Lucky...

I think he's been stinking up the place in terms of fiscal responsibility. I've already said it many times. refer to the veto spending bill comments, refer to the mandatory budget problem. He's done little to nothing on both. The partial privatization of SS was a good idea, but doomed from the start. So the best I can say is he made one honest gesture and gave up too fast and nothing since. And your parenthetical statement is real insult. If you ever read my posts you'd know it's not needed. Exactly, the airlines and Enron have shown that we should throw our retirements inthe hands of corps.... nice

UH, not really. Shit is still shit, even with vanilla frosting on it. YA THINK!!!!?????? Let me see, did he spend it on social programs? Noooooooooooooooo, but Clintion did and he actually turned around the debt, so where is your argument that social progs kill the budget? Kinda outta gas....

Sort of, but not quite. Are you asserting that if the money wasn't spend on your war in Iraq, the National Debt would be in the same shape? Or do you think the current Administration should just cancel any and all social services to fund the war? on a long term basis...yes. Or increase receipts to keep funding the "mandatory" outlays. In the mean time, your president has gone way overboard on the discretionary spending, causing a giant increase in National Debt. I agree that in the long run mandatory spending has to be looked at, but to suggest that mandatory spending is the main reason for the giant increase in National Debt is a bit of a joke. BTW, the war only accounts for 10-15% of the debt increase.

Read the debt numbers I posted and then write. I did, with fewer social programs BushII has doubled Clinton's national debt increase in just 5 years.... will probably double the entire debt in his 8 years - unprecedented. What history? This thread is about the National Debt and I have established that history has been poor for the Repubs and descent for the Dems. I know you're going to duck-n-run from the rest of this post, but please answer this: what hatred? What have I written that expresses hatred? Answer my questions. Reality, as in factual data from government offices or info that is extracted and acurate from gov offices? I did post that and you fail to answer; who's in reality?

Explain how during Clinton when we had more social progs, we leveled off the debt and had an annual budget surplus for the first time in 40 years. But during Reagan, Bush, Bush we elimiinated social progs and went downhill, or actually uphill in the debt dept. Explain that? Your theory that Dems handout, hence hurt the gov and the budget has been debunked and you just keep avoiding.

What about the second? People read it both ways. See the problem is that the Constitution can be read different ways. Just like the Bible. I personally think that is good. It allows both to change some with the times, while still standing on principles. However, it does not state Unions by name. So while I agree the people have the right to Unionize, the Corporations also have a right to not have Unions. And so do the people. So you can either have or not have Unions according to the Constitution. And if the people elect a Government that is anti-Union, then the Government, being of the people, has the right to eliminate them. Or do you not agree? Oh I don't actually think that. It was just a counter to the other poster who said he didn't know how the poor could vote Republican. I can think of several reasons why a poor person would vote Republican. One might be since Republicans are seen as stronger on Defense and after 9/11 that is a big issue. Maybe they understand what happens if the factory shuts down and wants the Factory to be strong. Even if that means that some get really rich, they see that the factory being in town is good for everyone. I also think that some with money could vote Democrat based on how they are doing well and do not mind giving back. Neither is wrong, however some do not see that. I find that funny. I tend to be Republican since I know that to have a good economy we need strong companies. The Country will not be stronger by having more people on public aid. Someone once said something like, "Taxing yourself into a good economy is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up." I think it was Churchill. Protections in employment can easily be extrapolated. Just as the Dems found Katz v US to protect a person’s privacy at a payphone, Bush a Co. has decided Google and your home/cell phone are fair game w/o a warrant, so we see how each side interprets the Const. What you’re trying to say is: living Const and stare decisis, respectively. The US Const doesn’t name PRIVACY either, but soooo many decisions have been based upon privacy of body and of thought. Can we please drop this silly argument of necessity that each word must be used in the text in order to be protected? So if the people elect David Duke, then we can abolish the 13th????? Please, I can’t take it anymore…… OK, explain how the poor are benefited by the Repub Party. So poor people give a rat’s ass about protecting the assets of the rich? Most poor people want to keep their car running, if they have one. They want to pay the rent. OK, so now we have supply side economics, or, trickle-down. It Didn’t work for Hoover or Reagan, so now Bush wants to give it a go and you think the poor agree??? I think the poor want theirs and now, not make a corp rich and hope they trickle down a few pennies. How is it that the Dems give money back? Look at the last 25 years and make that argument. Impossible. It’s not wrong to eliminate the Ergonomics Bill, to help workers with repetitive motion injuries? Bush killed what Clinton and OSHA started. It’s not wrong to eliminate overtime protections for some workers? Bush made that his baby his first term. I fail to see funny. You tend to be Republican because you don’t look at facts. Look at the national debt, look at the annual deficit. I posted graphs, but you don’t want to read them argue them. Post substantive numbers. Clinton did it, then lowered taxes as the gov gained a surplus and the debt leveled off. Again, apparent if you look at the graph. Do you max your cards out and say, “Fuck it, get me more cards?” No, you budget based upon what you earn and spend responsibly; can you show me where Repubs over the last 25years have done that?

