We need to end this fast track trade nonsense now. The current political attitude of "give business anything and everything they want" needs to be reviewed and the middle class workers...you know the ones who support both the wealthiest and poorest Americans...need to be taken into consideration. Cafta and Nafta need to be revoked.

the big biz- imperialist fix gets in awfully early- even before the dems have fully disguised their coming nearly unanimous vote to fund the war with empty, too-late critical rhetoric.

If you end NAFTA and CAFTA you will hurt more then just the evil "big businesses". You will hurt the people they employ. You would more then likely cause significant inflation on everything from food to clothes to automobiles. Higher prices on goods hurts the middle and lower classes much more then the "rich" that everyone hates/envies.

Wanna help the working poor and middle class america, start by eliminating taxes on the first $50,000 of workers wages and small business profits. Then make all medical exp. pretax dollars and 100% tax deductable. make college tuition 100% tax deductable and pretax dollars all very simple and helps working poor and middle america.

Ryan, Take your "higher prices on goods hurts the middle and lower classes much more thant the 'rich' that everyone hates/envies" comment one step further. If they received a more significant portion of the tax cut, they would be better off than if those same $$ went to the rich. I believe by taxing the rich at the prior tax level and giving the middle class the dollars instead the economy would be better off. There would be a wider range of economic growth instead of just certain areas. Just a thought.

Mark - Unfortunately good economics forbids me from taking it one step further. See by "giving" the "rich" more of their own money, often times it will be reinvested in their businesses or in venture capital or in publically traded companies. All of these investments have ripple effects that help the middle and lower class by producing jobs. If we taxed the "rich" at higher levels, thus shutting off some of the investment capital that is needed for job and wage growth, and gave tax cuts to only the middle and lower class, they would buy some services and goods but would not cause nearly the ripple effect that the "rich" would provide.

Ryan, I glad you think that big businees is evil...You must have attended one of Ronald Regans "Voodoo Economic Seminars"...you remember the "Trickle Down" effect? Well the trickle has stopped for the real American taxpayers.

Ryan, the trickle-down economic theory that you support is seen by many economists to have flaws. I like John Kenneth Galbraith’s explanation of trickle-down. He said it’s "horse and sparrow" economics: "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." Implicit in your line of reasoning is that “the rich” indeed invest their money in such a way that more jobs are created in the USA. Further, your argument that if “the rich” don’t get this money it shuts off investment capital. However, when the government has insufficient revenues to meet its budgetary needs, it resorts to borrowing money on the capital markets. This raises interest rates, which cuts investment. So too low of tax rates can cut off investment capital as well. In my way of thinking, tax rates should be set to provide enough revenue to keep the budget balanced or in surplus. While I would agree that when President Reagan succeeded in lowering the top rate from 70%, it was a good decision and helped the economy. But just as taxes can be too high, so they can create economic problems if set too low. I believe that Seattle Sue posed the question in a previous discussion that if low taxes are the objective in and of itself, why not eliminate taxes all together. I do not believe any of the conservative posters responded. Ryan, I don’t have any problems with your exposing lower tax rates because your posts have consistently advocated lower spending. However, over the last six years, the Republicans controlled both the Presidency and the Congress. They’ve cut taxes but they have also spent like drunken sailors on shore leave. I don’t know if the Democratic Congress can do any better, but I maintain that no matter who is in power, the discussion of proper tax rates cannot occur in a vacuum without considering the spending side of the equation.

It only stands to reason that if the rich and big business have more money to reinvest in their corporations that it will create more jobs. They will also spend more money helping other business see bigger profits and pay decent wages to their employees. Ronald Reagan had it right. How quickly did we see a turnaround from the terrible recession of the 70's when Reagan's policies were put into effect? Galbraith is one man with one opinion, and he is entitled to it. In my opinion he is wrong. The Robin Hood economics smack of socialism and we've seen in the past the damage that kind of thinking can do.

Marty - By "real American taxpayers" I'm guessing you're reffering to the top 10% of wage earners who pay 85% of the income taxes.

Rick - I completely agree with you about tax rates. I believe that they could go too low. I also agree that when you cut taxes you must have financial restraint. You can't "cut and spend" like this "compassionate conservative" form of Republicanism has done. I don't in any way believe that the current levels are too low I just believe that the "new Republicans" have spent way way way too much money on bloated federal programs. In answer to Seattle Sue's question, obviously to have a functioning government that protects this nation as it is set out to do in the Constitution, you must have some revenue. I would be all for cutting taxes lower as long as it is met with spending cuts and reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.

Trickle down economics? It's easy to explain. There is a big hole filled with 90% of the U.S. population. The top 10% stand at the edge of the pit, zippers down, trickling on the lower 90%.

