Well, I watched the entire debate last night and I can honestly say that I am now DUMBER than I was before! There is no way any of you guys spilling typical GOP rhetoric on this board have watched any of these debates, and are still going to vote for GW!! The guy is about as sharp as the ass on the elephant repub's have for their 'symbol'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a Gore fan, either. But Bush, WOW!!! TOTAL IDIOT!! Everytime he opens his mouth he says......NOTHING! "Put me in office and I will do this and I will do that". He doesn't say how, he doesn't have any numbers to back himself up. Hell, I think Gore knows Bush's plan better than Bush. For three debates now, Gore has tried to get Bush to explain why the people with the top 1% of the income in this country get over 40% of his tax cut money. Bush looks like a spawning salmon moving upstream, moving back and forth, zipping all over the place! The moderator even tried to bust him on it last night, and what does he say; "i want to give the money back to the people, let you have your money to manage, too much big government, BLAH BLAH BLAH". Nothing about him giving a good chunk of my money back to OTHER PEOPLE, the ones with the big houses a lot higher on the hill than mine. Do us all a favor, don't vote for this moron. If you can't stomach Gore, vote Libertarian, or Independent, I don't really care. Don't put this guy in the white house, because I'm guessing when we have to impeach him in a couple of years, they may have a secret list with names of people who voted for him, and that could mean serious repercussions for you.

P.S.- Next time I'll tell you how I really feel......

I agree, Gore seems to be the lesser of the two evils. I think I'm gonna have to vote for Jesse Ventura.

i would also like to add that if bush is elected, he said there would be no dams breached in his term..and if salmo g is right, then all the stealhead smolts that idaho is releasing are being killed by these dams, then it would make sense to get them breached.. but anyways..i was gonna vote bush, but after hearing about the dams not being breached, he lost my vote..anyone gettin any stealhead? **schitzo**

Save the fish...DONT WORRY ABOUT YOUR FAMILY!!!!!What a joke you folks are..I'm stayijn away from this site for a while I cant take all you bleedin heart liberals.go ahead and vote for gore we will see what happens if he gets in...HOPE NONE OF YOU HUNT!!!!!!

Timber Man, Can you please enlighten us a little on Gores gun policy? I really don't think you have much to worry about unless you hunt with a machine gun. If Bush is elected you won't have to worry about the gun laws, there wont be any land to hunt!

Timberman-- GEEEZZZZ!!! Chill out, man! Did I say anything about fish, or hunting??? No, all I said was the guy is a friggin' idiot.
BUT, since you brought it up, what exactly would Gore do to my family?? And do you honestly believe a Demo president is going to take all of our guns away? We've had one for the last 8 years and my Browning is still in the closet, not registered. It's very uninformed and naive to simply vote along party lines. Putting a bonafide moron in charge of the country, regardless of what party affiliation he has is pure stupidity.....

BTW-- THERE ARE NO BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!!!!

fishaday,
have you fished agate pass lately? I am at school but it was alright the day before I left. Becareful not to go there after the indians net it because there is nothing after that.
Ct

Timberman..we'll miss your input!

CtDrifter I personally have been fishing PT no PT out near the lighthouse. I have a couple of buddies that live out there so we fish off there beach in the early am. We have done pretty well we usually get 2-3 fish any given morning. They have been nice size between 8-12 lbs. Going to be heading up to the coast for a few days with the driftboat to see if we can't bonk a big hooknose or two (if the weather holds out).

If you vote strictly along party lines you must be brain dead. If you have a question on where your candidate stands on an issue ask. Contact them through their website and send them an email. Check out Gore's record and also check out Bush. What has he done in his own state? A one term govenor with three years under his belt should have doen something, either good or bad. If you think that either one is better than the other then by all means vote for that man but at least qualify your choice and don't bash other peoples choice or call them bleeding heart liberals, that term is from the 70's. Nowadays the Democrats and Republicans have both drifted towards the center and with out really checking them out you could not tell the difference with the lights out. P.S. Bush has a 666 Tatoo on the top of his head.

The point that no one seems to get is that if bush says he's going to give taxes back to the people that pay it, that means that 40% will go back to the richest 1%.
This is simple math, the richest 1% pay 40% of the taxes, so if money from taxes was given back to those who pay it, 40% would go to the richest 1%.
I'm sure that everyone on this board believes that if they pay more into taxes that they should get more back, as do the rich. Granted, they probably need it a lot less than us, but it's almost fair when you get right down to it.
As far as the dams go, I think it's unreasonable to change a vote based just on this issue(not saying i'm right or wrong, just stating an opinion.)
Bush has said straight out that he supports the dams. I think that's the truth. Does anyone on this board REALISTICLY think that there's a president who in four years will make it a top priority to remove dams so hatchery fish will have a better survival rate? We're talking about a man who runs an entire military, as well as bargains and negotiations with countries across the globe. Gore hasn't come straight out and said he's for the dams, but as far as a low pollution energy, dams are a good source, and gore just have a good enough political savy to stay away from blatantly stating his opinion on smaller issues like this.
Anyway, just wanted to explain the richest 1% tax deal, because someone explained it to me and it made it much easier to understand.

