I hate him.

I feel so very pessimistic it's not even funny. I watched part of this speech on tv and I couldn't help but roll my eyes at his good-hearted, "aw shucks" jargon.

lol - as if he's going to officially declare a recession during his presidency. they'll wait until their golden boy is out of office before they say a word. never mind that the economy is in the crapper.

Omg - is that sand in his hair?

I keep hearing news reports about our dollar, and it is scary! Bear Stearns is such a huge company, I can't believe they needed to be bailed out!!

I don't see how McCain can say he won't raise taxes AND say that he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Our economy is killing itself with credit, and we have been spending far too much. We have soldiers who don't have enough weapons, we have levees breaking, bridges collapsing, and schools failing.

I know from my work experience that the uber wealthy are barely effected by tax breaks in the big picture. When you are already spending like there is no tomorrow, it doesn't really effect you if you have an extra $1000 in the bank. The middle class, however, would take that extra $1000 and immediately reinvest in the economy by spending it on bills and goods. (I just randomly chose that $1000).

This is why I think that Obama's redistribution plan makes so much sense. It modestly raises taxes for the very wealthy, and reduces taxes for the middle and lower classes.

How dare he get up in front of all those people and say that!! Basically, he has been shafting American citizens and now he's telling us not to worry because everything will be all right??

Of course it will be ok... AS SOON AS GEORGE LEAVES OFFICE!!

*snorts* This coming from the man who caused our economic downfall. Seriously, I wish someone would gag him, lock him in a room, and make him listen to every speech he's ever given over, and over, and over until he finally admits he's a lying POS.

Well now that he has provided for himself and his cronies things WILL be ok. For them. But this is the same gang that gets the golden parachutes when they run a company into the ground and everyone loses their pensions and their jobs.

I am not sure we should ever have taken any statements from Bush on economics seriously. Precisely how many companies did he run into the ground while engaging in Enronesque practices? Too many gentleman's C's, not enough time spent learning anything about money other than how to spend it.

Matdedalia, he does not even KNOW he's lying. He is a delusional optimistic fella.

If he really thinks that there is no recession, he should be paying my bills.

Every time I go to pump gas I think "Not in a recession my ass!!!!" Every time I look forward to applying for my field school in Greece I look at the conversion rate for the dollar to Euro and sigh at the fact that I basically have to double up all of the money I save and think screw you Bush our economy sucks and no matter how many times you say we are not in or heading towards recession I want to punch you in the face and scream look around!!!

The middle class is disappearing widening the gap between the upper and lower. He is outsourcing jobs like no other. Gas prices are not getting better. Food prices are rising. Our environment is sh*t. People are losing their houses left and right. New Orleans is still extremely devastated. And he stands there and says that we are fine and America is strong Someone needs a reality check

I know he passed that stimulus package so that people will get their income tax refund faster and basically reinvest it into the economy but I have a feeling that people are going to saving their refund instead of spending it specially with much prices have risen for everything.

Also can you imagine what the we could do for our economy if we were not in the Iraq war? They recently said that this year the war will cost about $12 billion per MONTH That is ridiculous!!!!!! So much could be done in our country and around the world with money like that but of course our government puts it all towards a "war" that is going nowhere and achieving nothing. Real optimistic

Our president continues to live in la la land. It's not even vaguely amusing anymore, because so many people are suffering because of his misbegotten policies. Not to mention the tens of thousands of folks who have died needlessly in Iraq. I am saddened.

i see someone is back on sauce

I am so tired of everyone blaming the Republicans for economic problems. *All* politicians are privileged elites and don't much give a cr@p about us little people. None of them know or care that the cost of spaghetti has gone up 25% in the last month or so, and bread is up by 10-20 cents, even at the "day-old" store.

Offshoring of jobs started during the 1990's, which was primarily Bill Clinton's era (1993-2001). He also signed NAFTA, which became effective on 1/1/1994.

Speaking of "out of touch," didn't Michelle Obama speak to some people in Ohio recently? Zanesville? The report I heard said she related to the locals and expressed how difficult it is to afford all the day-to-day expenses, like ballet lessons for both girls.

Ooh, yeah, that gets me right here. (::thumps heart with fist:

^^ Sorry, didn't mean for that colon+close parenthesis to convert to a smiley.

"he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years." - Jillness, I know you know better than this. He doesn't want to stay in for 100 years, but will if it need be.

"Our economy is killing itself with credit, and we have been spending far too much. " - True, but it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to fix this. People need to step up and take responsibility for their own actions.

"we have levees breaking, bridges collapsing, and schools failing." - State issues, not federal issues.

