SkyDekker 1,141 #51 May 1, 2006 QuoteThe President did propose that several programs shown to be ineffective or having no measurable effect within the Department of Education be eliminated. The cries from the leftists and their sycophant NEA were horrendous. So? Doesn't his party have the majority? Why doesn't he push through bills that would balance the budget, start working on eliminating the enormous National Debt etc? He has had the perfect opportunity for quite some years now to truly make some major changes while his party completely dominated the political balance....yet he has done absolutely nothing, other than go on a spending spree. The opportunity was there...still is there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 May 1, 2006 QuoteThe opportunity was there...still is there. In other words, you completely agree with me and Anvil (both have said he cost cutting efforts are a disgrace) and this is now just preaching to the choir? Question - If we agree so much, then why are you being so contentious? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #53 May 1, 2006 QuoteIn other words, you completely agree with me and Anvil (both have said he cost cutting efforts are a disgrace) and this is now just preaching to the choir? Because to me that makes him one of the worst presidents in history. It also leads me to believe that if they let go of such an enormous opportunity, the president never had the best interest of America at heart. Like I said before, I am certainly no expert in American politics. But, when was the last time a president had this much opportunity to effect enormous change for the better of the country....and did absolutely nothing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 May 1, 2006 QuoteHaven't read the budget, eh? Don't worry - most people haven't. Seriously, dude, you're a bright guy and articulate your points really well when we banter on here. Take a look at table S-11 here for a glimpse at how mandatory spending is the main cost driver for budget deficits. DoD itself accounted for 19.1% of outlays in '05 and per the '07 budget should account for 18.8% of outlays for '06 (recall the PB is submitted to Congress right after the SOTU in Feb). In contrast, mandatory spending for '05 was 60.8% of the budget in '05 and 61.9% in '06. Again, recall the '06 #'s in the '07 budget will be estimates. Vinnie - when you make ridiculous statements like Social Security is driving the national debt, it's clear that you haven't been reading. Excess intake to SS have been subsidizing the budget for decades. In time, the reverse will be true, since Gore's favorite 'lock box' doesn't exist. But right now SS is paying for the war in Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #55 May 1, 2006 It's clear you haven't read the budget and are not familiar with it. Read the budget and try again. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 May 1, 2006 QuoteIt's clear you haven't read the budget and are not familiar with it. Read the budget and try again. Is this the equilivent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALAL until reality goes away? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #57 May 1, 2006 No, it's my way of not giving credence where none is deserved. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #58 May 2, 2006 I am still waiting to hear your answer to my earlier question. Or from any other die hard Bush fan for that matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #59 May 2, 2006 Die hard Bush fan? Hmmm...I wouldn't say that - I'm quite perturbed at several things he's done ranging from the structure of his second tax cut to the lack of a single vetoed spending bill to the steel tariff imbroglio to the moronic anti-gay marriage ammendment proposal. I'd rather characterize myself as someone who doesn't like to see him impugned baselessly. I do support many of his positions, however, so perhaps I could be correctly characterized as a Bush supporter. Anyhoo, I'd have to think about when in history and get back to you, because off the top of my head I'm not sure. Perhaps Lincoln's successor. He had the opportunity to welcome the southern states back in and commence a cooperative rebuilding effort, but instead took a far more contentious and punitive approach towards the southern states, with horrid consequences for all. Ask any conservative or libertarian leaning fellow or lady, and I'm fairly confident any of them would state that this Republican congress has been an absolutely abyssmal disappointment. I'll get back to you on the history thing, as I'm not in history-mode right now. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 May 2, 2006 Quote 1 - I'd rather characterize myself as someone who doesn't like to see him impugned baselessly. ........ 2 - Ask any conservative or libertarian leaning fellow or lady, and I'm fairly confident any of them would state that this Republican congress has been an absolutely abyssmal disappointment. Cutting and numbering above mine You do realize the incredible denial of any hard core leftie that that above people don't exist. If you refrain from total bandwagon support of 'baseless impugning' you are automatically on the "Die Hard Bush Fan" list. Admitting he and his congress sucks based on specific actual poor policy choices but not disputing every single decision as pure evil; not solely attributing it to only the Republican members while noting the purity and good intentions of the Dem member; or even not taking it to the unreasonable level of wishing the entire Bush family would die from millions of little paper cuts won't cut it with that crowd. You have to go the entire way. If you are only with them 99% of the way, then you are against them. Best to stop trying thinking for yourself and expressing it. Really, how many times can you list of the things that most of us a VERY upset and disappointed about and still be called a 'die hard' religious right wing zealot nazi podunk hick redneck? 