Lucky...

Yea pure coincidence: We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan. No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow. The Democrats, led by their increasingly erratic speaker Andy Dillon of Redford Township, also pledge $100 million to make better downtowns. Their plan goes beyond cluelessness. Democrats are either entirely indifferent to the idea that extreme hard times demand extreme belt tightening, or they are bone stupid. We lean toward the latter. We say that because the House plan also keeps alive, again without specifics, the promise of tax hikes. The range of options, according to Rep. Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit, includes raising the income tax, levying a 6 percent tax on some services, and taxing junk food and soda. We wonder how financially strained Michigan residents will feel about paying higher taxes to buy someone else's kid an iPod. That they would include such frivolity in a crisis budget plan indicates how tough it will be to bring real spending reform to Michigan. Senate Republicans issued a plan a week ago that eliminates the deficit with hard spending cuts. Now their leader, Mike Bishop of Rochester Hills, is sounding wobbly, suggesting he might compromise on a tax hike. We hope Bishop is reading the polls that say three-quarters of Michigan residents oppose higher taxes. There are few things in the House budget outline from which to forge a compromise. For example, Dillon says he would shift the burden of business taxes to companies that operate in Michigan, but don't have a facility here. The certain outcome of that plan is to drive even more businesses out of Michigan. About all we see of merit is a call for government consolidation and a demand that state employees contribute more to their retirement benefits -- which is no more than House Democrats suggested for future state lawmakers a few weeks ago. We find it ironic that the Democrats are proposing floating $5 billion in revenue bonds to pay for retiree health care, when Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed a nearly identical plan by Oakland County because it would cost the state money. Instead of advocating cost-saving changes in public school teacher pension and health plans, Dillon suggests more study. There have been plenty of studies of the issue, with the conclusion being that hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved through reforms. Michigan needs action, not more study committees. Dillon also proposes that the state cover 50 percent of the cost of catastrophic health insurance for everyone in the place, but once again doesn't specify a funding source. Stop the stupidity. Michigan can't tax or spend its way out of this economic catastrophe. The only responsible option is to bring spending in line with current revenues. The mission must be to expand the tax base, rather than to expand taxes, by crafting a budget that encourages growth. We won't get there by wasting money on early Christmas presents for Michigan kids. You didn't, you posted an article about Ipods for kids that was really an attack on Dems. Why, you saved me the trouble I'd rather watch you continue to do that. Yes, the D vs R is an endless battle. If I posted an article on morality and the article kept stating things about Haggert viciously hating upon homosexuals, yet he is one, or it refered to the joke that Trent Lott is for calling for Clinton's head, yet Lott was locked in an extramarital affair while he was calling for Clinton's head. then I would be doing the same thing; disguising a hate R's thread behind some morality thread. Just call it what it is. Let's face it, the media is ALL liberal

Perhaps hocus pocus is somewhat the wrong label, maybe "ignoring and it will go away" is better. Perhaps, "See and hear no evil since my eyes are closed" is good too. Point is, to say, "ah, tha group will take care of it s fuck it" is apathetically inane. The Libertarians, as I understand them, solve problems by refusing to acknowledge them as issues/problems, hence, there are no problems. Libertarians should call themselves the Darwinians, as with their system only the most capable will survive. As much as the Republican system is elitist and exclusive, it at least addresses these issues, so I must say that that I feel the current LIbertarian system is rungs below even the R system. Perhaps this is why they never get a real # of votes, but they claim it's due to this locked 2-party system. I think not. Hell, even Perot got 19% of teh populous vote, so that establishes we can deviate from the 2-party system. I think the Libertarian paltform sucks all on its own.

It's to the point now it doent matter who they are! D or R they are about the same anymore. The point kept going back to the Dems and used teh Ipods and Michigan s away of justifying the thread. Don't wanna talk about the cites I posted? Hmmmm, that's (not) curious. Dems and Repubs the same? - Dems against the war, R's for it. - Dems for min wage incr, R's against. - Dems for ergonomics bill, R's against it. - Dems against OT law, R's for it. Look, I could drag on and on with probably over 100 examples stemming from major bills, but the side with the garbage as representaives will continue to convolute the 2 parties, the side with the party that is not primarily responsible will continue to draw a severance. If you wanna continue to claim that the debt is teh fault of them all since they are supposedly teh same, then go back and address teh graph. If youy want to keep feeding me this convolution theory, then that's what you will do. I would love to hear how the dems are responsible for the debt. Remember, the debt was 1T as Reagan took office and is now 8.8T. Clinton was the only president to manage the debt via tax increases over the last 40 years sonce Eisenhower. So instead of this convolution theory, lump the Dems with the R's, explain how it is that with a fairly large sample size of years how the neo-con approach is working.

