Letters to the editor : comments

Michael

the police are too busy enforcing the seat belt law for the insurance companies and don't have time to deal with your silly issues.

It is unfortunate that...

this couple became victims of someone writing checks while lacking the money to cover the amounts. However, why is this a crime? Why use the police as a collection agency? Also why didn't the victims call the bank to verify that the checks were good? I suggest that the appropriate place to resolve issues like this is small claims court.

Boiseriver

Please do not be pragmatic! There is no room for that!

Perhaps the couple should stop accepting checks?

Could you imagine what the jails would be like if they arrested everyone that ever bounced a check?

bounced check

If it was just a simple bounced check, it would be one thing. We have tried to send the checks through several times, gone over to the person's house to try to collect, offer to let them make payments, sent the demand letter for payment as set out in the law. All we want is for the police to enforce the law as written by the legislature. What the police is telling us, is that you can go to as many businesses as you like, and as long as you don't write checks totaling over $1,000.00 to any one business, there will be no legal consequences

I understand your claim

This is just another example of bad public policy enacted by the Idaho Legislature (writing a worthless check is a misdemeanor crime in many states). The legislature should not allow the use of the police as a collection agency. My advice is to go to small claims court and obtain a judgment against the individual(s) who issued the check(s).

And with the judgment in hand

you can put a lien against their personal property.

Larry

I'll tell you how I can vote for Republicans ... #1 I vote for the person, not the party, and #2 I have no doubt in my mind that things would be MUCH WORSE today under democrats. How many of the democratic congress's 2006 promises have been met? How much worse have things gotten in just the last 2 years? Where were gas prices in Nov 2006 compared to today? Congress has a 9% approval rating. And don't even get me started on Nancy Pelosi ...

So quit speaking in generalities and start having some respect for other people's opinions ... There's a big world out there and many sides to every issue.

Idahogal, I'm soooo tired of responding to

the ridiculous charge that it's the Ds' fault that congress has accomplished nothing in 2 years. It's republican use of cloture in the senate and bush's vetos and veto threats that have stalled congress for two years.

Please do start on nancy.

One more face lift and Nancy's gonna have a goatee!

She overpromised and underdelivered, no doubt about it.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Just in time for 2012 -- a goatee just looks sooo

presidential!

Mrs. Reagan will be DECEASED by that time, sorry to say.

OHHH, DEAR. Not that one the other one that means nothing to this Democrat at all. Rather useless beyond her current station.

So...

The current administration is running our economy into the ground, headed for a depression, and you think that things would be MUCH WORSE under the Democrats?
Wow. This administration has done far more damage to the country than maybe any other administration in history. It's track record is a giant skid mark on the toilet bowl of life.
I grant you that Congress is doing a lousy job, but their hands are tied. How are they supposed to get anything done with the constant threats of a veto?

Speaking of gas prices, keep in mind that back in 2000, the national average was $1.54/gallon.

By the time Bush is out (not soon enough), gas prices will have - or close to - tripled. That's what you get when you have oil men in the White House.

There's now a love-in on cnbc2 among

the coal states discussing the miracle of coal-liquid fuels (ala 1944 germany). It's following a nuke plant love-in. Bring'n home the bacon.

(I actually agree with the coal folks, even though their underlying motivation is pork and corporate lobbying)

Conservodem, This is a dem thing,pork and corporate lobbying

They always want to throw our money away for no good cause. I think they just gave away 53 billion dollars to Africa. Whats up? I thought we were in the poor house? Why would we not save ourselves if we are so bad off. They do not care The Congress their rich.

Pork & corporate lobbying are equal opportunity politician

things, teri. The Rs have turned it into an art form, but the Ds are jealous of that.

Your last sentence is incomprehensible. Been tippling?

Gotta go now. Sorry, I'd really love to continue.

So, which corporate lobbyists were pushing for aid to Africa?

Just curious. Terigro, before you complain about pork, you should review the earmark appropriations that took place when the Republicans were in power. It increased significantly. Both sides embrace the idea of pork.

here it is, giving to much money away when we need it also.

the House prepared Thursday to pass and send to President Bush legislation that triples money to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. House ready to OK $48B.
Oops I was wrong on the amount. sorry.
I believe it is a good cause but would not some of that money pay down our own debt. Why do we have to save the WORLD?

