CNN Poll, Bush and Civil Rights

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Bush failures (simplified):

Iraq
Deficit
Government spending
Social Security reform
Medicare reform
FEMA
Trampling on the Bill of Rights (emotive delivery, what's so poorly underpinned that you have to write this differently)
Debt

I think most right and left types will agree this is a good list. You will get the libertarians on board this also

also -

failure to make tax cuts permanent
failure to partially privatize social security
failure veto any nuisance spending bill
he has to own some of the emminent domain junk
he has to own pissing around with subjective 'marriage' bills (amongst other stuff) instead of dealing with lower taxes and MUCH lower spending goals as first priority

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,119]

>A Democratic administration raises taxes.

And a republican administration raises spending. It's got to get paid back at some point.

Think of the republicans as the 16-year-old with the credit card. At some point the adults have to step in, take away the credit card, and pay the bank back.

You really want to reduce taxes? Reduce spending. Anything else is just giving that 16 year old another credit card.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>A Democratic administration raises taxes.

And a republican administration raises spending. It's got to get paid back at some point.

Think of the republicans as the 16-year-old with the credit card. At some point the adults have to step in, take away the credit card, and pay the bank back.

You really want to reduce taxes? Reduce spending. Anything else is just giving that 16 year old another credit card.

Unless the 16 y.o is investing the money he's paying 9% on and getting 20% back.

-

[NCclimber 0]

When was the last time overall annual spending was reduced?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>A Democratic administration raises taxes.

And a republican administration raises spending.

it's pretty clear both parties raise spending, each party has a different theory on how to raise 'revenue'. Dems raise taxes (that's pretty direct), reps claim to raise transactions resulting in more revenue at a lower tax rate.

I think they are both goofy.

Quote

You really want to reduce taxes? Reduce spending.

damn skippy (to quote another poster)

now all we need is to find a fiscally conservative party that isn't led around by it's social emotionally charged and subjective agendas -

we are so doomed

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>A Democratic administration raises taxes.

And a republican administration raises spending. It's got to get paid back at some point.

Think of the republicans as the 16-year-old with the credit card. At some point the adults have to step in, take away the credit card, and pay the bank back.

You really want to reduce taxes? Reduce spending. Anything else is just giving that 16 year old another credit card.

Figure out a way to get ANY politician to NOT spend money they have available, and I'll back you 1000%. It's a catch 22 situation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,119]

>Unless the 16 y.o is investing the money he's paying 9% on and
>getting 20% back.

Right. But he's not. He's ratcheting up his debt to the tune of trillions a year. Time to take away the credit card and put him on an allowance until he can pay off his debt.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I keep hearing this "financial gains" "profits for family" crap... but still haven't seen any proof... like so many of the liberal talking points

I didn't say profit for family. I said financial gains. Just look at defence contractors and companies like Haliburton. Their profits have been doing pretty well.

In my opinion all the original "reasons" have been changed cause they were false to begin with (probably for various different reasons too). The only ones really profitting from this endeavour are companies who also have huge lobbying organizations working for them.

Anyways, still didn't answer the original question. Which has cost more so far, the war on terror or the war on Iraq?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Time to take away the credit card and put him on an allowance until he can pay off his debt.

The only problem with this is you only attribute it to one party and not as a natural consequence of government in general.

I'd like to see government spending catagories dramatically reduced to 'bare bones' - now, how each of defines what think is the 'absolute minimum' is a real stickler, but I wonder if most people think the current list is too large by far..... So at least we have one end defined.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,119]

>The only problem with this is you only attribute it to one party and
>not as a natural consequence of government in general.

Not at all. Both parties do it. The republicans combine runaway spending with tax cuts, which means that the debt rises faster. Democrats increase spending more slowly than the recent republican government (but still too rapidly) and tend to keep taxes higher, which means the debt rises more slowly. (Not to say that if democrats had been in power during the past 6 years they would have spent less money - but they weren't.)

I'd be in favor of a balanced budget amendment with a reporting requirement. That way, if someone proposes a new border fence, every voter out there knows it will raise his/her taxes by $7. SDI? $30. War in Iraq? $4000/person. What, you don't have $4000? Maybe we should take a pass on this war. Keeping people more directly responsible for their elected official's spending habits would likely generate a lot more interest/involvement in politics from the people.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Not at all. Both parties do it.

my bad, your example likened only rebublicans to the 16 year old credit card holder. As far a revenue collection theories go, ....... I see the ease in only considering first level effects in your economic hypothesis about each party. I don't agree, but I see it and it has as much cred as any other theory.

Quote

>I'd be in favor of a balanced budget amendment with a reporting requirement.........Keeping people more directly responsible for their elected official's spending habits would likely generate a lot more interest/involvement in politics from the people.

Line item justification of our tax dollars? All the congressmen would be rolling over in their graves . Why, they'd have to actually justify their actions.