Actually Darren we did not see a quick turnaround under Reagan. Checking history, one will find a significant recession in 1982. Giving him his due, things went very well for the next six years, but the deficits created under his watch came back to hurt GHW Bush. I always liked how Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers explained the Reagan years. He said, in effect, give me $200 billion on the credit card, and I can throw quite a party as well. Of course sooner or later the bill comes due. It did and we saw what happened. By the way, the reason we had the longest peacetime expansion of the economy under President Clinton was because he used arithmetic. He cut spending and raised taxes to balance the budget and created a surplus.

"Trickle-down is another name for being yellow-rained on.

Darren after 12 Year's of (trickle down economic's), Bill Clinton successfully exposed it was for what it was ( Voodoo economic's). That is why he successfully campaigned on ( It's The Economy Stupid)& ousted Bush SR, after 4 year's in office. As for Ryan stating ( like other's in this country)that higher taxes on the Rich is bad business for Job growth & capital investment's is (Hogwash).With Clinton taxing the Richest, job growth was over 17 million new job's created in his 8 year's. With GWB's tax break's for the Richest, job growth is around 7 million new job's. Now, just little common sense will tell ya that the 10 million job desprenacy ( $$)is going into the Pocket's of the Wealthyist & Not creating New job's. It is also the reason why jim webb stated last week, that Corparate Ceo's packages have Exploded from around 20 times the average worker's salary to almost 400 times as much. When the richest have to pay Higher taxes, they have to invest more $$$ to make more $$$. When their left with paying taxes under this adminstration & other past Republican admistration's,it's more $$ in their Pocket's. Simple Math.

Ryan...only one part of the taxes we pay come from "income taxes". The rest of those taxes come in the form of sales taxes, user fees, and licenses. I for one would do away with the income tax and go with a value added tax and a sales tax and no one would get any deductions.

The money doesn't "trickle" back to the American worker anymore, it gets used to build facilities in cheap labor countries which does nothing for people who can't afford to invest in those facilities

Ryan and Darren are right China is booming with all of that re-investment business. This administration said let's get the Government off the peoples back. Then they interfere in the Schaivo case. what this administration meant by the people was the multinational corporations. You can point out the great economy but the average working man is bringing in considerably less money than he was six years ago.

to Mark Yokomizo - don't pay too much attention to ryan and darren, they are just republican hacks who keep spouting give the rich more money and it will trickle down. They never learned the Henry Ford principal, which is when he first started his factories, he discovered that the workers could not afford to buy the ford cars he was making, so he raised ther wages so they could afford to buy the cars, and the rest shall we say is history. You see Henry got richer when he sold more product, and the workers were more than happy because they were boosted into the middle class, and they weren't trickled on by the super rich, wow what a concept. As more and more of these republicans fall by the wayside, and the democrats start taking over again, you will see an improvement in the jobs and economy for the rest of us, and not just for the rich.

beverdambob a lot of Republicans are middle class not super rich. Only 3% of our nation is catogrized as super rich 10% of us make more than $90,000 per year but less than $150,000 so how in the heck do you explain such a large number of registered Republicans when they are not all super rich?...The problem is that you're buying into one of the oldest Democratic tricks in the book...class warfare. The world is round beaverdambob not flat.

"rick" , just "rick" not "rick,ky" - judging by the tone and actual knowledge put forth in your posts I'm guessing you are two different people. Anyway, rick, you are right about Reagan. Most of his policies took some time to start to kick in. 1981 and 82 were bad years. As far as the spending goes from what I can remember most of it was defense spending to try to win the Cold War, which of couse was accomplished. In regards to the Clinton administration. Do you think that Clinton would've really cut spending without the Republican congress? If HillaryCare would've been implemented that would've balooned government spending. Of course, now that I think about it I think he had some rather serious tax raises in there to help offset the cost, so who know. Anyway, just a question I had for you.

Yo, beaverdambob, I have not read one person say "give the rich more money". Instead, people like Ryan, Darren, and myself say "let people keep the money they earn". See the difference? Give vs. keep? Not too hard, really. Methinks you all are just jealous that others make more than you do and you see forced wealth redistribution as your free ticket to easy street. No thanks. You can keep your socialism and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Mad Mike - it is easy to explain why there is so many ignorant republicans, they are mostly from the bible belt, and whenever Bush says "I like God" they fall for it, because they put their church above their best interests, and the best interest of their country. Further if you don't think that a $240 million dollar pay package for a CEO is not obscene, while at the same time lobbying for more tax cuts for themselves and trickling down on the workers is just plain wrong, and all the while spewing out this theory that they are the ones that need this money to invest and create jobs, then vote republican. I sure haven't seen any investment or job creation going on. Most of our factories are old and falling apart, and there has been no oil refineries built in this country in decades, so where did the big oil tax breaks and windfall profits go to?? Get real Mr. republican, you are not living in the real world, just the fantasy one your party has created for you and your kind.