Teri, you do know that this is a rare and wonderful thing,

BIPARTISAN legislation, and it is a update of a program initiated by George Bush in 2003. His support for Africa in one of, if not the only, bright spot for his Administration. I applaud Biden, Lugar AND Bush for this legislation.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Grandjester I did not say it was not a wonderful thing, I said

is it not to much money to be handing over when we our selves are going into a crises. We can not help the world if we go broke and our own economy collapses. What about helping our own health care system out a little. Would that not be a wonderful thing also.

I would rather, by far, engage in this type of Foreign Policy

engagement than the Iraq war for example. Wiping out TB, Malaria and AIDS in Africa are more important than any war, more important than F-35, DDG-1000 or any other high priced military toy. It programs like this that can actually prevent war. And frankly, despite is seeming high price tag, it is a drop in the bucket, and tremendous value.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Grandjester, this I would agree with.

But I still do not like rough nations. I believe they need to be dealt with. Even Obama is stating this.

Do you mean "rogue"?

And don't start acting reasonable now! I won't know what to do! =)

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Grandjester , LOL

I do like alot of points the Democrats make. Its just getting to handle their veiw points on where they think our money should be put. The Republicans use to think less government. The Democrats are for illegals among other things I just can not agree with. Obama even said to let the illegals drive among other privileges that they do not deserve. They need to go home and come back here legally. And why do they not demand a fair wage illegals and legal? This ticks me off also.

53 Billion? Care to back THAT up Teri?

K-Street, Abramoff and Duke Cunningham ring a bell? Ted Stevens and the "Bridge to Nowhere"? Any of this getting through?

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Amazing how 'conservatives' still support Bush, when

the national debt has gone from around 5 trillion in 2000 to 9 trillion in 2007. So much for FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

Oh, but I guess I forgot about the wonderful tax cuts, and the war on terror, and the threat from homosexuals...guess 4 trillion is a bargain, eh?

Please, boisepoet. There was NO tax cut.

Just a delay in collecting the $4 trillion TAX INCREASE! Tax cuts are just another republican lie.

Should we re-name it an "Intra-generational Tax Deferrel"?

I think that fits.

What are you talking about?

I hope you don't assume I still support Bush. He's disappointed me as much as anyone. He is NOT a conservative.

Having said that, I still say that John Kerry would have been IMMEASURABLY worse. He is nothing but a stuffed shirt. BUT, that's JMHO and that's how I answer Larry Lugar. Going forward ... it's anybody's guess ... but in my family we'll just keep voting for individuals, not parties, no matter what initial they have after their names.

And don't even get me started on Nancy Pelosi ...

Oh....Please Idahogal get started on Ms. Pelosi the Queen Bee.

What happened to thinking people?

The author of the letter to the editor regarding the Bush administration has fallen hook, line and sinker for the main street media's mantra. BLAME BUSH. It's so much easier when someone else tells you what to think, I guess.

"...we've lowered taxes and raised our debt": and increased our revenues to the treasury. The dems took control of congress in 2002 yet they somehow avoided any accountability to the spending that required raising the debt limit. It wasn't for a lack of revenue.

"We've gotten rid of trade barriers and imported toxic food": Who ratifies trade agreements again? Oh yeah....the democratic controlled congress.

"We've added Homeland Security and 20 million illegal immigrants": And have not been attacked again on US soil. By the way, every effort to cutb illegal immigration is snuffed out by the democratic leadership in both houses of congress.

"We've helped house low-income earners and brought back the '30s to our financial system.": What exactly have the republicans done to account for this? That's what I thought.

"We've waged war on terror in Iraq.": And done it in Iraq instead of Boise or NYC or LA. Thank god. Refer to the NO NEW ATTACKS statement above.

The problem with a lot of Americans like the author is that they've stopped thinking issues through for themselves and they've relied on the media for their source of thinking.

I find it amazing that the author failed to mention that the democratic led congress for the last 6 years has had NO impact on the state of affairs in the country. Only President Bush and the Republicans.

Here's an issue to vote on. I don't want my 16 year old son to have to fight terror ever in his life. Let's end that now while we've got them mostly in one spot. Let's lower taxes. Revenues to the government are already at an all time high and our politicians still spend more than that. Stay out my way and let me provide for my family. I don't need you to do it for me or tell me how to do it.

How could anyone be so blind to blame any one group in this instance? They've all screwed up as far as I'm concerned.

Just a few corrections...

