Democrats are already blasting President Bush's economic stimulus package, even though it has not yet been released or unveiled. Acting on rumors and leaks, every Dem hoping to make a presidential run in 2004 (which is most of them) jumped on the President with the typical liberal mantra and lies. They are sticking to their typical game plan and clearly communicating their socialist message.

Democrats had the following reaction to the rumored stimulus package (emphasis mine):

Sen. John F. Kerry, Democrat from Taxachusetts called Bush's package "a stimulus mirage, not a plan for economic growth. They won't propose major investments in infrastructure, or provide help to small businesses, and instead cling to ineffective and unaffordable new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," said F. Kerry. "I don't think we've ever witnessed an administration more out of touch with the economic needs of average Americans and small businesses."

Rep. Dick F. Gebhardt, Democrat from Missouri said that "President Bush must accept that his economic plan is flawed and start from scratch instead of compounding our economic challenges with this deeply flawed proposal. Simply accelerating a wrong-headed economic plan is not a solution to our economic ills," cried Gebhardt. "We need a fiscally responsible economic stimulus that puts money in the consumer's pocket in the short term and puts us back on track to economic growth in the long term."

Sen. John F. Edwards, Democrat from North Carolina said the White House is "trying to use the Bush recession to put money in the pockets of the richest Americans over a long period of time while providing very little help for regular people. If this is what he thinks is going to help regular people in times of an economic downturn, it just shows how out of touch he is," Edwards said.

Senator Tom F. Daschle, Socialist from South Dakota, claims that Bush's package is "the wrong idea at the wrong time to help the wrong people."

Kerry wants infrastructure? Are we talking roads here? Is that what small businesses want is more roads? And what does he mean by unaffordable? Unaffordable for whom? Is he saying the government cannot afford to let us keep more of our own money?

Gebhardt won't admit that consumer spending has held up great. In fact, consumer spending has been credited for what is keeping our economy afloat. Also, what does short term mean? Short term for whom? I want money in my pocket in the long term, not the short term.

Edwards speaks of 'regular people' and the 'richest Americans'. Just who are regular people, and who are the rich? Also, what is this Bush recession he speaks of? Daschle carries a similar tune with 'right people'. Who are the right people? Are people that make a decent wage the 'wrong people'? Am I a wrong people?

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan responded by saying that Bush was assembling a plan to strengthen growth, create jobs and help people who are hurting. "Given that Senator Daschle has already found fault with a proposal he hasn't even seen, it's clear he's more interested in politics than helping people," Buchan said.

So, for the Democrats, it's the same old game plan, and their Socialist message is the same. Let me pull out my Socialist to Wrong People dictionary and help with the translation. To believe the democrats, you must believe the following:

- Money is to be distributed by the government to those that need it, and NOT to be earned by those who are motivated, work hard, and take risks.
- Tax cuts are gifts from the government. They are giving you money, NOT simply letting you keep more of your own money.
- We are in a recession. NEVERMIND that we are not in a recession.
- The recession is Bush's fault, and caused by his massive tax cut. NEVERMIND that the economy started into a downturn under Clinton, and that the Bush tax cut has not been fully implemented yet.
- If you received a $300 tax rebate in 2001, you are 'rich' and are partly to blame for the 'Bush Recession'.
- If you and your spouse earn a combined income of more than $45,200, you are 'rich' and should have your taxes increased to pre-2001 levels.
- Money is more effectively used in the hands of the government, and not in the hands of those that earn it.
- A tax cut costs the government money.
- A tax cut means the government won't be able to take care of you.
- A budget surplus is a good thing, and the government should be permitted to collect more revenue than it spends.

To believe the Democrats, you must either believe the above statements, or be a complete moron. The idea that the government letting workers keep more of their own income is a bad thing boggles the mind. The idea that the government can spend your money better than you can is also mind-boggling. Nevertheless, many of the 'less learned' and 'less motivated' folks devour the liberal agenda and go back begging for more. It reminds me of stupid fraternity hazing where pleebs get paddled with a stick, all the while screaming "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

I guess it helps that Democrats have been slowly shifting more and more of the tax burden to less and less people. The misguided concept of 'majority rule' legitimizes the shift and makes people think that since less people are being impacted, it must be okay. The same concept kept slavery and subjugation as a way of life for hundreds of years. The same concept makes people think that it is okay to take away people's unalienable rights and freedoms of life, liberty, and property. I guess that majority rule is okay, when you're in the majority.