Despite the new Democratic majority, I do find it odd that so many voters support a President whose policies are hostile to the majority of their interests. The estate tax cuts, or the death tax as the Bush administration likes to call it, how significantly does that impact the majority of Americans? Similarly, the cuts in the capital gains tax, which I think is nice, but do the majority of American household realize any benefit? Nationally, the median household net worth excluding home equity is about $14,000. Exactly who is supposed to be benefitting on all these tax cuts related to transfers of wealth?

If socialism is so great why don't all of the liberals move to countries that practice it. The United States is and always has been a capitalist society as a result we have been and still are the most powerful country in the world. I'm extremely proud of that not ashamed as so many of our liberal friends. If you want something in this country and you work hard get educated you can get it. So for those who want change or don't buy into this mentality I say go somewhere that isn't America because that's not what we're about. If you don't want to leave then stay bitter and keep telling us how you hate Bush. Or do something about it. There are so many rags to riches success stories in this country heck even rags to a decent living stories. The difference between the haves and the have nots 97% of the time is the haves worked hard and smart and made something of themselves. Here's a great example.

A friend of mine (a Republican) said that his daughter who was away at college was complaining about the Republicans (no doubt she was being indoctrinated by a liberal college professor). She said ”It’s not fair that they (Republican Voters) should have so much and others (mainly democrats) have so little. My friend listened to his daughter for a while and then he asked her how school was going. She said she was getting all A’s and had a 4.0 GPA. The father asked his daughter about her roommate who was notorious for partying and skipping class and his daughter said “She’s got a D average and may not graduate.” The father then proposed that his daughter share her good grades with her roommate which would in effect bring his daughter’s grades down to a C+ average but in the process it would allow her lazy roommate to graduate but his daughter said “No way, I worked so hard for those A’s I skipped parties I studied when I wanted to go out you can’t take away my A’s I earned them!” My friend then looked at his daughter and smiled and said “Welcome to the Republican party”. That sums it up folks.

beaverdambob You said "there has been no oil refineries built in this country in decades" You are joking right??? You can thank your party for no new oil refineries the special interest groups that control the Democratic party won't even let us drill for oil in amwar Antarctica. Where we want to drill is the size of a football field so it's not even the size of a pin on a map of the world. Also, while I agree 100% that CEO's are way over paid my earlier point to you was we don't have 50 million CEO's in the country let alone each of them making 240 million. My point to you is there are a lot of middle class Republicans out there. I had a friend who was a union man he worked in a factory up north when a lot of the factories started getting shut down he saw the handwriting on the wall he struggled to put himself through college and learn a new trade all the while supporting his wife and 3 kids. Today he is an extremely successful attorney and opened his eyes to what the Democratic party truly is...an oppressor deigned to get votes from the downtrodden. He didn’t become a Republican he became a Libertarian which is what I would be if I could vote in the primaries as one. Look them up that is the party America should align itself with. So to my point you are what you make yourself in this country, if you're in a shrinking job market then adapt and overcome start something new it's not easy but then success never is.

Mad Mike - just as I thought, you can't argue the facts about the economy, you come up with some BS about a democrat girl partying too much, while the true red republican girl studies hard and gets a 4.0 gpa. Apparently you have not heard the news about your corrupt party going down the drain last november. I think that is only the beginning, come 08 you will see some more fall, because the part of the country that is still kool aid free is seeing through all of this stuff. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the democratic party is not perfect, but overall they always seem to make it better for the working people of this country, while the republicans always make it better for the corporations and the rich, and worse for the working people. This high stock market will not last Mike, the debt that your corrupt party has piled onto the rest of us is going to make it crash at some point, and I think sooner than later. And for what Mike, a sensless war of choice that made corporate america richer and more powerful. The sad part is that us working class are going to be stuck with the bill, thats the way it was with Reagan and thats how this will probably turn out also.

Ryan. I'd bet that 'HillaryCare' wouldn't have cost as much as 'Baghdad Care', and would have saved a lot more lives.