1. The Democrats did not achieve a majority in Congress until 2006. And even then, in the Senate they hold a slim/non-veto proof majority. From Jan 2001 until Jan 2007, Bush had a Congress (both houses) that could rubber stamp anything he wanted.

2. The people responsible for the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iraq. They were mostly Saudi in origin, and commanded by an organization supported/located in Afghanistan. The fact that we invaded Iraq on trumped up pretenses probably has little to do with no new attacks on US soil. The fact that we invaded Afghanistan to topple the government that was supporting Al Qaeda probably has everything to do with that.

One item the author did touch on insufficiently was the increase in national debt from 2000 to 2007 from 5 trillion to 9 trillion dollars. Do you think we got our money's worth?

The Democrats took "control" of Congress in 2006

Not 2002, and the majority in the House is not veto proof, nor is the 50/50 split in the senate Cloture proof.

The no new attacks meme is specious reasoning, the absence of attacks in no way proves that any were prevented, and it's really a lie in any case (Anthrax?).

NAFTA was ratified by a REBULICAN congress.

So, at a quick glance, three completely wrong points in your post. So who's the one being led by the nose? Looks like you.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Control

Thanks for the civics lesson. You've all missed my point. The republicans did not and could not do any of the things alleged without the democrats.

The author claimed: "Bush has been nothing more than a cheerleader while the Republican Party had its way doing all the things it claimed would make this country strong"

Tell Miguel Estrada the republicans were in charge in 2002. Tell Pickering the republicans were in charge in 2003.

I did not say there were no new attacks attempted. I said there were no new attacks on US soil. That is not a lie. That is a fact.

NAFTA? The author was making a charge against Bush and the Republicans. President Clinton signed NAFTA. Again, if making a charge against the republicans, state the WHOLE case, not just the part the media tells you about.

My point since I guess it must be spelled out is that the problems the author mentioned ONLY came with blame for Bush and the republicans and that's just not accurate...unless your only source of news is CNN, MSNBC or Katie Couric.

Well, if so many of us missed your point, perhaps you need to

learn to articulate it better, no insult indended. If your point is "they all do it" though, I must respectfully disagree, since the complete Republican Majority until 2004 pretty much prevented the Democrats from affecting policy. Since 2006, the barriers I and the others mentioned also play a part. Your glaring mistake about the composition of Congress since 2002 also reflects badly on your argument, facts matter Joe, so get them right and you won't catch a ration of shiz.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Halojoe.......

If you want to use your logic, There were no new attacks on America after the World Trake Center attacks in the 1990's until Bush took office. Figures lie and liars figure.

Check again

There were SEVERAL attacks on U.S. embassies around the world during the 90's -- embassies are considered the "soil" of the country that holds them; and how about the U.S.S. Cole ... that was during Clinton's time but it was so close to his leaving office he chose not to do anything about it.

Also you can never convince me that the planning of the Sept.11 tragedy was started *after* GWB took office. Something of that magnitude was YEARS in the making -- meaning they started planning it while Clinton was in office. If you believe otherwise, I'd venture to guess you saw Michael Moore's movie.

Yes saying that the current administration prevented terrorist attacks is kind of like proving *anything* has been prevented, but metrics of all kinds are measured all the time against historical rates, by many different organizations, and this is a pretty good one.

Idgal, gotta correct you here, while AQ was suspected in the

Cole incident, it was not confirmed until Jan. of 2001, so it would have been up to Mr. Bush to respond. He did not.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

If there's an attack in Feb., will it be Obama's fault?

Or Clinton's? Surely not Georgie's! What if there's one in Aug. or Sept (much more likely)? Like the rest of us, you believe what you want to believe.

BTW did you actually see F-911. I didn't, but I'm curious. Bowling for Columbine was sure a shameless promo (except for the Canada part, which I thought demonstrated that gun crime is a result of america's violent culture rather than of gun ownership)

911 was Obama's fault!

...just kidding! But I like to stir things up at times...

If you mean Rs calling 911 for political help,

you're right.

Gotta go now. Have fun.

It was

planned and carried out by central bankers to rally support for war, which allows them to make huge amounts of money. The same banks fund both sides of the war. Bush is part of the elite behind it.

And that's no joke.

I saw their pictures, they looked like Saudis, not Bankers.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

If you build a "trake" center then we can...

demolish it properly!

"What happened to thinking people?"