BECAUSE THEY PAY OVER 50% OF THE INCOME TAX NOW!!!! THATS WHY THEY ARE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM 40% OF THE TAX CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If any of you (and you know who you are) would have paid attention in civics and economics class you would understand that. 46% of all wage earners pay ZERO federal income tax by the time they file their return and you think they should benefit from a tax cut...What next, will you insist that the homeless and broke must benefit from a 50% off sale at Nordstrom???????? I think election day should be on May fifteenth exactly one month after tax day so you simpletons would finally get this. I also would advocate for no payroll deduction so you would all have to write a check on april fifteenth for five or ten thousand bucks. The same goes for state and local taxes!!!!! If you all had to write a check to uncle sam for twenty grand a year like I do maybe you would have a better understanding of the concept. So what if he doesn't want to breach the dams... Algore has wanted to for eight years and nothing happened so I don't think pennsylvania ave. has a hell of a lot to do with it, do you??? As for me, I don't like the idea of working till the middle of june just so a bunch of lazy ass pot smokin liberal idiots can dream up new federal programs to save the other lazy ass pot smoking liberal idiots from themselves. Do us all a favor, slowly pull your lips off of that great big federal, state and local [Bleeeeep!] you either are or would like to be sucking on and spend the next couple of weeks brushing up on your history, civics and economics and educate yourselves about the principles, ideals and values that this country was founded upon. I don't recall any history books mentioning wars being faught and won so a bunch of lazy, unmotivated selfish *******s could use the power of the gov't to extract money from the producers to save them from thier own choices in life. Your piss poor planning and choices DOES NOT entitle you to one red cent of MY MONEY. If you or your cause was really worth it you wouldn't need the gov't to take the money against our will!!!!!! If you think the gov't needs more money and programs by god go ahead and write them a PERSONAL check on your own account for any amount you like but keep your hands and Algores hands outta my freakin wallet!!!!

I'm feeling much better now.

ROTFLMAO Backlash2. Great take! - Stever the believer. Parties getting close to the center? Not any time soon! And if you were at a large Wash. D.C. political/social bi-partisan event and the power went out, there is an easy way to tell which ones are con. Repub.'s; they are the ones you hear kissing the asses of their constiuents in the darkness. - And wit45, after reading your post I have you pegged as the sort of guy that would with hold helping your buddy with gas expenses for his boat if either he didn't fish the river you wanted or you got skunked. And if you ever did begrudgingly help with the expenses when things went just your way I bet you'd ask for a receipt as a tax write-off!

------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

Witcal-- I understand economics very well, thank you. If you would have paid attention in ALL of your classes, you would know what really drives an economy. GOODS AND SERVICES. You return all this tax money to the rich and what do they do?? The put it in their IRA's and they have even more money that they can't spend in two lifetimes. You give the money back to the people on the bottom end of the food chain and what do they do with it??? THEY SPEND IT ON GOODS AND SERVICES!!! They buy a better, more reliable car. They spend more money on their kids at Christmas. They take a vacation to grannies house in Arizona that they haven't been able to afford for 8 years. They buy their first Loomis rod. They go to Disneyworld. THEY PUT IT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. IRA's don't drive the overall health of our country. Back to school I guess.....

Backlash - I not only paid attention in econ, someone actually gave me a piece of paper declaring a degree in it, so I may have a clue. I agree with alot of what wit is saying, and feel fairly similar. They did have eight years to get rid of the dams and they are no closer now. GW atleast has the balls to admit he won't do it, unlike Mr. everything to everyone. Don't forget, he wants to fight for you - wait he had eight years to do that and didn't accomplish one appreciable thing. He is a total loser. Then again, GW is scary in what he may do. His laugh reminds me of a very devious person. I hope I'm reading that wrong. Obviously I'm not pro either clown and am having a tough time deciding who to vote for. With loser boy, I get 4 more years of grid lock and some a$$hole trying to tax me more simply because I work my butt off and fall into a higher bracket. Screw that!! But, if GW get in, they can get something done, only question is, will I like what they get done. As an avid outdoorsman, probably not. As an avid capitalist, probably.

