My wife was saying during tonight's broadcast that Teresa "really is" an African-American! We already had an African-American in the White House, our first black president Bill Clinton.

Seems to me that an African-American should be born in Africa and then come to America and become a US Citizen.

My German family came here in 1639 (founded Hagerstown, MD) and I could consider myself German-American, but I think I will just stick to American. I am also 1/4 French (which causes internal strife - lol) and 1/4 English and still trying to prove that I am 1/64th Cherokee. Both sides of my mother's family have always spoken of a Cherokee great great grandmother but all who would know are dead.

I am also part "conservative Republican right" and card carrying member of the vast Right Wing Conspirarcy! LOL! Oh yeah, a proud Texan and voting for Bush. And worked for a company where Richard Cheney and James A. Baker III were on the Board of Directors. Baker was brilliant in Florida in 2000. And one more - I am rich according to Democrats.

Speaking of African-Americans, Winston-Salem City Councilman and conservative Vernon Robinson just won the Republican Primary for Congress in North Carolina's 5th District.

http://www.robinson4congress.com/

Also, isn't Sen. Tom Dashle in trouble in South Dakota?

Democrats - do not count your chickens before they hatch!

Well...according to HUD...look it up Paul, the median family income in 2003 was S56,500. You scoff at the fact that a family making about four times less than you considers you rich. You think its a joke, but what happened to the lovely Ms. Antoinette when she wondered why people just didn't eak cake.

I'm glad your having quite a good chuckle as you earn your not quite rich salary. I'm sure the 20,000 expendables Mr. Ebbers unloaded would join in. They could buy low nowadays. Your new call could be "let them buy stock"

You may be giving to much credit to poor little Paul, Jaime.

Tell us, Paul, since "according to Democrats [you are] rich" --- exactly what is the Democrat's (presumably their new nominees Kerry and Edwards) demarkation to qualify, as you put it, as "rich"?

Let us know. Because I'd be very happy to hear that you are in the top %3 of income earners in this country and if so, I hope you'll pay more taxes soon to help fund the troops who have gone without body armor, etc.

So, let us know what you think the Democrats refer to as "rich".

(And P.S. you seem to keep forgetting to answer johnhp's question on the 'President Obama' item. I'm sure it's just an oversight, so consider this your friendly reminder.)

Jaime - very funny stuff. However, I have been to Versailles and they really do not believe that Antoinette actually said that. It could have all been made up to hurt her. Kind of like Bush lied, he misled, �he betrayed our country, and he played on our fears.� � Gore

Let�s see, I believe that the definition of rich to Democrats [it�s hard to pin them down on it] is over $75,000 a year. They may have changed that to $200,000. They said they will only raise taxes over $200,000, so a rich person could still be at $75,000. I hope to reach $200,000 but raising taxes at that level would be a disincentive to make that much. Raising taxes on those making over $200,000 would not help to balance the budget, pay off half our debt, healthcare and insurance for all, education for all, after school programs for all, expanding the military, alternate fuels, etc.

> (And P.S. you seem to keep forgetting to answer johnhp's question on the 'President Obama' item. I'm sure it's just an oversight, so consider this your friendly reminder.)

What was the question?

Rich is a state of mind. You may not think I am rich, the Democrats may think I am, but I know I am because I have a great wife 2 kids a roof over my head, and everything I need if not everything I want. There are people with much more money than I who could not be considered rich under the same guidelines. Poor Brad is not happy unless he is severely pissed off at someone. I feel for you. Lighten up.

Paul said:
"Let�s see, I believe that the definition of rich to Democrats [it�s hard to pin them down on it] is over $75,000 a year. They may have changed that to $200,000."

Um...so in other words, you do not make over $200k - which is good, so you won't have to worry about having your taxes rolledback to the pre-W Tax rates. In fact, under Kerry's plan, you'll get a tax cut.

Which I know is the Holy Grail to your Fake Conservatives! So I guess the only reason why you'd say in your previous note that "according to Democrats [you are] rich" is to continue spreading misinformation and divisiveness like your leader. You, like he, seem interested in misleading Americans if that's what you need to do to win. That's sad.

"Raising taxes on those making over $200,000 would not help to balance the budget, pay off half our debt, healthcare and insurance for all, education for all, after school programs for all, expanding the military, alternate fuels, etc."

Really? What evidence or substantiation do you have for that claim? Or is it just more hoped for misleading? Let us know!

(And yes, you can find johnhp's questions to you directly where the discussion was taking place in the "President Obama" topic. Since you had trouble finding it, here's the link:
http://www.bradfriedman....og/archives/00000349.htm)

Happy to help!