Or even, "these 10 areas the taxes are required. These 7321 areas are voluntary - check the box if you wish to contribute." OH MY

I still like the idea of paying for our taxes directly to the government rather than with payroll withdrawal - to really sensitize the citizens.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Unless the 16 y.o is investing the money he's paying 9% on and
>getting 20% back.

Right. But he's not. He's ratcheting up his debt to the tune of trillions a year.

Trillions a year?

No kidding.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Unless the 16 y.o is investing the money he's paying 9% on and
>getting 20% back.

Right. But he's not. He's ratcheting up his debt to the tune of trillions a year. Time to take away the credit card and put him on an allowance until he can pay off his debt.

So what govt. programs are you willing to sarcrifice without being called anti ________________? Should we cut funding to NIH, NASA, Social Security etc.? Whose ox gets gored?

I'm with you on cutting spending, but my point was that not all spending is bad when it goes to programs like medical research like stem cells.

-

-

[billvon 3,119]

>So what govt. programs are you willing to sarcrifice without being
>called anti ________________?

Oil company subsidies. Wal-Mart (and all private company) subsidies. The NEA. And the biggest one - optional wars.

[billvon 3,119]

>Trillions a year?

Sorry, my mistake. Over half a trillion a year.

In my defense, sure, it's only half a trillion. But a trillion here, a trillion there - pretty soon you're talking real money.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Some, around here, seem inclined to ignore primary points... instead trying to make issue with minor clarifications. Nice.

Like those who think we should be impressed that after only six years the Dow is finally slightly higher than it was in 2000?

Coming into the job at the start of the Clinton recession, with the added cost and turmoil of 9/11 and the Iraq war? And the fact that despite all that, the Dow is at record levels?

Damn skippy.

Clinton was able to deal with crises (poorly, but better than Bush) without causing such a detrimental effect on the economy. Bush on the other hand likes to think he has done a good job in the economy when the Dow finally returns to the point at which it was when he took power. He claims success when thing aren't as bad as they were only a couple years after he took office.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Sorry, my mistake. Over half a trillion a year.

In my defense, sure, it's only half a trillion. But a trillion here, a trillion there - pretty soon you're talking real money

If you don't think it is that much, try counting it dollar for dollar

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But a trillion here, a trillion there - pretty soon you're talking real money.

Now THAT'S some funny shit!!!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

>Unless the 16 y.o is investing the money he's paying 9% on and
>getting 20% back.

Right. But he's not. He's ratcheting up his debt to the tune of trillions a year. Time to take away the credit card and put him on an allowance until he can pay off his debt.

So what govt. programs are you willing to sarcrifice without being called anti ________________? Should we cut funding to NIH, NASA, Social Security etc.? Whose ox gets gored?

I'm with you on cutting spending, but my point was that not all spending is bad when it goes to programs like medical research like stem cells.

This whole "what should we cut" business takes me back to 1992, when that funny little man from Texas was running as an independent. He kept harping about government waste. In one of the debates, he gave an off the cuff explanation of how to cut 180 billion dollars of government waste. I remember debating the concept of auditing the federal budget with some friends. They all said it was impossible and we just had to except that we had so much government waste.

A few years later we started to see some real changes.

Funny how the Republicans in Congress, who fought Clinton tooth and nail for a responsible budget, have given Bush free rein.

While I find the Dems to be the worse of two evils, I think a major shake up in Congress would be beneficial for the country.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

But a trillion here, a trillion there - pretty soon you're talking real money.

Now THAT'S some funny shit!!!

The original was good too:

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.", Senator Everett Dirksen (R, Illinois)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, my mistake. Over half a trillion a year.

In my defense, sure, it's only half a trillion. But a trillion here, a trillion there - pretty soon you're talking real money

If you don't think it is that much, try counting it dollar for dollar

A pile of $1 bills equal to the national debt would reach to the Moon (and beyond). Reagan and the Bush's are responsible for more than half of it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But a trillion here, a trillion there - pretty soon you're talking real money.

Now THAT'S some funny shit!!!

The original was good too:

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.", Senator Everett Dirksen (R, Illinois)

I have to say, Billvon's version was a thousand times funnier.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So again, I will restate :

Businesses, looking for the preservation of profits, respond by moving operations overseas.

Fixed it. No need placing blame where it doesn't belong.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

So again, I will restate :

Businesses, looking for the preservation of profits, respond by moving operations overseas.

Fixed it. No need placing blame where it doesn't belong.

so is your position that 100% of all businesses are so plush with profits that they could stay in business no matter what?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>So what govt. programs are you willing to sarcrifice without being
>called anti ________________?

Quote

Oil company subsidies. Wal-Mart (and all private company) subsidies.

Then you must be for higher prices for the poor. What a mean-spirited greedy bastard.

Quote

The NEA.

Then you must want poor people to suffer with a poor education.

Quote

And the biggest one - optional wars.

Wars stimulate the economy. It's the recession after the war we have to worry about.



-

• Quote