You are right about the lower end spending there tax returns on goods and services and putting the money back into the market but it is BS as far as an aurgument. The rich simply buy higher end toys, you know, luxury toys. And guess what, they are taxed at a higher rate and employ just as many workers to make them. Ever here of the luxury tax on yachts?

I truly feel the only 'fair' way is for a return of the same percentage across the board. If joe smuck only pays 2k in taxes but gets 1k back, it is not fair to expect Gates to pay 10mil and only get 1k back. Thats totally wrong. Then again, those stuck in the middle class always have had a hard-on about screwing the people that actually fulfill the american dream and provide them with their income, what a poor attitude to have. Gates has done more for this community than everyone on this board combined and deserves every penny he has and more. Yet loser boy wants to disassemble his company (the same one that has powered the greatest bull market of all time that he takes credit for) and tax the crap out of him, to give to those that didn't earn it. Yeah, thats the guy I want running my future.

The only thing worse, if Gore is a brown noser, then Locke is a brown tonguer. He has it jammed up the a$$ of anyone he can and does nothing to reduce gov't and give back TO THOSE THAT DESERVE IT.

Bring on Jesse!

I don't necessarily feel better, but now I need to fish.

I tried to stay away but you know how it is.I'm no expert but I do know that nobody here can name ONE administration that left office with lower taxes than when they started and if your paying more then you think you should be in taxes you need to do a little more leg work and find the loopholes to lower those taxes.

Yup wit, what I wrote came straight from my Govt. teacher's mouth when we watched the debates in class. I was prompted to post it on here because I'd just got done discussing it with a Different govt/history teacher who agreed as well. Just tryin' to inform.

Gore is more fiscally conservative because he will keep the budget balanced. Bush wants to go back to the Reagan years of deficit spending and building up the military. What does Bush mean when he says he is against big government but he wants to build up the military? Isn't the military part of the government? The size of the government is shrinking under the current administration. I don't want my future taxes being spent on interest on the federal debt. Vote for Bush and you will end up paying more taxes in the long run.

Bush is also going to do away with social security. What would happen if people invested their social security and the stock market went down like it has this year? Social security should be secure. Good thing Gore wants to keep it in a lock box. I think we should keep Bush in a lock box in Texas. Let him breath his own crappy air and drink contaminated water.

Bush doesn't want to breach any of the dams. There is a huge aquifer under the Columbia basin. It is growing because of surface waster from years of irrigation. Why don't we tap it for irrigation and let more water flow through the Snake for the fish?

Reeltruth- I believe we agreed to disagree and leave it at that. You have again made a personal attack on me...I believe that totals eight personal attacks and zero cogent arguments over the course of our discourse. Game, Set, Match. I not only pay for more than my share at events I routinely pick up the tab for all and usually seek out people to accompany me on my outings for the company. I am a firm believer that money was created to be spent.

Backlash-
I don't know how old you are but you sure are bitter and I would hate to see you go through life being envious and bitter. It's too short from what I've been told.
Regarding the principles of commerce, goods and services are driving factors in a capitalist system. They are not THE driving factors however. The driving factors are supply and demand. Goods, services, property, and money. You presumably provide a good days work and in return you demand a good days wage. The part you failed to learn is that IRA's are usually balanced investment portfolios involving stocks and bonds.(money) There is great demand for money and supplying it enables you to demand a fair return. Stocks are partial ownership of a particular company. Perhaps your employer. Venture capital also plays a role here as new and different companies are forming everyday. The money these companies use is mine and yours and when those companies prosper so do we. I don't expect any of us will ever be employed by a poor person. I would bet that the guy you work for has it better than you do. It's a good thing too, otherwise you would be in a soup line between welfare checks. Yes sirree, thanks to those godawful fat rich guys we are able to have jobs. I guess you guys are right, we really should tax the living crap out of them. That way they will have to sell the house in Maui or you won't get that raise you wanted. All that dem loving union pension money, where is that?? Oh that's right, invested in fat cat republican big business. Better tax that big business a little more or you union guys will get too much pension money back and screw up the whole system by becoming rich.

I will never understand why I can't completely opt out of the social security system and invest the money on my own. If I starve at 65 then let me. But your guy algore doesn't even trust me with 2% of that money (MY MONEY) Perhaps it is because by having that money they acquire de-facto power. No that couldn't be it, I just don't know enough about spending it correctly. The personal responsibility SSI system seems to be working OK in Chile.

