mr mahs

And the Rev Jesse Jackson had a child out of wedlock. What's your point DOUCHEBAG?

Really good read about the falacy of the poor in our country. This is for the Micheal Moore "hate america crowd" who brand the poor in our country as starving and we are ruthless for not helping them,when the standard living condition of a poor person in the US is better then any place on earth. I've read the FACTS disputing the assumption that children go to bed hungry every night and this article brings those facts to light.. Bottomline is AMERICA isn't as cold hearted as the nine idiots want you to beleive and in the words of Bill Maher, a leftist loon I love to hate..."If you are hungry in america then you aren't looking hard enough" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200401230833.asp Senator John Edwards's stump speech stunningly shows that the genial, upbeat, fresh face in the Democratic field has found the rationale for his candidacy in a bleak past, unrecognizable to most Americans. Edwards has adopted the portrait of widespread, dire poverty famously depicted in Michael Harrington's The Other America — without checking its publication date. The passionate call to arms for anti-poverty warriors was published in 1962, when John Edwards was eight years old. Over 40 years, and hundreds of billions in welfare spending later, Harrington's, and now Edwards's, "Other America" doesn't exist. Senator Edwards passionately talks about the deprivation facing the 35 million Americans identified by the Census Bureau as living below the poverty line. His audiences seem enthralled. Maybe they think he's cute when he gets on a roll? In fact, the incidence of material poverty has been dramatically reduced and those defined as "poor" today have a higher standard of living than those considered middle-class in my grandparents' day. Thanks to the Heritage Foundation's indispensable Robert Rector, we know that government studies paint a dramatically different picture about the well-being of our nation's poor than John Edwards's delusional portrayal. A judge would tell the experienced trial lawyer, "Argue the facts, counselor." Rector's case is based on the data provided by a host of government studies. His conclusion: "Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded." A few more highlights: Forty-six percent of all poor families own their own home, 30 percent own two or more cars, about a quarter have large-screen TVs, cell phones, and personal computers. The biggest nutritional problem facing our nation's poor is obesity. Finally, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 16 hours of work a week. About a third of those categorized as poor do face some material deprivations, such as overcrowded homes or temporary hunger, but the widespread despair of John Edwards's "Other America" is a figment of his ambitious imagination. As Robert Rector has argued, the problem of significant levels of material poverty has become a problem of behavioral poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in a single-parent home. He concludes, "If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty." Someone should tell the excitable Edwards, "It's Nashua, 2004, Senator, not Appalachia, 1962."

The ryme is about the immigrants who have exploited the genorosity of our society, not the HARDWORKING immigrants. The reason why we have to employ low cost labor is because innovation in those industries are primative. Where labor is scarce, innovation is needed to accomodate the demand ie.. car wash machines etc.. Don't think everything will come crashing down if every immigrant worker packed up and left. Don't kid yourself, the mexican lowlifes who come here and mooch on our social services were bums in Mexico just like they're bums here. My answer to this promblem is.... If you are here illegal, provide zero input to our econmy and collect a welfare check every week you should be sent back to the shithole country you came from and mooch off their tax payers. If you are here and are working for close to min wage then should be documented, pay little taxes, contribute part of their earning into a private retirement accounts accessable when the visa expires and the employer should receive tax incentives for providing health care plans... I am not against immigration. What I am against is ILLEGAL immigration, if you want to be here, wait your turn like other immigrants don't enter illegally. The new immigration initiative falls short because it doesn't provide some kind of security apparatus to prevent illegals from slipping in to the country. The national guard should step in and patrol our borders or Vincente and the rest of the immigrants are going to continue to piss all of our system.

ASSHOLE for doing that to his car.. That's as dumb as some rapper who put A Louis Vuton interior in his benz, LOSER...

