AMERICAN THE BEAUTIFUL
Now that the election is over; President Bush will be in office for four more years. (Thank God for this fact). We are still fighting in Iraq, Medical cost are still way too high and so on and so forth. What I am getting at, is this is America. We are a people with strength and the ability to go about our daily lives no matter what is going on around us, around the world or even in our own front yard.
This is a compliment to the American Public, as this is the reason for my Post America Divided.
It is this natural nature of the American People to accept or not accept what ever the situations is, also to agree to disagree with any relevant political or nonpolitical issue.
Do any of you really appreciate the fact that we have this freedom, this web site we can write our thought, put down or build up our Political Leaders? We can as some do, as I do, us our real names without fear of someone from the government coming to our home in the middle of the night and taking us away?
I received an email from a friend in the UK just before the election, I had sent an email to him stating I was not going to vote, (actually I was joking but he did not take it as a joke) He wrote back to me these words
____________________________
“Dear Suzanne,
Which party wants dear Suzanne to stay at home? Which is trying to stop large numbers voting (especially of certain shades)?
Yup. Staying at home and not voting is what Karl would want.
As stated before:
Ha!
Love
P
PS: Enjoyed the Laughing at Liberals.
The real joke is that over here “Liberal” is also an insult - but it means that you are too conservative, too tied in with big business, too little concerned with the unfortunate bottom of the heap parts of society.
You wouldn’t, er, I mean, er, consider voting because us over here think that everyone should vote, whichever way, in order to engage with the process and not let it be taken over by those cynical manipulators who seem to hold such sway?
Love
P”
___________________________________________________________
In responce to an email from me to him as to if he could guess who I voted for he replied with the following
________________________________
“Dear Suzanne
Are you still there?
Does your smile still light up Utah?
Part of the sadness is that you should wonder if I could guess who you voted for.
The veteran or the draft-dodger - let me see, that is a tough call
That’s what is so strange about your election - not a lot of hope whatever happens.
But VERY fascinating.
Ha!
Love
P”
______________________________________________________
I have of course left out his name, as it is not who he is it is where He lives.
I had no idea till that email how important to many countries around the world how America votes. And that we do vote.
Actually, all I wanted to say remember you are an American because you were lucky enough to be born here or came here from another country. Think for a moment if you had been born in Iraq, China, and South Africa.
So AMERICAN THE BEAUTIFUL YOU HAVE DONE IT AGAIN survived another election, put the right guy in office. Then just as before go about your daily business as if nothing else was going on in the world.
Sleep in peace my fellow Americans, sleep in peace. (Unless you’re a drug dealer, no one will take you out in the middle of the night and make you vanish)
LET’S MAKE SURE IT STAYS THIS WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In reference to specific bills being passed by congress.
Is American the Beautiful becoming less beautiful?
I am asking you, not saying it is, just asking.
Suzanne
Suzanne Katz Says: November 27th, 2004 at 5:16 am
Good Grief Albert, I think you need medical help
Steve Says: December 2nd, 2004 at 11:10 pm
It is a shame to HAVE to say that the right man is in office, that is why you vote after all - to pick the right man, not simply because you were born in America. Bush is the right man by being president. BUT what he has done is forced almost every country in the world to act his way. Idealism cannot be forced. Why do lives in other countries have to be forced into life or death situations because one American says all other americans are at risk? Bush likes to kill.
Suzanne Katz Says: December 3rd, 2004 at 12:41 am
Hi Steve,
I don’t exactly believe that “Bush likes to kill”, is really a true statement. I do not believe that what we are doing in Iraq is because Bush likes killing people, or having our military dying and being wounded. Nor do I think the world is being forced into anything. Each country makes its own decisions, even Iraq, Saddam made his decision, and he knew what the result of that decision would be. No one is forcing Idealism, no one is forcing anything, but when
A_ If America is the focus of potential attacks, and we can do something to protect this country, then this we must. Think if we did not, think if we just left alone Iraq, think if we did not protect our country, think if we let things continue like they were in Croatia, or the former Yugoslavia,
B_ We are a great country, there are also other great countries, I need not name them. But will give a few, Australia, United Kingdom, that is just two out of many, but many of the other smaller countries, do not have the capabilities of protecting themselves against a repressive government.
Now, should we just lay back and bask in the sun shine while innocent people are being slaughter?