I also find it amazing that Backlash can call a man running for President a "friggin idiot" and no one cries foul. Backlash, have you ever talked to the man??? Shook his hand? Looked him in the eye during a conversation? Reeltruth and Dan know where I'm going with this. On another thread I stated my opinion of Gore after doing all of those things and more and was called just about everything in the book for it. I can withstand the heat and the criticism but not the hypocrisy. He may not be the sharpest tack in the wall, but he is certainly at gores level. His debate skills need some work.

By the way.....when is someone from the left going to define EXACTLY what you mean when you say rich. How much money do you have to have to be rich and who decided it was that much. I might be rich but not know it. Come on, please tell me the meaning of rich. Is it 50k a year? 100k a year? Maybe it is net worth, one home?, two?, one home and a sled? Please educate me lefties! My life could be significantly better if I knew I was rich. Also, why do you care if someone else gets their own money back? Is it that envy thing? Or are you lefties just unable to see someone enjoy themselves?

Bush is total smoke and mirrors. His he is dressed in a democratic party suit but, the map directions on the front seat of the car are to the usual republican ball. A vote for him brings you one step closer to the way things use to be...Hell, there is plenty of that left, let's use it up. Am I better of now then 8 years ago....you bet! Do I want to be ruled by business, let's see oil companies, insurence companies, multinational corp,....I think not! He keeps hitting on the last eight years as an example of Gore. Take the time to look at who controlled congress in the last 8 years and look at their voiting records. It all comes very clear. Now all of a sudden the Republican party is the compasionate one. I ask you, where were they in the last 8 years, hell, how about the last 20 years. Besides the man is not smart enough to do the job. His experience level is Texas, period. Any of you lived in Texas...nuff said. Lastly, never trust a man whose eye are that close together to have a clear vision!

iamatwork, That last line killed me,LMAO!

Wit brings up a good point with social security, what did they say the interest rate was in it's present account? 1 or 2%
That means if we had control of a part of our SS, we could put it in an average bank, and come close to tripling our interest. If you wanted a little more risk, you could place it in a mutual fund with a 50 year average of 14% and have 7 times what you'd get with the govt. This isn't for everyone, there'd surely be millions instantly lost in the stock market if they allowed it, but 2% of what you pay on SS security a year is not a whole lot in most cases, and after a couple years of people wasting their few hundred to a couple thousand dollars, i believe most would figure it out and make smarter investments.
I forgot the exact numbers I used when I calculated the potential earnings for an account with 500 added every year at an interest rate of 14%, but I remember being amazed at the earnings after a 30 year period. This is probably not the miracle answer that everyone looks for with SS, but i guarantee that we're better off investing our own money at a 6-8 percent bank interest rate than leaving it in the infamous lockbox to earn 2% a year.

David-

The reason it is sooooo amazing when you increase that interest rate over time, is called compounding. Going from 2% to 6% the first year is threefold. The next year it is higher than threefold. By year 50, its ridiculous. Your example of a mutual fund providing 14% return a year on average factors to be a heck of alot more than 7 fold return.

Your point is a good one. You can actually have a system with far less money going into it (sound familiar as the baby boomers start retiring) but end with greater funds in the end.

BTW (backlash)- when you put money in an IRA or 401k, do you envision it going into a big vault and just sitting there? Any idea what banks do with it? Please don't take this the wrong way but one of the healthiest things for the economy you can do is put money into vehicles like this. That money is lent out to businesses for expansion, r & d, etc. and immediately goes back into the economy in the form of purchases of goods and services. When you give that money to Gore instead for your retirement fund, the majority of it sits and does nothing. That is the reason they achieve a rate of return below that of inflation. If you take inflation into account, we are losing money everyday by the gov't handling it. Its about time someone fixes that.

Steve

What's that word, "Security", doing in Social Security? Could that be the reason for the pitiful rate of return? It's called rate and risk. High risk, high return (possibly). Low risk, low return. It's not that difficult to understand. Banks, CD's, the Stock Market all offer much higher rates of return because of the risks associated with them. The only risk faced by depositors into the SS Trust is from politicians.

And wit45, you know as well as I do that we can all (or at least, most) make a case for putting our money into investments that provide a much higher payoff than Soc. Sec. , but that's not the point. If your investments fail, the populace doesn't want to see you homeless and starving, which is why SS exists in the first place. If SS is your ONLY income source, you'll be close to homeless and starving anyway.

I know that if you were a politician, and you said "Let's abolish Soc Sec because if you can't get a better deal somewhere else, you're an idiot", you'd be out of office the next election.

How has your portfolio done recently? Unless you're a master tactician, the market's been pretty ugly lately. In other words, it's lacked any "security". Of course, the market is there for anybody who wants to invest in it. I don't think draining funds from Social Security to let people invest is the right thing to do.