I come for visit, get treated regal, >So I stay, who care I illegal? >I cross border, poor and broke, >Take bus, see employment folk. > >Nice man treat me good in there, >Say I need to see welfare. >Welfare say, "You come no more, >We send cash right to your door." > >Welfare checks, they make you wealthy, >Medicaid it keep you healthy! >By and by, I got plenty money, >Thanks to you, American dummy. > >Write to friends in motherland, >Tell them come as fast as you can. >They come in rags and Chebby trucks, >I buy big house with welfare bucks. > >They come here, we live together, >More welfare checks, it gets better! >Fourteen families they moving in, >But neighbor's patience wearing thin. > >Finally, white guy moves away, >Now I buy his house, and then I say, >"Find! more aliens for house to rent." >And in the yard I put a tent. > >Send for family (they just trash), >But they, too, draw the welfare cash! >Everything is mucho good, >And soon we own the neighborhood. > >We have hobby--it's called breeding, >Welfare pay for baby feeding. >Kids need dentist? Wife need pills? >We get free! We got no bills! > >American crazy! He pay all year, >To keep welfare running here. >We think America darn good place! >Too darn good for the white man race. > >If they no like us, they can go, >Got lots of room in Mexico.

Just wanted to highlight this part of the article after the theatrical performance of John Edwards last night, as he avoided a direct question and ranted about 35million hungry children in this country.... Liberal advocacy groups, stuck in a gruesome nostalgia for a bygone era of deprivation, still talk of hunger as if it stalks every poor household in the country. They maintain that there are 13.6 million children hungry or at risk of hunger in America, one of the great bogus statistics of our age. As poverty expert Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation explains, malnutrition, understood as a significant dietary deficiency, essentially doesn't exist in America except in small pockets of the population with other problems, e.g. drug addicts or anorexics. Hunger, defined as going without a meal at least once in the past month, is also extremely rare, according to the Department of Agriculture, affecting roughly one-half of 1 percent of American children

Big Diffirence clueless one.... Although he was elected to the Louisiana State Legislature in 1989, as a political candidate Duke has been largely unsuccessful, losing bids for Governor and the U.S. Senate in Louisiana, and for President of the United States in 1988 and 1992. Most recently, in May, 1999, he lost the race for US Congress. Although he has been REPUDIATED by the national leadership of the Republican Party, currently he is serving as party chairman for the St. Tamany Parish in Louisiana. re·pu·di·ate To reject the validity or authority of: "Chaucer . .

Sen Robert C Byrd is a Klans man.. Enough said!

Mr Normalnoises talking out his ass again....

