, the sandwiches fly off the shelf, and the higher profits of this American Corporation get taxed by Uncle Sam.
How Evil...