By the way, the studies I've seen show that dollars in the hands of a middle-income consumer are kept in circulation at a much higher rate than dollars in the hands of the upper-income consumers. Of course, that was quite a few years ago, but I believe the trend still holds true.

BTW, wit, not all us liberals are lazy pot smokers, and I take offense at your insinuation. I can tell from that same post, that you are very interested in promoting your own welfare. Any interest in promoting the general welfare?

Fish on........

I will continue to promote the general welfare by employing lots of people in a high wage industry. ($16-$28/hr) I will also promote the general welfare by setting a good example of what hard work and perserverence will get you in life and teaching self reliance. For 25 years now Chile has had privatized SSI and it has shown overwhelming returns. The Bush plan also limits the investment options as I hear it. Much like a 401K.

If middle income consumers must "keep a higher percentage of their income in circulation" then why does your guy want to pick and choose who gets a tax cut based on his approved activities. At least Bush wants to treat everyone equally. Has the left abandoned the idea of treating people the same???????? By the way, my portfolio is only up about 15% year to date. I know it isn't much but it is better than 2%.

There's an article in todays seattle pi that talks about Microsoft millionaires going bankrupt because of the plunging stock value of Microsoft. This is a good example of why individuals should not be allowed to invest social security. http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/optn20.shtml

If microsoft millionaire's are going broke because Microsoft's decline in the market then THey must have been very POOR money managers. DanS, my portfolio has actually grown over 50%. So I'm very pleased with the year overall. I give all my credit to Bill&Hillary along with their sidekick AL. I sure wouldn't give credit to my brilliant portfolio mngr. because he is a very wealthy Rep. who only thinks about making more money with money..

Dan S., your philosophy and 'tude is close enough to mine that I can just read from here. And you are more issue educated than me anyway. Go bro! --- Wit45, you are right, I've been a little too mouthy to you so I appologize for that. Understand though that it isn't as personal as it sounds (I don't even know you). It's more a situation of political frustration. You of all people know how easy it is to get heated up over politics! BTW, do you actually keep a count of the number of posts critical of you? Lighten up. Ain't no big deal. - RT

Steelyhorn,

I applaud your potfolio's performance. The point I was trying to make is that the DJIA and the NASDAQ would not both be down so much from last year if EVERYBODY'S portfolio had performed as well as yours. The market is risky, which is why a 50% gain is possible. I'm just not sure it's wise to put "security" money into insecure investments. JMHO

Fish on..........

[This message has been edited by Dan S. (edited 10-21-2000).]

DanS, First off I don't want anyone to think that my good luck in the stock market had anything to do with my market wisdom. The only thing I'm willing to do is be very aggressive and trust the people you put to work. It could just as easily be down 50%. I wouldn't be were I'm at if I didn't assume risk..As I get older you can bet my last dollar that I will become much more conservative with my pesos.

Reeltruth- I only make a habit of keeping track of that type of thing from people who repeatedly engage me on issues,(i.e. yourself and Dan S. among others) and it is a loose accounting at that. My point was to help you see that you were making a personal attack rather than an affirmative argument for your cause. Personal attacks tell me that you are out of substance and are conceding the point.(otherwise you would just be mean-spirited)

I would like to revisit my question from earlier. Please, someone, define for me the term "rich". How much money do you have to have to be rich. Also, what is wrong with being rich. I don't know too many poor people with employees.....Would you not agree that without fishless days, catching fish would lose some of its luster? I happen to believe that by moving through being poor one is better able to appreciate being wealthy. Perhaps the glory of accomplishment is lost on left-leaners.

Backlash- I will say it again, the bottom 46% of wage earners pay NO federal income tax and as such cannot benefit from a tax cut. What you seem to be advocating is taking money from the richest 1% and giving it to the "bottom of the food chain". Is that what you want, the redistribution of wealth???? If so, what if someone thinks he needs your car because he can't afford one? Will you let him take it or will you call a cop?

Yea , Gee , lets vote for Gore!!, after he's in office he will side with all the poeple who want to stop hunting and make owning firearms harder than it is , then after that he'll focus is beady litte eyes on US!!, the fisherman!, Why not? , after guns are banned why not steelhead and salmon fishing , hmmmmm? , they are a fish with small numbers to what they used to be and a hot topic for controversy, it whould be as easy as saying, "we stoped hunting, so why not fishing?". If you are a Hunter , voting for gore is like lighting the 2nd amendment on fire. Remember This: Hes just a non-grabass Bill Clinton!

------------------
PETA = People eating tasty animals!

Charles