Totally disagree. 1) Arsenic in drinking water 2) Ergonomics Bill 3) Overtime Law 4) BK law so many others... These are just a few that had differneces with the 2 parties.

And Dems penalize those who work and earn money so those that don't want to work can have a free ride. Given the choice, since I have a job, I would rather support those that have my best interest at hart. And that is not to tax me and give to those that are unwilling to work. The people do have rights. I have read the Constitution and nowhere does it say the right to have a Union. In fact Unions don't make a company stronger. Look at Delta, United, and US Airways. Friends of mine that work for UPS will gladley point out that only the drivers have good pay compared to the rest of the work force at other companies. Another friend of mine used to work for Delta at a light MX facility. She used to brag about how many books she read a week. She was getting paid 80,000 a year to read books. Then when she did get laid off, she was pissed at the COMPANY?!?!?!?! I can't either to be honest. They want a handout, they should vote Democratic. I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote Democrat. How so? What programs do the Dems have that the Repubs do not? What are the differences in the social system that give a free ride? The Dems tax and collect a gov surplus, which goes to reduce the debt and create an annual surplus. Repubs reduce taxes and overspend to limit governmental powers so they can run it via corporations. Look at the graph I included earlier, can you see that I have supported my assertions? If not, explain why. Bill explains it well, but many things aren’t tied to the constitution. One could invoke the 14th and argue equal protection, since corps are so big and out of control. Many things that occur are not covered in the Const. Like the word, “privacy.” Privacy isn’t even mentioned in the Const, but many cases like Katz v US, where the buzz-phrase is: People have privacy, not places. So the argument that it isn’t covered in the Const is impotent. Unions hurt companies and help people. You really can’t do one without the other. In this climate I think we can agree that employees without union representation are FAR less likely to have health insurance and other benefits. I just care about people more than corps. Democrats are pro-union, pro-healthcare, and pro working people in general. Republicans are for all corporate rights and not for working people, I think the Overtime Law, the Bankruptcy Law, the Ergonomics Bill and so many others are evidence of that.

Most countries carry a debt and when not paid, reflects in lower value of currency.

Address the graphs and the interest paid on the debt. Also, address the shrinking value of teh dollar - they are correalated. Address my questions. Why do you care, you aren't payng much towards it. Just something else to whine about? I thought so...... The argument here is about the national debt, not me or you or the amount we will contribute to the debt. You didn't post any. Let's see you address the graphs or the national debt; who fault, who's doing, etc.... I could be a millionaire or homeless - doesn't matter. The issue of teh thread is the debt, care to jump in? No thanks. I do find it amusing when I hear Lefties bitch about a debt that will mostly be paid by the same rich people they demonize all the time. About as amusing as whining about increases in the price of gasoline, that will cost about $300 per year more, and then whining that a $300 tax cut is nothing. Really .......if only you knew how amused I am. Please continue. - Uh, the value ofthe dollar shrinking hurts everuone, even those who don't repay it. So the rich and corps pay it huh? How do they earn their millions? On teh backs of teh poor? Yea, we pay it. 300 per year increase? I now drive 200 miles per day - speak for yourself. Even the average person will spend more than 300 per year more, now that gas prics have more than doubled in the last couple years. It's probably more like 700-1000+ per year. I see you're still going to skip my questions....