Are we as a people with everything we could ever want all around us, enjoying the freedom of this country? Protected by our Government. Should we become so vain, so uncaring of the other humans living on this earth, that we do not involve ourselves in specific conflicts?
Would this be an America you would be proud of? So what if there are those in other countries who shout “down with America”, but remember it is “the silent who are the majority”, those who do not wave signs, and shout, are the largest part of any population or each country. They are never on the news, as there is nothing exciting about showing a happy family in some country, happy because the US got rid of a Government that was slaughtering the people. No, not a good news story, now, the mass of people waving signs shouting bad words about Bush and the US, well this makes news, and this is what you see and this is what you believe.
Learn to look deeper, remember the cover of a book tells nothing about what is inside. Nor does the preview of a new movie.
If you are brave enough to learn the real truth, find the real population of any country, the people go talk to them, and then after you have done this and done this in many countries, I wonder what you would write on this web site. I think your views might be a bit different.
See, I have done exactly that, spent a lifetime traveling and visiting the people of many countries. Not those on the news, the real people, the villages, the homes, the children, women, men, and families. The story is quite different than the evening news, Trust me on this one.
“Know the truth and it will set you free”
Brian Says: December 9th, 2004 at 12:49 am
This is off topic but needs attention. The communist/socialist site newshounds.us is full of comments like the following one. But they ban people from posting opposing views. They claim they are an anti Fox News site but the topics are all about slandering the conservative view. Here is a posting from one of the regulars on the scumbag site newshounds.us :
>>>>The first time I saw homeless families was when Ronny Roddent became gov of Ca.
The day he died, I laughed and danced. I hope he burns in h*ll along with the rest of this scum that has stolen our country. Ted Rall wrote a great obit on Ronny Ray-gun. Herr spitzpinkler, put it where the sun don’t shine.
Posted by: JimB at December 7, 2004 05:28 PM< <<<
What does this have to do with FoxNews. I wish the poster would say this crap to my face, because he would not have one left if he did! See what the liberals are all about >>HATE<<
Suzanne Katz Says: December 9th, 2004 at 3:38 am
Good Grief, now two Need Medical help, both Albert
and Brian, both of you I think live in a fantasy world. So, I will not even go into your comment about no homeless before Regan became President. By the way, one question, do you live on the top of a mountain in Tibet? As this could be the only way that your statement could be truthful
Suzanne
Suzanne Katz Says: December 9th, 2004 at 3:40 am
SORRY ABOUT THE REPEATED COMMENT WAS HAVING PROBLEMS, MUST HAVE FORGOTTON TO TAKE A PILL!!
Good Grief, now Brian needs medical help, hey why don’t you and Albert go together, as I thing you both have a problem with your eye sight and hearing and understanding English
Suzanne
Suzanne Katz Says: December 9th, 2004 at 3:46 am
Oh no now Brian need medical help, Albert why don’t you and Brian go get some help, then you won’t write such stupid comments, that are completly untrue
Suzanne
Brian Says: December 9th, 2004 at 5:10 pm
Its not my comment you *ss I was posting what newshounds site member said!
Serbian National Says: December 9th, 2004 at 6:22 pm
Yeah, Suzanne, that was pretty obvious.
Suzanne Katz Says: December 9th, 2004 at 11:33 pm
Then I still state the same thing, even though it was not for me.
My statement was in response to what you wrote about only seeing homeless families after Ronald Regan became President. As if you had never seen homeless before, then;
I guess either you never looked, or are being over dramatic.
A statement like you made, should be reconsidered. It does not matter if you liked or disliked a President, but to blame the homeless situation on him and to state that before he became President, there were no homeless families living in America, is leaving
yourself wide open for comments like the one I made.
Nothing against you, as this is America the Beautiful, and each and ever one of us has the right to our own personal opinion.
Although that right to free speech also carries the responsibility to make sure our published statements are correct to the best of our knowledge.
Instead of worrying about a man who is no longer living, and instead of dancing on his grave, why don’t you get into a more constructive mode, and focus on subjects that are important and on things that are ruining people’s life’s. For example, the American attitude, of “if one has a problem, take a pill”, “If you can’t handle your children, give them dangerous drugs” like anti depressants. Now, this is something that we all should be very concerned with. As this group of children, who’s minds are forming, are being given dangerous drugs that will cause major problem as they become adults, these children are the future generation, the generation that will be taking over and must correct the mistakes from this generation that is now running the country. I am glad I will not be around to see what all these children turn into as a result of their brains being altered with chemicals that are being pushed on parents by the drug companies.