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/malone200401221109.asp Good site.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comstock200401211300.asp In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President George W. Bush called the bluff of Patriot Act critics. Bush pointed out that key provisions of the Patriot Act will expire next year, while "the terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule," and he challenged Congress to renew this important antiterrorism measure. You gotta love a president who is not going to seek a permission slip to protect the American people, especially when compared to the Democratic presidential contenders, who check with the ACLU before defending American security. Their attacks on the Patriot Act are straight from Planet Kucinich — incidentally, the only presidential candidate who actually voted against the Patriot Act in Congress. The president explained during his address that the Patriot Act was one of those "essential tools" which allow federal law enforcement "to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets." The bill passed in October 2001 with only one senator voting against it and with the support of 83 percent of the House of Representatives. As the president pointed out, the law-enforcement methods outlined in the Patriot Act have been used for years to go after drug traffickers and mobsters, and are even "more important for hunting terrorists." He could have been quoting Senator Joe Biden (D., Del.), who said at the time of the bill's passage, "[T]he FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists." Yet on the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidates — even those who voted for the Patriot Act — sing another tune. Sen. John Kerry now claims, "If you are sensitive to and care about civil liberties, you can make provisions to guarantee that there is not this blind spot in the American justice system that there is today under the Patriot Act." When Kerry voted for the bill in 2001, however, he observed: "Most of [the Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th." Wesley Clark, who has put himself up as a national-security expert, says of this important national-security measure, "What I don't understand is why we have [the Patriot Act] and why we need it." Well, let's explain it in the words of Sen. John Edwards, who hailed the bill upon passage: "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing." Unfortunately that's the same Senator Edwards who now boasts of his national-security experience. On the campaign trail he claims, "I support dramatic revision of the Patriot Act." Edwards has also said that "the notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased...runs contrary to everything we believe in this country." But as the Washington Post editorialized last summer when Al Gore made ludicrous claims about libraries and the Patriot Act, "Much of the criticism of the [Patriot Act] has been shrill and ill-informed." In fact, the bill's so-called "library provision" has never even been used. If Senator Edwards had been paying attention in his briefings, he could have asked, and would have known better. In recent Senate hearings, Senator Biden called criticism of the Patriot Act "ill-informed and overblown," and commended the Bush administration's prosecutors' work in terrorism cases. In the same hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) also offered a strong defense of the Patriot Act, saying she believes there is "substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do and how it has been employed." And while Sen. Joe Lieberman can often be counted on to be a rare voice of sanity on the Democratic campaign trail, even he has attacked the bill: "Do you know that the worst violations of civil liberties after September 11th occurred not just under the Patriot Act, which, believe me, deserves to have a real close look?" Perhaps he should get that close look from Senator Feinstein, who actually did her homework: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none." When the Patriot Act passed, Joe Lieberman was on the mark: "[T]he measure that passed and was signed into law appropriately balances security and liberty." Though Lieberman has wrongly changed his tune, President Bush remains on the mark now: "Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens; [Congress] need to renew the Patriot Act."