"I know from my work experience that the uber wealthy are barely effected by tax breaks in the big picture. When you are already spending like there is no tomorrow, it doesn't really effect you if you have an extra $1000 in the bank. The middle class, however, would take that extra $1000 and immediately reinvest in the economy by spending it on bills and goods." - I generally agree with you on this, most of this money is not going to "stimulate" the economy the way it is intended. When the rebate was announced, some people on this board started talking about how they would spend it on an international trip, i.e., sending the money straight out of our economy. Once again, I feel, this goes back to people not taking responsibility.

"This is why I think that Obama's redistribution plan makes so much sense. It modestly raises taxes for the very wealthy, and reduces taxes for the middle and lower classes." - Or we could tax everyone evenly across the board, cut government spending on programs that the federal government has no legal standing to do, but I suppose that is a discussion for another time.

"This coming from the man who caused our economic downfall." - Like it or not, George Bush did not lend out these mortgages, George Bush did not take out these mortgages, George Bush has not been buying stuff with everyone's credit cards. This means it isn't George Bush who caused this, it was caused by the irresponsible acts of certain people in the mortgage industry, by the individuals who took out mortgages they could afford and by people who have over spent money they do not have. But let's just blame Bush, it sounds better.

"Offshoring of jobs started during the 1990's, which was primarily Bill Clinton's era (1993-2001). He also signed NAFTA, which became effective on 1/1/1994." - I thought G. W. was responsible for these acts too? I read on someone's blog that he stole the Delorean from Marty McFly and went back in time to enact NAFTA himself.....

3M, whatever else he may be, GWB is *not* a TimeLord!
(Sorry, long-time Doctor Who fan.)

However, you remind me of another recent gripe: These mortgage bailout proposals.

I live in a crappy, old, too-small house. Hey, it's L.A., I figure I'm luck to have it instead of an apartment. Now these idiots who signed up for completely irrational payment plans expect *me* to help make *their* payments? And they're living in new homes, three times the size of mine.

Who out there really thinks this is fair? Or even rationally defensible?

Oh, and regarding taxation, I don't want anyone redistributing my money! I worked for years to finish my bachelor's (and a paralegal certificate) in the evenings, after a full-time job and while juggling small kids. Then I worked for more years to get into an employer and job class that compensate me somewhat reasonably. I highly recommend the Great American Advancement Plan: make good choices and work for it.

Concerning tax equity, here's a cut-and-paste directly from the Wikipedia entry "Taxation in the United States". I'm sure it's not the most analytical source, but I believe we can all agree on its objectivity.

"There are about 117 million taxpayers in the United States. The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%)."

"(Sorry, long-time Doctor Who fan.)" - My favorite Doctor was the one who used to eat the Jellybeans!

"Who out there really thinks this is fair? Or even rationally defensible?" - Those who need to be bailed out or, I guess, those who feel they're not giving the fed enough of their money yet.

"make good choices and work for it." - This would entail personal responsibility, thus, is not plausible in the real world.

"Concerning tax equity, here's a cut-and-paste directly from the Wikipedia entry "Taxation in the United States". I'm sure it's not the most analytical source, but I believe we can all agree on its objectivity." - Cabaker posted this over on Conservative Sugar, but I believe it applies:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

"Speaking of "out of touch," didn't Michelle Obama speak to some people in Ohio recently? Zanesville? The report I heard said she related to the locals and expressed how difficult it is to afford all the day-to-day expenses, like ballet lessons for both girls."

I am a local in Ohio. Both of my parents were laid off in their 60s and are struggling with part time jobs to make ends meet after working all their lives. My sister and I are scraping pennies to help them. We have an astronomical job loss rate here. Drive up through Springfield some time and look at all of the boarded up buildings and foreclosed homes. Then come and talk about the people n Ohio wanting to pay for ballet lessons.

"Oh, and regarding taxation, I don't want anyone redistributing my money! I worked for years to finish my bachelor's (and a paralegal certificate) in the evenings, after a full-time job and while juggling small kids."

At a school that almost definitely was funded by taxes (that's right, money redistributed from other people's paychecks). That is unless you went to an expensive private school, which I doubt. Your kids go to publicly funded schools. The parks you go to are paid for by taxes. The safety of your water, the roads you drive on, national security - so many things paid for by the redistribution of people's paychecks it is not possible to list them all. You don't get to benefit from these and then pull up the ladder behind you when you start to do better financially.

I worked hard to get my PhD. I put myself through school. But I also recognize that I had advantages others didn't have and I recognize that I need to help support the society I live in.

Ratt, all the things that you mention, are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, with the exception of national security as this is the main job of the federal government. Everything else is suppose to be taken care of by the state. If we went back to what this country was initially founded on, federalism, more would get done, and the federal government would not have as much power as they do at this current point in time.