It actually makes me sick, when I see on the news and read in the papers, of three year old children on heavy duty anti depressants.
There was one time in my life I took such things, or took one such thing, and even as an adult, it completely changed my entire personality. Now, I do not take anything. I find that keeping the body chemical free
(with the exception of specific medications that are necessary for people with conditions that require these drugs, and of course then these drugs are wonderful as these people can lead productive lives.)
But they are handed out like candy coated aspirin.
I know that every year when I receive my annual check-up, the Doctor tells me one of the reasons I am in such excellent health is that I do not take unnecessary medications. And that I have learned to cope with such things as depression.
We all get depressed at times and yes, most of you do not run to your doctor for a pill for these moments of depression or mental stress; although there are many in our nation that do and have not learned the skills of using their own minds to overcome these times in life.
But it is not the adults I am the most worried about, it is the children, as they do not have a choice.
If this topic does not concern you, there are many others that are of major concern and may stop you from dancing on the grave of a dead President.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: December 10th, 2004 at 8:41 am
To Serbian National,
Whatever, I still stick with what I wrote, ever single word.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: December 10th, 2004 at 8:48 am
On second reading, OK I am sorry, now I understand what Brian was refering to, Please accept my “I’m sorry, and remember, I am ONLY A WOMAN” SO, take the comment # 10 and consider it is not for Brian but for everyone, how about some imput or thoughts from all of you. Seems a few very important subjects are being left out, this is just one, visit my site tomorrow, and there will be on page for what I consider to be a forgotten issue, shoved under the carpet, not discussed by anyone, though 1000’s of Women die each year, and I am not speaking of anything medical.
Suzanne
JD Says: December 10th, 2004 at 1:45 pm
In consideration of Howard Dean and his recent comments about democrats being “Republican light” could you stand one more opinion on the fate of the Democratic Party and what they should do? I am a conservative but, what the heck, it is the holidays and I am feeling generous.
You didn’t lose the election by much. You had a candidate who wasn’t as good as you thought and you lost to a guy who was better than you thought. And that is your problem. Stop thinking you are smarter than conservatives (you aren’t). Stop thinking republican presidential candidates are dumb (they aren’t). And stop thinking you own the high road (because you certainly don’t). You see, a lot of people like liberalism, they just don’t like liberals. Arrogance, elitism and condensending attitudes won’t win elections and trying to reinvent yourself every four years won’t work either. But as far as Howard Dean goes, good luck with that!
bonniem Says: December 11th, 2004 at 5:34 pm
JD, Hear! Hear! Proud of you!
Serb National Says: December 13th, 2004 at 1:54 am
Anyone who says Bush is fiscally disciplined has no idea what they are talking about - plain and simple. Bush has many positives, but one of them isn’t being responsible with money. I voted for the guy, so this is not enough to make me dislike him in any way, but if he doesn’t shape up soon and stop spending money like there’s no bottom, we’ll be seeing the bottom soon and the next President will have a helluva time cleaning up the economic mess made during the past four years as well as the next four.
Suzanne Katz Says: December 23rd, 2004 at 12:05 am
Hi Serb National, I am complete agreement.
This is more than just an economic mess, this is a disaster. I wonder how long it will take to get us out of this financial mess, 10 years, 12 years, ever?
Suzanne
zoot potatoe Says: December 24th, 2004 at 2:27 am
maybe if another clinton could come in after Bush and turn the debt into a surplus
so that way the conservatives could complain that the government is hoarding money and keeping it for itself instead of giving it back to the people … or complain that the new president was just in the right place at the right time… or whatever they would do just to make the other guy look bad.