Paul said --- "Jaime - very funny stuff. However, I have been to Versailles and they really do not believe that Antoinette actually said that. It could have all been made up to hurt her. Kind of like Bush lied, he misled, 'he betrayed our country, and he played on our fears.' � Gore"

Well, the difference here Paul is one is an actual quote, while the other is continued policy. Also, you're right that Marie may never have uttered that infamous line, but one of the few blessings of our technological age is that you can't refute the words Bush actually says. We can see him, watch him, rewind him and watch in disbelief again, but it's still him uttering lies and lies.

Since such access is possible, debating his motivations should also be fair game. It seems obvious to me (and many Americans) that his words alone are grounds for immediate dismissal from the office, but for sake of argument, I'll let him eat his own cake. What I cannot understand is how a reasonable, thinking person can watch what he says and think he is a credible source of leadership for the most powerful country the world has yet seen.

Do you really think he lives up? Watch him, listen to what he is saying (and often not saying well, accurately or intelligently). Take the blinders off and tell me what it is about George W. Bush that makes you say, "THAT'S IT. THERE'S OUR GUY." Forget loyalty, forget party lines, why would you cast a vote, pull a lever, punch a card for this man?

I have no idea yet if Kerry will do even a decent job, but I'm of the opinion that even I would make a smarter president. I feel as qualified to run this country as George W. Bush! Now, I'm a pretty intelligent person here, but don't you think maybe we're setting the bar a little low? For the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD?!

Please explain why this person is the right choice for our country in this new age. For the America we wish to be, for the America our children will inherit. Should George W. Bush be the model for our youth, the decider of our values, the Promethus lighting our way?

I guess this got off topic, but the notion that the Media has somehow CONSTRUED information to show Bush as a misleader and a liar is preposterous. He HAS lied, and misled our country, and his administration has used the mediums of communication not only to their advantage but to our detriment. What's worse, he has not owned up to any of it. Please explain to me what it is about George W. Bush that makes anyone, conservative or liberal or undecided, consider him to be an excellent, or even satisfactory, choice for President of the United States.

I think the concern should be that even with rolling back the top tax cuts (which isn't a bad idea since we are fighting a WAR and all), the deficit will not drop because of the spending that Kerry is still proposing. His health care plan alone is estimated to cost roughly $600B, and that is if he gets the $300B in savings from cutting overhead. Which means that the savings from the rollback are going right back out. Which means the deficit isn't shrinking.

I'd like some politican, some day, somewhere, to actually CUT spending. Like every family in the US has to do when expenditures exceed income. What a freaking novel idea THAT is.

And yet I am still voting for Kerry. Which tells you what a knob W is.

truth...When Kerry comes into office, the budget will enjoy something called gridlock.

You see, Kerry was a prosecuter, Lt. Governor, and a senator. As all three, an important part of the equation is deal making. You don't get what you want in a deal by asking for it as a starting point.

When you sell your your home in the future, Teddy, ask for the market value right off the bat and see how happy your are with the deal.

Kerry will never get all his demands. Clinton's booming economy started with a republican House tying him up (new numbers prove there was no Clinton recession BTW).

We see how fiscally responsible a carte blance Republican government is. So why keep it that way?

Jaime,

I actually did sell my house, and got higher than market. But I live in a high-growth area.

I am hoping for gridlock. That's my dream, until we get responsible politicians that can cut and control spending.

Gridlock is good. It was Republicans who forced Clinton to balance the budget in the 90s and it was Republicans who reformed welfare (Clinton reluctantly signed it because the polls wanted it). Yes - I miss the Republican Revolution. However, things have changed since 911 and spending will always go up during war. I like Bush because he is conservative, more so than his father. What I do not like about Kerry is that spending could go up like crazy especially if the Dems control the senate or house, which I am sure they won't. Yes, if Kerry wins, gridlock and that would be fantastic. I like what Will Rogers said "I only fear my government when congress is in session."

As far as Brad's comment about the rich, I never said how much I make and I believe that those making over $200,000 are only in the top 3%. You can't just tax those people and raise enough money. You either have to tax everyone to death or cut taxes, which spurs the economy and puts people back to work, which means more taxpayers and less people sucking on the national nipple.

I count myself in the middle class and I am getting taxed to death. I still think that Democrats would put me in the rich category. When they talk about working families like Gephardt does, that is really code for union workers. Minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage and when they raise the minimum wage, it is an automatic raise for union workers. Union workers only account for maybe 12-15% of workers in the country. Texas is a right to work state and I am not a big fan of unions. That whole �working families� crap by Gephardt is a crock. I do think my taxes will have to go up under Kerry's plan. He will not cut taxes for the middle class. He will raise capital gains tax.

Now, as far as our reputation around the world, since Kerry is a flaming liberal and if liberal equals socialist, then we may instantly be respected by socialist countries like France, Germany, and Canada, etc. So, that would be ok. I, however, think that we did the right thing in Iraq and it is difficult to do the right thing. It's easy to do nothing to get along. It�s easy to govern by polls like Clinton did. Kerry will not get out of Iraq any time soon - for all you guys who hate that we are there.