Why pretend the thread is about Michigan when it's a Dem thread? Yes, the Desm are the fiscally irresponsible ones..... http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I agree with a lot of that, essentiually become mainstream, but you must admit their medical scheme is hocus pocus. Medical care is the most compelling issue of today and has been, so to sweep it under the carpet as if it will fix itself is just idiotic. This concept of donations and churches healing teh poor is inane. If the Libertarians has a plan for that then they would garner a lot of credibility. At least the R's wanna shift it solely off on the people by way of idiotic so-called tax credits, teh LIbertarians wanna pretend it doesn't exist.

If you're fiscally conservative you would vote Dem, but I think that's an impossibility, so you really are more of an R than a fiscal conservative. If you want civil debate then Obama is about as civil as it gets. I think you're an R in denial..... most Libertarians I know are really disgruntled R's.

OMG, I wrote the previous w/o reading this!!! I agree with you, the church and other donations will care for the sick, the other 95% that the church budget won't cover can die in the f/n streets. The Libertaiian take o medical care is not only delusional, but several rungs of even the incompassionate Repubs..... it's sci-fi laughable, so much that even the greedypublicans aren't going there. I would say any government should regulate things and that is what the gov does. To think that all people are crwated equal and that free choice is workable is beyond utopian.

So let's all become Libertatians...... sorry, didn't mean to precede your next assertipon

So no real response to: The senate just passed the Houses' resolution to award funding for the war, but it has strings where the troops must pull out by March 08. So now if Bush vetos, he is killing funding for teh troops (sound familiar Rush - Clinton refused to sign the 2nd min wage incr due to piggybacked bills), not the Dems in Congress. If he signs to get the funding, refuses to pull the troops, clear cut Usurpation of Congress by not obeying their bill that he signed. Do you think so? Doesn't matter, it's the House that can/will impeach and they will have time in March 08. It's almost as they planned it that way Nothing, no response? Nope. I have found my life much more enjoyable when I leave political bickering and whining to others, so have at it. Instead you find the need to impart stuff like: C'mon, Lucky. I sense you're holding something back. Tell us how you really feel. WHy not just acquiesce? Oh, you did.

I believe impeachment is a bad idea, given the current situation. However, it would seem that Bush could be properly impeached over some of his presidential signing statements, or, more specifically, failure to implement policy which Congress has passed in the form of legislation. There's so much division in this day that I see several impeachments in the next several presidencies. This impeachment would be great, as he has truely fucked the country; just a way for the people to say, "fuck you" to a really bad person. This line of thought is why Iraq is in such bad shape today. Saddam was a really bad guy, so we took him out. Unfortunately, our leaders gave little, if any, thought to the ensuing power vacuum. There was no credible leader to take Saddam's place. As a result, Iraq has suffered greatly. Would the nation really be better off with Cheney in the Oval Office? Sure, W is bad, but I don't know that we should advocate going from bad to (arguably) worse for the sake of principle. Some say Cheney is running it now, so would there be a diff? I think to insulate this abhorrent POS by way of fearing teh alternative is really weak. Isn't that like giving in to terrorists? We can be well assured that any removal attempt would fail anyway, so it's a way of the people tellin teh criminal chimp he sucks and mar his already destined for shit legacy to shit. Most people think the Clin ton impeachment ws a joke, most others wonder why we haven't impeached the chimp as of yet.

So no real response to: The senate just passed the Houses' resolution to award funding for the war, but it has strings where the troops must pull out by March 08. So now if Bush vetos, he is killing funding for teh troops (sound familiar Rush - Clinton refused to sign the 2nd min wage incr due to piggybacked bills), not the Dems in Congress. If he signs to get the funding, refuses to pull the troops, clear cut Usurpation of Congress by not obeying their bill that he signed. Do you think so? Doesn't matter, it's the House that can/will impeach and they will have time in March 08. It's almost as they planned it that way Nothing, no response?

I believe impeachment is a bad idea, given the current situation. However, it would seem that Bush could be properly impeached over some of his presidential signing statements, or, more specifically, failure to implement policy which Congress has passed in the form of legislation. There's so much division in this day that I see several impeachments in the next several presidencies. This impeachment would be great, as he has truely fucked the country; just a way for the people to say, "fuck you" to a really bad person.