January 22, 2004, 11:09 a.m. Hard Times Life and death in Baghdad. By Martha Malone BAGHDAD — Tuesday morning I woke up at 7 A.M. local time — one of my trailer-mates across the hall was using the shower so I dozed. One by one, she, her roommate, and then my roommate made their way into the bathroom after the previous person had finished. My bed was warm; the heat was blasting...(yes it gets cold in Iraq, too). At 8 A.M. I was still in bed. All of a sudden there was a huge explosion (there is a kind of smaller sound a bomb makes right before the huge "boom," that I don't know how to describe other than to say it exists and so it went — kind of "click" and then BOOM). It was really loud and the trailer shook. I thought it was another rocket. I was shocked that there was a rocket attack during daylight hours — that would have been new. I waited for the alarm to sound. And waited. No alarm...hmmm...odd. My roommate came scurrying in from the bathroom, shaking. "Did you hear that?! The whole trailer shook!!!" I said it must have been a rocket — it sounded kind of like the rockets that had hit in the past — but then, how different does BOOM sound from BOOM? Experts may say that each has a distinct sound...and I am sure they are right, but if you are in a trailer in central Baghdad, BOOM is pretty much the same as BOOM. Right. So we figured it was a rocket attack and shrugged our shoulders, and I forced myself into the bathroom for the morning ritual. By the time I got out of the shower, I heard the sound of sirens. But that was not very unusual — only slightly unusual. I brushed my hair, got dressed, and while I was tying up my boots my cell phone rang. It was somebody from my office calling to see if I was alright. Sure, I said. I'm fine. Then she told me what had happened. She said there were many dead and we couldn't account for everyone in our office — specifically, two translators who were last seen at the entrance where the bomb exploded. For hours no one knew where they were. We went about our day as best we could. Work never stops here — progress is the best revenge against these savages. But our minds were with Raghad and Hadeel — and our prayers, too. Several Arabic speakers from our office hopped in a car and made the rounds to all the hospitals. Finally, after lunch we got word. They found Raghad — she was injured but would recover...but still no Hadeel. The last time Raghad had seen her she was trapped inside a burning car, and no one could open the doors. The car started making its way around the city morgues. Still nothing. It took until almost 9 P.M. that night to learn that her body was found and identified by her parents. Hadeel. She had just gotten engaged last week and was making plans to join her fiancée in the Netherlands. She had the most beautiful shy smile, and never forgot one of our birthdays. She helped us put up all of our Christmas/holiday/whatever decorations, and jokingly called us "wicked" if she found us using her workstation, the nicest one in the kitchen office. I don't know if you have noticed this, but it seems like there are just certain phases in life when everyone around you is going through the same thing. Weddings and babies were sort of the collective experience when I left the U.S. more than three months ago for Baghdad (and I am not ashamed to admit that at the time I was happy to escape all of that). Now it is a much darker time. Work continues at its staggering pace and on the surface, until now, everything has seemed normal (or as normal as it can be in a war zone), but there is an air of heavy sadness that has hung over all of us these days. Two weeks ago on Thursday another one of my friends was murdered. She was 24 years old and a translator for the ministry of culture. The translators I have met here are remarkable. Another from the group assigned to our office comes out of the "green zone" with us every day. She is married and has two children and tells us she is building their future. She truly believes this, and believes in what we are doing. She acts as a sort of surrogate mother as many on our team are under 30. She laughs at some of the comments she hears about us over there (i.e., "What, they couldn't send us someone in diapers?"), and frequently gives us subtext as well as literal translations during some difficult meetings. On that Thursday she was bereft. She made me promise to take care of her children if anything happened to her. That night she called me and put her sons on the phone with me so they would know who I was. About a month ago there was an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) in front of where I work in the city. The Iraqi guards found it — they came running upstairs to warn us about it. We all ran out of the room we were in at the time as it faced the street and had windows. In the hallway I realized I had left my backpack in the room. In it were the car keys and a bunch of cash. I started back to the door when our translator stopped me. She insisted on going herself to get my things, and before I could argue she was gone. When she returned I hugged her and told her I loved her and she simply said, "I would die for you." Coming from someone who has lived through what she has, those were not idle words. What possible response is there when someone tells you that? So much of what I have been experiencing lately is incomprehensible to me — it just comes and I don't know how to process it all. I made a pact with myself that if I felt physically threatened I would leave. But where do you draw the line?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030121.shtml America's overweight poor The problem with America's poor kids is that they're too fat. Few policy-makers are willing to say this rather obvious truth, which is why America's nutritional programs are caught in a 1930s time warp that amplifies the chief health problem facing poor children -- namely, that they're overweight. Liberal advocacy groups, stuck in a gruesome nostalgia for a bygone era of deprivation, still talk of hunger as if it stalks every poor household in the country. They maintain that there are 13.6 million children hungry or at risk of hunger in America, one of the great bogus statistics of our age. As poverty expert Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation explains, malnutrition, understood as a significant dietary deficiency, essentially doesn't exist in America except in small pockets of the population with other problems, e.g. drug addicts or anorexics. Hunger, defined as going without a meal at least once in the past month, is also extremely rare, according to the Department of Agriculture, affecting roughly one-half of 1 percent of American children. Advocacy groups get their higher number by resorting to a category in Agriculture Department surveys measuring "food insecurity without hunger," meaning the worry that it might be hard to find a meal. This statistic tries to capture a psychological state rather than anything real, and contradicts the harder (or at least pudgier) evidence on the ground. According to Rector, the average poor child is, in fact, supernourished. On average, he consumes twice the daily recommended allowance of protein. By age 18, he will be an inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the average teenager in 1950. This is all to the good, except that this positive trend has been supersized. Douglas J. Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute notes that 65 percent of Americans are overweight, and the poor are even more so, by an estimated 5 percent to 10 percent. Adolescents from poor households, Besharov reports, are twice as likely to be overweight. This reflects a worldwide trend. In poor countries, it's the rich who tend to be disproportionately overweight, while in advanced, rich countries it's the opposite, since it takes so much time and effort not to be overweight (rich urbanites, for instance, have the fancy gym memberships). Excess weight is, of course, associated with the increased incidence of all sorts of health disorders, from coronary disease to type 2 diabetes. It's important, therefore, to get kids on the right nutritional path. "The simple fact is that more people die in the United States of too much food than too little," said Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman in 1998, "and the habits that lead to this epidemic become ingrained at an early age." The federal government helps ingrain them, as Besharov argues. Food stamps can't be used for anything other than food, forcing some recipients to buy more than they need. School breakfast and lunch programs are stacked with calories on the assumption that kids will go hungry the rest of the day. The Women, Infants and Children food-support program -- roughly half of all newborns are enrolled -- also favors high-calorie, high-cholesterol food. Besharov suggests substituting cash for food stamps, slimming down school meals and focusing the WIC program more on fruits and vegetables and on sound nutritional counseling. Doing any of this, however, will require prevailing over the howls of liberal advocacy groups, which love to feel as if they are "crusading against hunger" in a callous country two steps away from the starvation of Zimbabwe. Such groups are increasingly disconnected from the real problems of the urban poor. They talk about hunger and housing, which are conveniently susceptible to big-government solutions (more food programs! low-income housing!). The real problems of the poor tend to be crime, failing schools, out-of-wedlock births, sexually transmitted diseases and poor eating habits. It's time for liberals to upgrade their image of America. We live in such a splendidly abundant nation that even the poor are overweight. Get over it.