Address the graphs and the interest paid on the debt. Also, address the shrinking value of teh dollar - they are correalated. Address my questions. Why do you care, you aren't payng much towards it. Just something else to whine about? I thought so...... The argument here is about the national debt, not me or you or the amount we will contribute to the debt. You didn't post any. Let's see you address the graphs or the national debt; who fault, who's doing, etc.... I could be a millionaire or homeless - doesn't matter. The issue of teh thread is the debt, care to jump in?

With this, and the knowledge thet the Repubs are responsible for most of teh debt, we can establish that Reagan, Bush, Bush have opened many new social programs..... oh wait, they kill them and cut taxes/military spend... The logic doesn't add up. Since most of the debt has been accrued in the last 25 years by Reagan, Bush, Bush, I think it's meaningless not to address where the spending was made to spur that kind of surge. Then explain how Clinton had the graph going vertical as to the national debt, at the end of his tem. And let's face it, Clinton was known for social spending, education, etc... UH, no. Most of teh debt, in fact probably 70% at the end of Bush's term, will be attributed to Reagan, Bush, Bush. BTW, local state university tuition has increased 80% since BushII, so we can't afford an education. I have a degree..... Increase taxes on the rich, cut military spending... How is it that these countries I assume you consider inferior for dolling out medical care like it should be a birthright, can have a manageable economy? Could it be they don't spend 30% of their GNP on the military? Could it be they tax the rich as they should? Agreed.

Address the graphs and the interest paid on the debt. Also, address the shrinking value of teh dollar - they are correalated.

I thought there was a surpluss before Bush took over? If so, is it not the case that people aren't just mad about the debt... but about the blowing of all those savings too? I don't know about you guys, but I know which kind of blowing I'd prefer to be going on in my national office. This is a common misunderstanding. There is the annual budget surplus/deficit and then there's the overall national debt/surplus. These obviously affect each other directly. - The annual budget surplus/deficit is what Congress and the pres spend or save during the year based upon GDP/GNP and tax receipts. - The National Debt/Surplus is the overall accounting; the grand tally. Under Clinton the national debt rose 1.5T, but he inherited the vertical upswing from Reagan Bush. If you look at the graph I provided you will see that CLinton had an annual suplus of 230B as he left, which turned the national debt horizontal. If Clinton had stayd in office longer we can surmise that the graph would have turned downward, reducing teh actual national debt. What a lot of people don't know is that Republicana aren't irresponsible, they want to disempower government and empower corporations. They throw the government into the crapper in an attempt to do exactly this. Poor people and mainstream America actually has rights when they have access to basic coverage and labor unions, etc... Republicans do what they can to kill all of these. I just can;t understand why poor people vote for Republicans.....

The numbers in the rolling stone are correct...

Bush is a moron. But let's not forget that America already had a monsterous debt before Bush even thought of becoming prez. You can blame Bush for the Iraq fiasco, but you can't single him out for the debt the US government has been in for decades now. Look at the graph, Bush inherited 5.5T and will basically double that before he leaves and how are we better off? If everyone had medical coverage or the streets and schools were great, then fone, but we are worse basically most ways around. Clinton had the first annual surplus in 40 years, about 230B, then bush tuned that into well over 500t immediatley. Some can be blamed on 911, but most is just runaway military spending and tax cuts for the rich. Reagan, Bush, Bush are responsible for 60% of the entire debt, so it was manageable absent the trio of boobs.

I can almost guarantee that he'll leave in mid/late January 2009. Don't be so sure, he might be working on some wartime emergency powers BS.