So after days on here 59% agree with AOL, which was 62%, turd-boy s/b impeached. Funny thing is that it is an emotional reaction, as most people claim there is no basis for an impeachment, but various people are pissed about the goodies chump did: - Ergonomics Bill killing - Overtime Law - BK Law - Arsenic in drinking water reduction killing - Numerous environmental assaults - Wiretapping - Asswipe appointees - Doubled the rate of debt increase over even Reagan/Bush - Katrina reastion - Numerous tax cuts for the rich - Union killing - Medicare cuts - Privatized prescriptions / illeaglizin Canadian meds - New taxation proposal for employer provided medical coverage - Many more I am missing.... So the impeachment is a backdoor way to say fuck you. When the Reds impeaced Clinton, over 1/2 the people disagreed and were pissed. When the Dems impeach this POS the people will cheer. So my point here: The snate just passed teh Houses' resolution to award funding for the war, but it has strings where the troops must pull out by March 08. So now if Bush vetos, he is killing funding for teh troops (sound familiar Rush - Clinton refused to sign the 2nd min wage incr due to piggybacked bills), not the Dems in Congress. If he signs to get the funding, refuses to pull the troops, clear cut Usurpation of Congress by not obeying their bill that he signed. Do you think so? Doesn't matter, it's the House that can/will impeach and they will have time in March 08. It's almost as they planned it that way . Think it won't happen? Watch. Your run of horror is over Repubs, hope it was fun

No, they shouldnt impeach him if he continues with his Iraq plan. They should impeach him for the mere fact that he is an asshole. And that is essentially what they're doing, they need to find an imeachable reason. The reds thoug Clintin was an asshole so they impeached him for no reason, went fishing in his personal life and forced testimony under oath and got him to lie to avoid his wife knowing. WHat comes around makes the reds cry...boo-fuckin-hoo

Have you been living in a cave or something? Maybe you just think everyone else has and you think you can pull yet another snow job. The left goes on a witch hunt, Libby is destroyed (nobody reporting this even mentions the real charges) and you expect people to testify before a committee of political vultures? Did you even bother to read the coments by the jury members in the Libby case or look at WHO they were? Are you aware of the restrictions the judge imposed on Libby presenting evidence? He lawyers were BARRED from making certain claims about his own workload. You don't even need to look at phoney politicians masquerading as good cops though, just look what they did to Martha Stewart. I wouldn't testify either, in fact from what I have seen of the American justice system I wouldn't talk to a federal agent of any kind, ever, PERIOD. I've never seen such a rapacious desire to get people at any cost. Stalin would be proud. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070326/D8O434EO0.html The agenda will be fullfilled even if all teh Republiscum does this wiggle-dance. Voters will see what garbage the Repubs are and perhaps steer enough votes elsewhere.

If nothing illegal has happened, why does she have to worry about incriminating herself? It's either some Republiscum saying he doesn't recall or invoking the 5th......

Actually teh opposite is true. With police forces looking like paramilitary units and the guard willling to turn on its people, there is no way the people of the US will overthrow the US, only the rest of the world. Do you really think the US is tougher than the rest of the world collectively? Wrongo - we are 4.5% of the world's population and probably ,35% of the military might, so if China, India and Russia wanted to defeat us they could.

Mine was at least somewhat relevant, being an answer to Gawain Yours was a typical misdirection.

What do you consider Libertarians, left or right? Blues, Dave What Rehwma said here: Libertarianism is about fiscal conservatism and social permissiveness. Sounds pretty good, but it's a political party term (like Democrat or Republican), not a mindset (like conservative or liberal). Socially, there are people of very social liberal mindset in all the parties (liberal = simply open to new ideas) and there are people of very social conservative mindset as well (simply have a desire to maintain certain status quo). I agree with that, some of the rest. The upside to Libers is that they are for less government control, something both main parties can't leave alone, and yes I said the Repubs too. The downside is that they have this this concept I call the majic wand approach to medical care. They want the church to get a cash grant from the gov, a small one, and take care of all ills. This is the biggest issue with governement by far and their fix is to ignore it and consider themselves efficient. Bush is n't far behind with his recent taxation of worker's medical benefits to dissuade workers from acceptong the benefits..... but we have a free market, right? If teh Libers would fix their inane take on Med care, they would have a lot going for them.

Yea, what he said...... Just curious, what is the new policy?

Yes, it starts with a fishing expedition and issuing subpoenas, which they have started, they are now threatening to seve them pending Bush's vetoing of the recent bill they passed. I love this hate rhetoric, it doesn't matter what I think, it matter s that the witchhuint has begun and unless teh Dems get their way with the war the hunt will continue.

Of course, you guys act as if it matters that he did commit a crime or not. Do you think 99.9999999% of all prisoners are guilty? All they have to do is to put a charge before the House and it's done....be interesting to see how the Chief Justice hooks him up. I think he might be think about staying low on this one.

Anyone over the age of 35 can be president. How's THAT for a flaw? Bush is over 35, that's how

You don't think the more obvious causes - the tax hikes, along with the recession in 1994, didn't lead to this result? It wasn't until the next election cycle where the dropping deficit and growing economy made that move look better. Recession of 94, please provide any economical data to support that. He inherited the recession of the early 90's, 7.5% unemp soaring debt,etc and turned it around, but we didn't see a real change until after the 96 election, so I disagree. The tax increases by both GWH Bush and the 93 Onibus spending bill are what fueled the turn-around. COnversely the tax cuts by Reagan, Bush, Bush are the things that have made them liable for >75% of the 8.8T debt.