meh, thats politics. lots of democrats never endorse a thing bush does, and vice versa if gore were in office… I think that if gore’s daddy failed to get saddam hussein while he was president, and gore had gone into iraq for some reason, alot of conservatives would oppose it, and alot more liberals would be supporting it…
I think its amazing that Kerry got selected, a man who was running for the hell of it (what was he TRULY running for, other then the changing campaign messege he told us as public opinion changed)
I dont think conservatives are dumb. I disagree with alot of their views, and I certianly don’t like Bush, but I, unlike a lot of other liberals, never underestimated him as a candidate… and I wish alot more had just thought like I had and booted Bush out…
oh well, the only way bush will personally affect my life is if the rumors on the internets are true and some draft comes (which I never believed would happen, no matter how much Kerry squawked about it)
Elise Says: December 24th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
zoot potatoe, it was a democratic senator from N. Y. who put forth a bill to bring back the draft. Bush has never talked about that.
kaiwarrior Says: December 29th, 2004 at 6:37 pm
The government should NEVER have a surplus. The government is NOT a business! If the government has a surplus it should give the money back to the PEOPLE in the form of a TAX CUT which is what Bush did. Besides you Serb national and you too Suzanne fell into the same Clinton/Mainstream Media B.S. that there ever was a surplus. There wasn’t. There never was a surplus. The surplus was based off a 10 year projected budget. It wasn’t like there was a vault in the White House treasury with extra money sitting around that they called a surplus. As I said before, the surplus was based on a 10 year budget, and why wouldn’t there be a surplus since Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. Therefore, Bush responded by giving us the biggest tax CUT we’ve ever had which we’ve needed for a long time.
Now, as for your phoney economic disaster; I’d like to know how we have a disaster when unemployment is at an all time low of 5.4%, the economic growth rate is around 3.7% (this growth rate may have changed because I haven’t checked it in a while), and we just added well over 100,000 jobs in November of 2004. Maybe it’s a disaster, because we are proving that tax cuts and reaganomics works and it is a “political” disaster for liberals who always want higher taxes and bigger government. Is that how this is a disaster?
Please respond to this reasonably with an open mind, and please, with all due respect, try to respond intelligently. I don’t want to hear talking points from one of Micheal Moore’s books. Thank you.
Sean Says: December 29th, 2004 at 6:41 pm
The government should NEVER have a surplus. The government is NOT a business! If the government has a surplus it should give the money back to the PEOPLE in the form of a TAX CUT which is what Bush did. Besides you Serb national and you too Suzanne fell into the same Clinton/Mainstream Media B.S. that there ever was a surplus. There wasn’t. There never was a surplus. The surplus was based off a 10 year projected budget. It wasn’t like there was a vault in the White House treasury with extra money sitting around that they called a surplus. As I said before, the surplus was based on a 10 year budget, and why wouldn’t there be a surplus since Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. Therefore, Bush responded by giving us the biggest tax CUT we’ve ever had which we’ve needed for a long time.
Now, as for your phoney economic disaster; I’d like to know how we have a disaster when unemployment is at an all time low of 5.4%, the economic growth rate is around 3.7% (this growth rate may have changed because I haven’t checked it in a while), and we just added well over 100,000 jobs in November of 2004. Maybe it’s a disaster, because we are proving that tax cuts and reaganomics works and it is a “political” disaster for liberals who always want higher taxes and bigger government. Is that how this is a disaster?
Please respond to this reasonably with an open mind, and please, with all due respect, try to respond intelligently. I don’t want to hear talking points from one of Micheal Moore’s books. Thank you.
zoot potatoe Says: January 1st, 2005 at 1:38 am
so, sean, youre saying you’d rather america be in debt then have a surplus? and, tell me, why MUST it go back to the people instead help pay for the failing Social Security and stuff? and Why do you love tax money being wasted to pay back the defecit instead of going towards new roads, schools, and hospitals? Before clinton, roughly 3 of every 4 tax dollars was spent on paying back the defecit. If not in a taxcut, I think the surplus should be at least spent and used to make america better.
and, indeed, there was never a federal surplus, just a budget one, with the budget surplus cutting the federal defecit.
Bush has increased government spending drastically compared to clinton while cutting income for paying, resulting in a much worse economy then clinton’s less pay, higher taxes… which would seem obvious if it weren’t for one’s ability to praise the thoughts or ideals of the other party.
and the fact still remains that the tax cuts went to the rich, Clinton tried to put tax cuts on the middle class. while you could argue that the supposed middle class’s range didnt cover all of those in middle class territory, it seems like a smarter idea then giving most back to the rich who already have enough money as it is.
you say the unemployment is at an “all time low” at 5.4%… please explain, especially since, on clinton’s leave, unemployment rate was 4%.
and, yes, taxcuts help the economic growth. I can’t argue with that here.