Ryan, yes you are correct we are two different people. I have been blogging on this site since the day it changed from its old format. If I recall my first post, it was to the effect that MSNBC had made a big mistake changing their format. Only I wasn't that polite. Guess I was wrong there. Anyway to respond to your question about my opinion regarding the Clinton Administration's spending cuts, I don't think the Republican Congress had a lot to do with them initially. The reason I say this is that I believe the account given by Bill Clinton himself in his book "My Life." His account agrees with my memory and I do not recall his account being challenged by anyone when it was published. It recounts in detail the first budget battle when Clinton came to Washington. On page 534 he gives the figures settled on in the final budget as $255 billion in budget cuts and $241 billion in tax increases. He goes on to recall how it was passed in the Senate when every Republican voted against it. The Republicans called it a "job killer" and "a one way ticket to recession". So he did it without the Republicans. My opinion is that then the Democrats were turned out of office in the Congress. For the next six years we had what was known as gridlock. Neither party could change the basic structure of the tax code or spending due to the divided government. From the point of view that gridlock allowed the Clinton ecomonic plan to work, I think it's fair to say it might not have succeeded without the divided government which included the Republicans. You make the point that spending could have skyrocked under the Democrats. I believe one of the reasons Democratic Party lost power was it's inability to controll it's spending. So yes, I would have to agree that it is one possible scenario of what might have occurred. Given that Clinton was able to cut spending as he did in his first budget, it makes me think he would have opposed runaway spending. Just my opinion since it's speculation.

I must really protest Mad Mike’s 4:33 pm post. For the second time today, he starts with his slur that liberalism is socialism. By the way, his knowledge of history is challenged, at best. For the record Mad, the United States started out as a mercantilist society. Your statement that you are proud and that somehow liberals are not is complete fantasy. As far as your “love it leave it” crap, well, my family has had a member fight in every declared war beginning with the French and Indian War, before independence. So if your not native American, don’t give me your line about it being your country. Finally, your touching story. How dare you try to make the case that the only people who are educated and financially successful are Republicans. It is utterly ridiculous and false. What I wonder is why do you hate so many of your fellow Americans?

Mad Mike - Your posts are amusing to say the least. You don't have a clue of what I do or how much education I have, but that is not the point. You republicans have no compassion for the janitors, maids, waitress's or anybody else. All you can say is go to college and get educated so you can be just like the rest of us snobs, and maybe we will even let you be a republin snot. You are so easy to flush out of your rat hole, now the rest of the posters can see just what you are and what your corrupt party stands for. PS, I do have an education and make a very nice living in the I.T. field, thank you, and have another tall glass of kool aid and a great big bowl of grits while you watch cars go roundy roundy on your tv.

Did anyone else find it odd that Bush would go to the Caterpillar factory to tout his economical plan. The Caterpillar stock has dropped about 10% in the past 6 months. From 71.00 to 64.00

Did anyone else find it odd that Bush would go to the Caterpillar factory to tout his economical plan. The Caterpillar stock has dropped about 10% in the past 6 months. From 71.00 to 64.00

"no doubt she was being indoctrinated by a liberal college professor"...Here's a thought, Mike...maybe she went to college, grew a brain and started thinking for herself instead of blindly following her parents' views. To me, there is nothing more insulting than Republicans who seem to think that the only reason someone would stray from the GOP is because they have been brainwashed, usually by so-called liberal educators. It is possible that there are people out there that actually prefer what the Democratic party stands for. One does NOT have to be brainwashed in order to believe something different than you believe, Mike. And btw...what an oversimplified explanation of the difference between Dems and Republicans.

Carrie beaverdam etc. I see I've touched a nerve. Carrie I felt it necessary to oversimplify for the left leaner’s on this post. I didn't want to make it too complicated they might think I had a hidden agenda like trying to listen to their phone calls or stealing their gas. beaverdam pleeeease if you believe "You republicans have no compassion for the janitors, maids, waitress's or anybody else" then you are truly out in "kooksville". Are they not Americans as well? Do they not deserve the same respect as anyone else? That's called upbringing beaver and I'm sorry if you came across some Republicans who’s parents forgot how to raise them...but then I could say the same about some Democrats I know as well. So I hope you know that you know you are nothing like the Elitist fools that run your party just like I'm nothing like those that run mine. I don't have a private jet and I doubt you do...we put these elitists in office to hopefully listen to the will of their voters when they do wrong we vote em out just happened in '06 to us and it happened in '94 to you. Also, for the record I never made any assumption as to your education or what you did for a living but apparently I must have hit close to the mark because you sure took offense to my comments and they were just made to illustrate a point had nothing to do with you. That’s the problem with the left they take everything so personally that they can’t stop and process the actual message.

Sue that is really odd. On a side note I also heard he tried to operate one of the vehicles and almost flattened some members the press. I find that rather ironic.....glad no one was hurt though. But to your point on Caterpillar visit...you actually have me at a loss of words...The economy is doing quite well right now (if you need the facts/proof on that I'll get them for you) so why wouldn't he have gone to a company posting an increase in stock price? Where did you find that information?

Beaverdam....no rebuttle it figures. That's what happens when the right is right

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):