DEMOCRATS are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane. On "Meet the Press" back in November, Clark described intelligence as "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence. Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks. The adversarial watchdog press did not ask Clark to explain how he could guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, but recited Clark's prior statements calling for better intelligence. Apparently, if we could just refine the gray goo of intelligence to a magical terrorist-prediction machine, Clark could put an end to this terrorism nonsense once and for all. Yes, I suppose if our intelligence agencies knew who the terrorists were and when they were going to strike, we could stop them. And if we knew who all the raving lunatics were, we could prevent these infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. Which reminds me, I think I know how we can win the lottery every week, too. Liberals scoff at a system to shoot down incoming missiles, but believe that all random suicide bombers can be located and stopped before they strike. Hitting a bullet with a bullet just isn't feasible, so let's concentrate on something doable like predicting the future. Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans. Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' -- stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours -- 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day. Asked what countries he proposed to bring into Iraq that weren't there already, Clark said, "I think you ask NATO ... just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem." NATO is the logical choice for this job because of Iraq's extremely close proximity to the North Atlantic. Evidently, Clark is sublimely confident that no one remembers anything about his misadventures in the Balkans. Yugoslavia posed absolutely no threat to the United States -- not imminent, not latent, not burgeoning, not now, not then, not ever. (Unless you count all the U.S. highway deaths caused by Yugos.) The president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, never tried to assassinate a U.S. president. He never shook his fist at the Great Satan. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists -- though the people we were fighting for did. In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn't hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn't even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker. And yet NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark, staged a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia. Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall. Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: "American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy." Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him. At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won't have to worry about any embarrassing "mission accomplished" photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there! That's the Democrats' idea of a general.

Correct and this is what lefties refer to as the "Good Old Days" under Clinton not realizing the crippling effect a stock market bubble has on an economy when it does collapse.

Naturally some are but the bottomline is that companies are making money again.

Dude in all honesty, don't take this as an insult. Please read about the bush tax cut before you discount or claim it only effects certain people and doesn't effect small companies because you are wrong. PLEASE READ!!!! http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527