Tax cuts help corporations, tax cuts help the government. It really comes down to a choice (usually adopted from the party you want to affiliate yourself with) of which you think is more important to have the income. And I, unsurprisingly, say the gov.
zoot potato Says: January 1st, 2005 at 2:02 am
my long, boring post is missing, so i’ll make a short, boring post.
I think that instead of a taxcut, the government should spend a surplus on helping stuff vital to americans like hospitals, schools, and stuff like roads or bridges.
Its true that clinton didn’t have a federal surplus, but a budget one. If clinton’s economics continued, it would eventually remove the fed. defecit.
I think that a tax cut for the rich was not needed as much as a simple middle class one is. you can argue about how the scope for middle class doesn’t help all middle americans, but do people with enough money need MORE?
explain how 5.4 is an all time low unemployment rate when clinton oversaw a 4.0, even durring great corporate mergers.
true, the tax cuts help the economic rate grow. Tax increases, on the other hand, help the government grow. It all boils down to which you think needs the money more, an opinion that is commonly adopted from one’s affiliated party. and I’m sure it’s not hard to guess where I stand between those two options.
Sean Says: January 1st, 2005 at 8:36 am
To Zoot,
The explanation is simple. I just checked the U.S. Dept. of Labor statistics. The unemployment rate was never a 4.0% During the Clinton years. It was 5.6% in January 1996 when Clinton boasted the lowest and best unemployment rate the country had ever seen in his state of the union address speech after he beat Dole. The only time it fell below 5.0% was during 1998 and 1999 when it was in the mid 4 percent range and then dropped to the low 4’s at the end of 1999. It didn’t reach an even 4.0% until 2000. The ONLY reason it fell well below 5% during this time was due to the internet bubble, and when that burst the unemployment went up and the stock market went down. And of course shortly after the internet bubble went POP! We had 9/11, and you know what happened to jobs and the market then. If I misled you in my analysis of the unemployment before I didn’t mean to. The unemployment rate now is at an all time low, down from the high fives in 2002 and 6.4% in June 2003.
As for your thoughts on taxes…..I don’t know where to start. I’m going to try to make it quick, because I’m watching the New Years Eve shows but here it goes. The Social Security problem CANNOT be fixed with more taxes. It’s that simple. Right now it takes the paychecks of 4 workers to provide benefits to 1 retiree. They project in about 10 years that they will have to support 1 retiree on only 2 workers paychecks. That means Soc. Sec. tax will have to double. AHHHH I don’t know what you can possibly think is GOOD or OK about that? (but then again I don’t think like you). The welfare state doesn’t work man, just face it.
As for the tax cut to the rich…..Enough with the Liberal talking points….the election is OVER. Here are the facts from the IRS:
The top 1.0% of wage earners (those who make over $250,000 a year) pay 37% of the income tax revenue in the US. The top 10% of the wager earners pay 65% of the income tax, and the top 50% of wager earners pay 96% of the total income tax revenue in the US. The fact is is that taxes were reduced on the MIDDLE class as you call it by 3.0% (the middle class tax rate).
Schools, please don’t go there. You will really sound foolish if you say we need to dump more money into schools. We’ve done that since 1970 and our education has dropped for thirty years consistently.
I could go on, but I’m going to wrap it up by saying.. you are right that when taxes go up the government grows…..NEWS FLASH that’s what you don’t want. The Federal government was founded to be small and limited in power. When you cut taxes the economy is improved and that is the central point.
P.S.: Deficits are only a problem when interests rates are high. Right now they are the lowest they’ve been in 30 years.
Mr. Jack Says: May 17th, 2005 at 12:34 am
kaiwarrior, you’re an Idiot. Yes, the government isn’t a business, but the tax cut your referring to, didn’t go to the people, it went to the top 2% of Americans who earn over $200,000 a year. They received a bonus of over 90,000 in tax breaks, while the most I saw, and people like my friends and my parents saw, the TRUE common man, was an average of a meager $300. Plus, a surplus in the budget it a lot healthier than a deficit of over $2.7 trillion! Yes TRILLION! You do realize that we have to pay that money back, or the entire global economy could collapse, and other nations can come after us, and as strong as we are, we can’t hold them all back, esp. China and North Korea, where a lot of our money is coming from.