"I recognize that I need to help support the society I live in." - There is a major difference between CHOOSING to help society and the government REQUIRING you help by taking your money and redistributing in accordance as they see fit.

Did I got to public schools as a kid? Yes, my parents couldn't afford private schools (maybe they could have if the taxes in New Jersey weren't so outrageous, but we can discuss that some other time.)

Did I go to a public university? No, I went to a private school paid by myself with private loans which are in the six figures. Please note I am not complaining by any mans, this was my choice and I would do it the same way all over again.

But, I digress....

This really is about the role of the Fed and the examples you brought up are on a state and local issue. We should not be taxed on a federal level to pay for these items, these should be left for state and local government to work on themselves, as they see fit.

More importantly, just because someone makes more money does not mean they should be paying a higher percentage than others. It is their money that they worked and I do not believe they should pay additional money to cover programs that they may or may not agree to. I'm a huge fan of the Fair Tax, though I highly doubt we'll ever see any such items actually come into play.

Cine,

I understand the view that the States can better determine what their own citizens need, but having things that everyone needs doesn't limit the size of government. You just get a proliferation of the same regulatory and organizational structures in each State. It also creates a situation in which some States will be at a disadvantage in terms of providing for their citizens because of the distribution of natural resources, industries etc. Our economy by in large is geared towards the whole nation, not the individual State. But when the true conservative Republicans take their party back form the neocons, I would be happy to compromise on those kinds of issues. I respect the traditional Republican views on those kinds of things. (The neocons have expanded the federal government and its powers despite their rhetoric.)

My post wasn't meant as an argument for the centralization of taxation. It was more taking issue with the attitude of now that I am making more money I don't want anyone taxing me as expressed by Lainetm.

As for choosing to help and being required to help, Mellow, I understand where you are coming from but am not as optimistic. No one likes money being taken out of their pocket. But I guarantee that these folks who don't wan the government redistributing their money because gol durn it they worked to get where they are would be back with a hand out if they were in need. That wouldn't take much - most Americans are a paycheck away from homelessness, despite their hard efforts at their jobs. We benefit constantly from things that are done for us using tax money. I would support anyone's right to chose not to pay taxes only if they first gave up the benefits they receive from taxes. All of them.

Henry Kissinger sucks at life. George Bush is out of touch. The economy is certainly in/headed towards a recession, but this too shall pass. I have faith in American innovation, and hard work. We're a politically stable country with institutions that...work (well better than many alternatives) it's going to be ok, tough but ok.

Some of you darn peoples is purty smart!

Geez, you could almost make me sorry for poor W! It appears under his watch, the economy has been ravaged by slovenly average Americans who don't spend enough on the right things and borrowed for all the wrong things and as President, he was powerless to do anything. Lucky for him he'll be rid of us all soon.
Do you really want to quote Wikipedia, which anyone can edit? Really?

He's so arrogant. "I know ya'll are having problems, but I'm rich, and only getting richer! What recession?!" He's sitting back collecting all his money from the record high oil prices!

Hi Ratt,

I've really come to enjoy your presence here and am glad you've stuck around longer than the other yahoos.

I agree with some of what you have posted and can see how state governments would grow in power if the fed was to step aside, but i don't see this as a negative as the Fed is not supposed to be involved in many areas that they have plunged into. Furthermore, it would put the states back in control of their own issues instead of being guided by the fed who does not always know what is best for the state. Last, I do see how it could have a negative fiscal impact on certain states, but i do not believe that is justification for many of the ways the fed has overstepped its bounds in governing states.

As for Laine, she can of course speak for herself (and has not had a problem in doing that ) but I don't believe she meant what she said in quite the way you took it. I mainly say this because (and go knows my memory fails me from time to time) I've found myself in discussions with her where I was quite more conservative on my view of how a situation should have been handled (fiscally speaking.)

"I guarantee that these folks who don't wan the government redistributing their money because gol durn it they worked to get where they are would be back with a hand out if they were in need." - You and I will have to disagree on this comment greatly. While I feel there are some who may do that (just as there are some who are all for heavily taxing the rich and if they became rich would be totally against it,) I do not eel that is the norm. The citizens of the United States give a substantial amount of money to charities of their choice and I believe they would continue to do so, even more so, if given a choice of how their money could be spent.

As I said, I'm carrying a six figure debt from my school and making a salary in the low 5 figures, but I still find time and money to donate as I see fit. I know we can go back and forth on examples here and I doubt we'll sway the other opinions, but I truly believe those who are conservative wouldn't be on the flip side if they were further hurting for money. (P.S. both my finance and I do not have health insurance (she hasn't for years) and neither of believe in or support a state sponsored health care system. My point being I am far my hurt by my financial situation than in a good spot and am all for my beliefs.)