I was personally hoping that we would hit the terrorists in 6 countries at the same time. That would have sent a message. I guess we didn�t have the resources.

Paul,

Actually this whole voodoo economics thing does promote the growth of wealth for the wealthy but not for everyone else. Think about the 80s. At the end of the 80s the top 20 quentile increased their after tax income by 33,900 and the people at the bottom quentile LOST $600 in terms of after tax income by 1988. This represents a 25% increase and a 4.5% decrease. Trickle down does not work.

What works? Higher entry level wages. How is this possible? A serious support system for the un and under-employed causing businesses to compete for labor.

Paul said:
"Yes, if Kerry wins, gridlock and that would be fantastic."

So you'll be voting for Kerry, like Teddy, to put your money where your mouth is? Or are you simply an unprincipled partisan who will be voting for larger government by voting for Bush instead?

"As far as Brad's comment about the rich, I never said how much I make and I believe that those making over $200,000 are only in the top 3%."

You said you "were rich according to the Democrats". Currently "the Democrats" plan is to roll back Bush's unprecedented-during-time-of-war Tax Cuts on folks making more than $200k.

I'm glad to hear you make that much! And I'm sure you'll be able to afford a few dollars less in taxes back this year, if so. For the good of the Troops at the very least. I'm sure you're unhappy about Bush cutting Veterans benefits.

"You can't just tax those people and raise enough money. You either have to tax everyone to death or cut taxes, which spurs the economy and puts people back to work, which means more taxpayers and less people sucking on the national nipple.

Well, then you'll be thrilled to voted for Kerry, no doubt! Since his plan offers a Tax Cut to 95% of tax payers and businesses both! Unlike Bush's plan which doesn't.

You can read more about his plans (rather than relying on the misinformation you've been spoon fed, and chose to retype here) at www.JohnKerry.com or some specifics on the plan at http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/tax_reform.pdf

You'll also be pleased to know that those cuts and rollbacks are not the only plan for improving the budget shortfalls. But you'll have to go find out yourself, because Rush doesn't report them to you each day.

"since Kerry is a flaming liberal and if liberal equals socialist"

You can stop right there since Kerry (unfortunately) is anything but a "flaming liberal". And since your premise that "liberal equals socialist" is similarly wrong, the rest of your comments are useless.

I'm afraid you seem to understand as much about liberalism and socialism as you seem to understand about conservatism. HINT: Bush's fiscal policies are anything but "conservative". They are bad, but hardly "conservative".

LASTLY, apparently you missed the other notes on this, but johnhp has been waiting for your answer to his question on another topic. Which you can click right here and get to!

I checked out Kerry's plan. I was most impressed by his decision to re-institute PAYGO in the budget. A novel idea, spending only what you have.

It would cover all spending outside of defense and education. Which I find interesting. Defense is logical b/c you can't place national security at the whims of a bad fiscal year.

But education is also logical. It's an investment that'll pay off in the future ten-fold. It spurs growth and development. It'll take 15-20 years to see it, but it's refreshing to see someone have a vision that goes beyond four years.

We'll see what happens. I still have doubts about his health care plans and his refusal to even consider placing a private retirement option alongside Soc. Sec. But he's still a better choice than Bush, whose idea of fiscal discipline is a $500B medicare waste-of-money program while cutting funding for "Energy Star," an environmental program that returned $70 in savings for every dollar spent.

What do they teach exactly at Harvard Business School??

Teddy,

The question isn't what THEY teach; it's what didn;t he learn.

> You said you "were rich according to the Democrats". Currently "the Democrats" plan is to roll back Bush's unprecedented-during-time-of-war Tax Cuts on folks making more than $200k.

You can still believe that rich equals $75,000, even if you are only going to raise taxes on $200,000. Democrats usually do not say what rich means to them but over $75,000 is about right, from past arguments about the rich. If my taxes go up under Kerry, then I am considered rich by them, as far as I am concerned.

I will not vote for Kerry because money is not the most imporatant issue. Abortion, War on Terror, and a slew of other issues that he is on the opposite side of me. Are you guys running with all domestic issues because Kerry can't win on the War On Terror or Homeland Security?

Democrats usually do not say what rich means to them but over $75,000 is about right, from past arguments about the rich."

Really? Would you be kind enough to point to any of those "past arguments" for me? (We'll set aside the fact that the Kerry Plan very specifically calls for rolling back taxes only on folks making more than 200k - but entertain me anyway, let's see what you're talking about).

"Are you guys running with all domestic issues because Kerry can't win on the War On Terror or Homeland Security"

Um...did you not actually see the DNC Convention? Or were you simply relying on Rush and Fox to report it to you? My guess is the latter, since your comment doesn't seem to make any sense in the real world.