Now It’s Us vs. Them Kerry and Edwards are no friends of the investor. By Larry Kudlow The Iowa Democrats did the entire party a favor by nominating senators Kerry and Edwards — rather than the nutty Howard Dean — in their caucus votes Monday. But the results need a reality check. With their Us vs. Them vision of the economy and culture, Kerry and Edwards are clear enemies of the investor class. Though they themselves are millionaires, they are running against successful earners, entrepreneurs, and investors — people who worked their way into higher tax brackets and benefited greatly from President Bush's 2003 tax-cut plan. Namely, Kerry and Edwards would cancel the tax cuts on investor dividends and capital gains, repeal the drop in high-end income-tax rates, and overturn the planned elimination of the inheritance tax. This is why the stock market opened the day after Iowa on a less-than-gleeful note, despite booming earnings reports left and right. The market knows what the new Democratic frontrunners seem not to know: Bush's tax cuts on investment have resurrected the stock market and reignited the economy. Instead of punishing investment, Bush's plan rewarded it. By taxing capital less, indeed roughly 40 percent less, we are getting more capital investment. If elected, however, Edwards would raise the tax rate on capital gains to 25 percent from 15 percent. Both candidates would eliminate the 15 percent tax rate on dividends and roll it back to the new higher top tax rate, which would be somewhere between 40 and 45 percent. Apparently neither man understands the incentive model of economic growth, which is the backbone of supply-side economics. Their class-warfare approach to the economy seems to assume that by hurting the rich, they will somehow help the non-rich. This is the classic fallacy of the so-called populist approach of liberal Democrats in recent years. It is completely at odds with President John F. Kennedy's vision of rewarding everyone in society with lower tax rates, which are designed to produce a larger economic pie. A winning tax program is never about those who are already rich. They can shelter and hide their money from the IRS ten different ways. But a truly growth-oriented approach to tax policy provides fresh rewards for those attempting to climb the ladder of success. However, barricading the doorway to opportunity is no way to make the non-rich rich. Countries all over the world have been reducing high marginal tax rates in order to spur more work and investment. JFK understood this forty years ago. But for some reason, senators Kerry and Edwards have failed to either read or understand history. Rather than borrow a page from Kennedy — or his Democratic descendents Zell Miller and John Breaux — they've gone to the playbook of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. The oddest paradigm of all comes from Sen. Edwards. He talks about creating a "movement" that will somehow bring down rich America in order to boost "ordinary" America. This class-warfare speak is circa. 1920, and it makes no sense in a United States where 55 percent of families — over 90 million people — own stock. These are the folks who supply savings to new business ventures that create new jobs. More, Edwards makes a good show of lashing out at special interests. But the former trial lawyer is the tort bar's main man in Washington. Formerly great American companies like Bethlehem Steel, Kaiser Aluminum, and W.R. Grace were bankrupted by asbestos lawsuits, but Edwards does not appear inclined to eliminate frivolous litigation and unsubstantiated tort claims. Nor does he realize that reforming medical malpractice lawsuits would be the greatest single contribution to lower health-care costs. When it comes to taxes and tort, there's nothing moderate about the new Democratic frontrunners. Yet President Bush — particularly by reducing tax burdens across the board on the ownership class — has demonstrated a true understanding of what makes our economy tick. And he knows there's more to do. His push for new tax-free savings plans will provide even more capital for the expansion of American business and jobs. Rewarding success, not punishing it, is the Texan's key understanding of a modern-day economy. Be it Us vs. Them, or Rich vs. Ordinary, American's now have a clear choice between government dependency and individual responsibility and opportunity. Whether it's Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or whoever in November, the Democrats have drawn the line in the sand this election. Perhaps it will be a replay of 2000, where Gore took a populist left turn and deserted Clinton centrism. But this time, a rising economic tide, and the new wealth creation of the investor class in 2003 and 2004, means the ownership vision will triumph over the big-government hallucination.

Isn't that already being done.....

Thats the reason you will never amount to shitin this country you tree hunging, hippie wanna be burnout

I love how the left discounts what they know nothing about. Jamiorguy if you don't believe history is our best teacher when looking at the effect that tax cuts play in a recovery like they did for Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush. How would YOU create jobs, other then lowering taxes?

I dropped my English class last semester because of it. First class this deuchbag starts barking about Bush this Bush that... Just teach me english you tool, noone needs or wants your political input....

Religous on marriage?