"We benefit constantly from things that are done for us using tax money." - Yes, we do, but we also waste a lot of money in the process as money tends to be lost along the long pathway it takes to go from the taxpayer to an actual project. Again, I feel many programs can and would be handled better by the private sector.

On the flip side, I believe we're also hurt by certain projects that tax money gets thrown into. Again, another issue where I doubt we'll sway our opinion.

"I would support anyone's right to chose not to pay taxes only if they first gave up the benefits they receive from taxes. All of them." - I see where you are going with this, and I do generally agree ith this, but my point is more that we should bring the focus on government programs back to the states and local communities so that they can be handled locally. Then, at that point, it can be really examined whether it is something that really needs to be addressed by the government with tax payer money, and if it needs to, it should be addressed on a fair level.

"It appears under his watch, the economy has been ravaged by slovenly average Americans who don't spend enough on the right things and borrowed for all the wrong things and as President, he was powerless to do anything." - Hmmm, you seem to imply that he is an idiot, yet you want him to control what and how people spend their money? Brilliant! Wish I had thought of that!

No, I never ever said that I want George Bush to control anything remotely involved with my life. I wouldn't let the man clean a bird cage. I just noted that his supporters here seem to be claiming that he's been victimized by the American people.

How is pointing out the truth that this man did not sign the mortgages or make the purchases that has caused all this consumer debt "claiming that he's been victimized by the American people"?

I'm failing to make the connection...

Putting aside the recession entirely, can you imagine what would happen to the market if the Commander in Chief goes in front of the country and says everything is tanking, take cover?

Thats like being in the middle of a game, that your team is losing, and having the Coach come out and say, "You know what guys, we're going to lose this one. And its only going to get worse. And you really should just give up now." What effect do you think that would have on the team?

Hi cabaker

Nicely put.

Hi M3, thanks! Nice to have you back, you were missed!

Read carefully and maybe you'll get the point. I was responding NOT just to mortgages and purchases but to the litany of excuses given for why President Bush, a two term Republican President of the United States, apparently shouldn't be held responsible, in major part, for the fact that our economy is in the toilet.
I don't want a pep talk from him.

OK, and if you read carefully, my point is that you can not hold one man solely responsible for the economic status of a country when the economic policies and generally based on the theory of Free Trade. (There is much debate on the term Free Trade and I am very well aware that we do not live based upon a true Free Trade system, but the flip-side is that we are not based upon a Socialistic System in which the government does have much more, if not full, control of the economic system of the country.)

Back to the topic, you can say that you were NOT only discussing mortgages and purchases, but considering that is part of the reason that we are in such an economic issue (we can of course throw in the jobs losses occurred by NAFTA and Clinton, but I have a feeling you weren't discussing that either) it can not be so easily thrown aside.

What particular issue of the current state of our economy do you want him to be held responsible for?

You know Stephley, for a "journalist" of 20+ years, I would expect you to have a deeper understand of the power of words and the kinds of emotions they can incite, yet you seem to be incapable of making your point without attack.

The President is the first man Americans hold responsible for the state of the economy - remember, he's the decider.
As for particular issues - he should absolutely be held responsible for the 500-billion dollars we've spent the Iraq War, and the fact that huge amounts of American tax dollars have gone missing there. He insisted in the run up to the war that it would be short and pay for itself - either stupid or a liar.

The attack came where and who was the target?

"Read carefully and maybe you'll get the point."

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you had no idea this kind of wording would come off as an attack?

I mean, really?

Really had no idea that 'read carefully' would be read as an attack; nor did I think the use of sarcasm in responses 31 and 33 was meant as a personal attack. However, if I offended anyone, I am truly.

Oops, took out sorry to add truly and never put sorry back! What a shrink could read into that...

"The President is the first man Americans hold responsible for the state of the economy - remember, he's the decider." - Yes, many Americans may hold him responsible, but many Americans don't really understand how economics work either. Just because they look to him to be the cause/solution does not mean it is factual.

In regards to the debt occurred by the War, that he can be held liable for, but the situation of the mortgage/credit crisis has held far more of a strain on our current economy than the war has.

Hmm. To me, your answers sound like we've just gone down Alice's rabbit hole, so I think here I'll just say okey doke have a nice day!

M3 - Don't you realize that if you don't agree then you MUST be uneducated?

When will you learn?!!?

Well, I guess economics can sound a little crazy and Wonderland-ish.....

Ah I was waiting for the ever so popular

And cabaker, where on earth would you get the idea that stephly can't make a point with out an attack?

You're very sensitive, aren't you?

No you just don't appear to have a sense of humor..