Maybe you should add a few other periodicals to your reading list, instead of judging things based upon one source, which is known to have a bias. OK, I have one.... http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm This is a macroscopic view - notice the debt going vertical as Clinton took office, then tailed off to neutral as he left office? Then Bush turned things around in Republican fashion and it went vertical again. _______________________________________ http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Here's one based upon the GNP. IOW's, if you earn 100k/year you can spend much more than if you earn 50k/year. The idea here os that the Republicans, since Reagan, are cut taxes and spenders. ________________________________ You can run from reality all you want, but the truth is that the Repubs since Reagan have run this country into the ground and made the few very rich..... quit defending your party regardless of what they do and look at them for what they are based upon their accomplishments.

Just because you can smell it doesn't mean it is harming you. When I put my dog out I can smell shit, but it's not the same as eating it. Huh? Rich people don't smoke? I would put forward that this has nothing at all to do with it. The primary factor seems to be - did your parents smoke. Mine did, which seemed to lead me to it. And realisticly, do you think people WANT to smoke? I hate it. I hate spending $5 a pack on killing myself. Studies have shown that it is more addictive than heroin, and I believe it. Zipp0 Don't blame your addictions on your parents...I grew up with a father who smoked a pack and a half a day. That is a cop out...he is the primary reason I never picked up the habit, seeing how hard it was for him to quit and living with the nasty smoke. He has finally had to quit or choose to die doing it. It has literally come down to his health and whether he wants to see his grandkids or not. He has not smoked since January 1 and I am very proud of him. I'm in the same boat, entire family smoked, I never did. But I do think genetics and environmental factors are huge with influence of behavior. BTW, they all quit.... I was right/them wrong

There, fixed it for ya.

Just because you can smell it doesn't mean it is harming you. When I put my dog out I can smell shit, but it's not the same as eating it. Huh? Rich people don't smoke? I would put forward that this has nothing at all to do with it. The primary factor seems to be - did your parents smoke. Mine did, which seemed to lead me to it. And realisticly, do you think people WANT to smoke? I hate it. I hate spending $5 a pack on killing myself. Studies have shown that it is more addictive than heroin, and I believe it. Zipp0 You make some args and have a good attitude, but driving a car and taking a shit are necessities, smoking is an addiction. Yep

Good attitude and good luck quitting. If we ban smoking, period, then skydiving is next because it's dangerous. I would hate to think that smoking would ever be banned, but it should be confined to the intimacy of a person's property. Even in a car, windows must be up. It needs to be a leper activity, but not banned like pot and other drugs.

Considerate smokers have a negliable influence on your health. Hell, it was hard enough to show the effects of substantial second hand smoke - which tells you how little harm you can claim walking outdoors. So yeah, it's a vice that hurts the user - it diminishes their cardio vascular performance, increases arterial blockage, and eventually is the leading cause of death for a third of the users. LA air used to be described as equilivent to pack a day smoking. And that wasn't coming from the smokers. If non smokers lungs are so important, then make everyone buy SULEV vehicles. Destroy all cars from the 80s and beyond. W/o sarcasm, this is an oxymoron. Wrongo.... it is very difficult to test for a sole independant variable of second-hand smoke and its affect on health. So science and medicine has to use common sense. Just as most people convicted of murders are done so by way of circumstantial evidence and no hard evidence. There comes a point to where we need to realize that smoke is poison, just like booze. And it's hard to believe that 2nd hand kills????? Again, and Clinton was a POS, therefore Bush can;t be as bad as they say. HUUUUUUUH????? OK, cars polute, that's the cost of driving and having a society the way we do. Smoking kills 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc..., that's the cost we pay for allowing the drug addiction of 25% of the population to affect virtually all of the population. Can you see how driving is essential, but smoking is not? IF this wasn't a Fascist country where corps write the laws, we would have killed smoking a long time ago.

Ok.. then I support a Catalytic Converter on his cigarrettes. I wouldn't think there's that much NO from a cigarette... but I could be wrong... Well, it appears you advocate smoking indoors, while we wouldn't run our cars indoors.

Nope....he's comparing relative pollution levels between 2nd hand smoke and (much more prevalent) auto exhaust... From a necessecity point of view, which is what I was refering to, it is abstract. If we never had cigs again, the world would be a better place. If we never used vehicles again, we would have major adjustments to make and there would be many, many deaths and riots due to no food, etc.