DaVinci

Yeah if I had a dollar for eveytime you called me a facist...I'd would not mind the tax cuts going away And I only look right from where you stand

Not true. Gays in the military. Clinton started that push on day one in the WH, he dropped it right after. Health care...Where did that go? Not perception, just the fact. The inability for the dems to have a unified front that they actually stand behind no matter what has been the dems problem for the last 12 years. If it were not for the Iraq issue they STILL would not be in power. The Republicans were voted out, NOT the dems voted in. If the best you can do is not be the other guy....Well you have issues. But lets wait and see if the new speaker of the house does any of the things she claims to be ready to do in the first 100 hours.

So like a union, you demand more money...Worked great for Delta!

Doubt it. But lets see if you still feel this way in a few years...Don't get me wrong this *may* be a good thing, but the left has failed to stand for anything for 10 years. If they do like they have been doing they will not do anything here either.

Hell, pick one.

Pretty normal, and some things are up. It will take a few years to really know the impact of the move, not one day. However, I feel the repubs focus on business was good. But now it is time to see if those that trashed it all these years do better. (I just wish they didn't have to bet with MY money)

On CNN

Told you this was going to be fun. ONE DAY and the right is starting to act like the left Why add an insult to a persons name, are you trying to be like Amazon?

Yep, hand out debit cards. I am OK with government housing. It should be like the soldiers have...One room apartments with shared bathrooms, simple furnature. Make it uncomfortable, not cruel, but not nice.

1. More people own homes than ever before. We have talked about this, but you "didn't accept that as anything". Even though most of the economic world does. http://www.danter.com/STATISTICS/homeown.htm 2. The stock market is doing well. http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/19/markets/markets_0530/index.htm 3. Unemployment is at a low. http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/03/news/economy/jobs_october/index.htm Three very good indicators that the economy was on an uptick. (notice I used CNN as the major sources?) It is going to be fun to watch the Dems not do any better, and listen to your lame excuses why.

My plan was close to the same...You have to make it uncomfortable to do nothing. Take all the cash out of the system. Government money should not go to cars, play stations or new kicks. Food/Clothing/Shelter only.

Yes, but not always. You can run more efficient and reduce the cost it takes to run. An example for the average joe would be to buy in bulk. My company did this; We now order all office supplies in the entire company from one source. Now we get much bigger discounts on the products we need. Also, by combing job duties, you can increase workload with out hiring. So efficiency is not *always* linked to reduced head count. But I understand your point 100% and agree that reducing employee cost is almost always the reason for a desire of running efficiently.

Why skydive? People can see no use jumping out of a plane. Own one because you want one, if you don't want one, don't own one. They can be quite fun. And as for those that say how dangerous they are, more people are killed with baseball bats than .50 cal weapons. S CAL is not like all of America. Why us, why not you? What makes you correct and them wrong?

And what if it does not?

No, a sudden pay rate for the lowest paid workers will only raise the cost of goods and services. Also people making more than min wage will be crunched by the rising costs without further compensation. For example...All the 16 year old's at McDonalds get a raise to 7.25 from 5.25. Now McDonalds has a few options: 1. Reduce costs by reducing employees. 2. Reduce costs by running more efficiently. 3. Raise prices to afford the added cost. Option 2 would be nice, but 1 and 3 are much more likely. And option 2 often leads to option one. Option one has the problem that it reduces the amount of people who will buy goods since they will no longer have a job. Option 3 will raise the cost of the hamburgers, and the people that eat there will need to raise the cost of their services to make up the sudden rise in the cost of a BigMac. When I was in the service, they raised the BAQ (Amount they give the troops to live off of post). The month that the raise went into effect the landlords raised the rent. Now for the troops it was a zero loss deal, they just handed the "extra money" over to someone else. Their standard of living did not go up, only the landlords standard did. Also, anyone NOT in the military got screwed in the deal. Do you think a guy in high school sould get paid 7.25 to take tickets at the local movie house, or to flip burgers at Mickey D's? And are you willing to pay the extra money that those things will cost if they do? Taxing the hell out of the people will only kill the economic uptick. People will hoard money not spend it. The SAME argument you use for giving the little guy a raise works against you on taxing the hell out of people. Yes, they system is broken and more and more it is being abused. I don't mind helping those that need it, I do mind paying people to sit on their asses all day. Of course, it would be better to fix the problem, but some people would rather let people skate than fix it. It is not a big deal if you like the idea of a socialist state, but it is a big deal if you like capitalism. Doubt it. The best thing is the war in Iraq was a major reason for the swing....But at one point the war was popular. So the only thing that has really changed is the voters have grown sick and do not back the choices they made. Edit: lets try to keep this civil and on topic...Care to explain in economic terms the benefits of raising min wage? Or how taxing the hell out of the population will help the economy? The deficit I will agree, but the overall economy?

And yet when Bush cuts the military you crucify him, but praise Clinton when he did...You are right, the blade cuts both ways. I see you answered nothing but tried to throw a red herring into the discussion....Care to discuss Clintons No bids and how they were "different" than Bush's? And you flat ignored the compensation issue.

From CNN a kinda neat little poll. Don't know if it will work, but here were my results. From http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/special/issues/caucus/quiz.html http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/special/issues/caucus/results.html If it didn't work: Mid left on Iraq, and Moral issues Right on economy Mid right on terrorism and Immigration

People who do not understand compensation at that level often think it is a big deal for a person to get delayed compensation. It's not. Companies often delay compensation over a few years to spread out the impact over a few years. It is very often the case with retirement Yeah, people who do not understand military bidding ofetn gripe about Halliburton. But if they understood military bidding (often quite stupid) then they would not be able to use it as an attack. I also notice no one ever mentions Clintons Military nobids.

From the link. Great...will never happen, the left likes money also. No issue. I hope not, min wage is not meant to be a living wage. Two very different things. All it will do is raise inflation. Cool Cool Cool Well, the economy has been on on upturn...Yes the defecit is rising as well, but taxing the hell out of society will kill the uptic IMO. Reward those who work...Not those that collect welfare and I would agree. So lets see what she really does. For the left it will be fun to watch them on the defensive for a while

Welcome to blind hatred....I don't get it either. Of course we will both be attacked and call facists for not agreeing with them.

But a guy that just breaks laws he does not agree with deserves standing ovations? I think anyone that breaks laws need to go down, not just people from one party....But thats just to balanced for some people. And you don't think the left's defense of Stubbs and wanting to hang foley is not? And the left is like a bunch of three year olds that want their favorite toy (power) I don't care either. I would like it if people didn't lie under oath (break the law) about them. If a BJ is no big deal, why lie about it under oath?....So what do you say about this now "and has a live and let live attitude.. and they do not break our societies laws....then so be it". So what if they DO break societies laws? Talking like a truck driver is not really a good way to get a message across....

I like this part best: So they can't prove it, so it must be true

News can have a slant, but if several sources say the same thing then it usually is true. Thats true, but the right does it as well.

It does not bother me at all. What bothers me is when I am out getting pissed and they want to try and convert me on the street. I can turn off a TV, or just ignore it. It is harder to ignore a person in front of you. And then when you ask them to leave you alone they press more. Sheesh.

Which is different than when the left does the same thing. They cuddle up together and protect the person. But then they band together to try and hand the right when they do the same thing....Call it what you want a double standard, hipocrisy..ect. It is BS when you defend one guy and try to hang another for the same offense. But *you support* that double standard. It is a double standard when you protect one guy and want to hang another for the same thing. Good hting you have hip waders, YOU need them. Quote