They abandoned the republican liars. The rest of you keep spouting Rush-Sean talking points as though they had something to do with truth.

You're especially convincing when you say the dems "took control of congress in 2002". Dems gained small majorities in 2004 (that's a FOUR on the end). But they can't overcome cloture requirements in the senate nor vetos from the white house. Thinking people blame Bush&co because Bush&co are at fault. All the lies in the world won't change the facts.

Your halo's slipping, joe.

Oops! You got me so flustered I put a four where there should have been a six, and then I emphasized it. Sorry.

Debt Fueled Growth, Joe...

Thinking people, Joe? Really? Think about this.

First, perspective. I consider myself a conservative. I won't go into my credentials here and now, but trust me, my values are definitely on the conservative side.

I know this is very difficult for the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans to admit, but 1) de-regulation, 2) reduced oversight (two core Republican values), and 3) massive over-printing of the USD (a neoconservative value) have led to the economic disaster where we are today. Granted, when consumers get into a financial deal that hurts them, they should have done their homework and they should have backed out when they realized that it wasn't going to work for them. Personal responsibility. An important conservative cornerstone.

However, when millions of people are caught in the web, and millions of people default, which triggers a national financial disaster and a global economic tremor, then it is the fault of the regulatory body, the United States Government, and the party which allowed it to happen as a result of their core values. See 1, 2, and 3 above. Bush Administration policies are directly responsible for our fiscal disaster. To deny this is shortsighted and ignorant.

As you should know by now, Joe, debt, and the resulting global devaluation of the dollar, is a cornerstone of neoconservative policy. Printing more dollars reduces their value. Pretty simple logic.

As a result of this policy:

* Consumer prices shot up in June at the fastest pace in 26 years with two-thirds of the surge blamed on soaring energy prices, increased by the 42% devaluation of the dollar due to massive US debt incurred under Bush Administration policy.

* The Labor Department said Wednesday that the consumer price indexs jumped 1.1% last month, much worse than had been expected and biggest consumer price index rise since June 1982.

* The consumer price index report said energy prices rocketed 6.6%, reflecting big rises in gasoline, home heating oil and natural gas.

The big jump in prices cut deeply into consumers' earning power. Average weekly wages, after adjusting for inflation, dropped 0.9% in June, biggest monthly wage decline since 1984.

New economic data released last Tuesday indicated that wholesale prices rose a more-than-expected 1.8% in June and now are rising at an annualized rate of 9.1%, fastest wholesale price rise since mid-1981.

In the end, determining cause is not whining. It is called analysis.

Ignoring the cause is called "denial." Which, by all accounts, is another neoconservative policy.

America - Improve it or Lose it

I disagree with your premise

1. I am not Republican any longer. I was. That changed in 2004 for me.

2. I cannot see how deregulation of any thing caused the problem with housing or oil which I beleive are the two reasons for the economic slow down.

3. Most loans are NOT in default and most borrowers are responsible. Millions of people are idiots and bought pet rocks. Millions are idiots and voted for Carter...twice. Millions of people thought they could something for nothing and thousands of lending institutions allowed it. That is not my problem. My mortgage is paid on time. And I'm sure my house is worth less today than when I bought it. I still pay the mortgage. A lot of borrowers walk away because they are upside down ( investors ). Not my problem.

4. From your AS A RESULT OF THIS POLICY and below, almost all of the CPI numbers are directly or indirectly a result of oil prices. There are no shortages of raw materials.

I think Bdub has you on...

this one. Very vague comments and issues. Still sense some denial there.

Not to mention the lack of understanding on how unregulated

markets work. Denial of the effect of greed and lack of oversight.

halojoe-

You have some very good points. I am not sure about the republican thing. I have been a reluctant republican for long time. Haven't found anywhere else to go.

The amount of homes in foreclosure is quite a bit less than five percent. I thnk it is under four, but I need to go look it up.

If you purchased your home more than two years ago, it is probably worth more thatn you paid. Two years ago was a peak. If you did buy two years ago, just hang on, things will recover and real estate will continue to gain in value.

I don't think that de-regulation is the problem Dub

It's the unholy alliance of de-regulation combined with taxpayer funded bailouts. Bankruptcy is a cleanser and the government should just let major companies do it. Cities make it through the loss of military bases, and our economy can lose a multi billion dollar company any time as well. We will recover and the next group will be a little more careful.