17? 18? Good luck ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #61 May 2, 2006 QuoteIf you are only with them 99% of the way, then you are against them. I am sorry but who coined the phrase: You are either with us or you are against us? Not so long ago any questioning of or objecting to the current administration was labeled as unpatriotic. I do agree with the gist of your post though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #62 May 2, 2006 Thwack! There comes the smack with the frozen fish! (wasn't it a frozen fish?) Remember, the friend of my friend is my friend; the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy, and the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Period. No adjustment or paying attention to what they actually say or stand for allowed. BTW -- calling people stupid for believing the way they do (not that you do, Bill) is a really good way to smack oneself right into one of those categories... Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #63 May 2, 2006 QuoteThwack! There comes the smack with the frozen fish! (wasn't it a frozen fish?) Remember, the friend of my friend is my friend; the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy, and the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Period. No adjustment or paying attention to what they actually say or stand for allowed. I understood the fish part pretty much. But the rest is a bit confusing. Can you make a chart? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #64 May 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf you are only with them 99% of the way, then you are against them. I am sorry but who coined the phrase: You are either with us or you are against us? My theme for the day - in my country's politics, there really isn't any substantial difference in who we get to choose from. You know I said it that way on purpose. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #65 May 2, 2006 QuoteMy theme for the day - in my country's politics, there really isn't any substantial difference in who we get to choose from. Which means the demise isn't to be blamed on the politicians but on the system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 May 2, 2006 Quote You do realize the incredible denial of any hard core leftie that that above people don't exist. If you refrain from total bandwagon support of 'baseless impugning' you are automatically on the "Die Hard Bush Fan" list. with his approval rating down to 32%, that pretty much makes supporters part of the die hard fan club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor the life of me I can't understand all the whining from the Lefties. You guys act as if you will have to pay all this money when the truth is you ought to be dancing in the streets because the rich, who pay most of the taxes are getting soaked again. Unbelievable.... - 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. QuoteAddress my questions. 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. - QuoteNo 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. 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. QuoteAbout 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 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.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #68 May 3, 2006 QuoteIt seems to me, that the USA could be building up this massive debt to help fund it's wars (wow that took a huge mind stretch).... but (here comes the biggie).... They dont care because they [may] not have any intensions for ever repaying that debt... they may just say Fuck Off... if you want it come and get it......we've just saved your collective arses (not that they have, but in their minds that doesn't matter). . Most countries carry a debt and when not paid, reflects in lower value of currency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #69 May 3, 2006 Do you actually believe a chart without any historical data attached has any real value? Nope, just another Bush bash. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #70 May 3, 2006 Rich people who buy treasury notes and other countries who wish to invest in the US. Over 20% is owed to Asian countries, the biggest slice of which goes to China who continues to fund our trade deficit. That's the ironic thing, the party who has the big woodie for fighting communism is systematically selling our country to China. QuoteJust who do we owe this debt to? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #71 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhat 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. 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. QuotePoor people and mainstream America actually has rights when they have access to basic coverage and labor unions, 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?!?!?!?! QuoteI just can;t understand why poor people vote for Republicans..... 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. QuoteAnd Dems penalize those who work and earn money so those that don't want to work can have a free ride. 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? QuoteGiven 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 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. QuoteThe people do have rights. I have read the Constitution and nowhere does it say the right to have a Union. 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. QuoteIn fact Unions don't make a company stronger. Look at Delta, United, and US Airways. 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. QuoteI 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. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #72 May 3, 2006 Quote> I have read the Constitution and nowhere does it say the right >to have a Union. Perhaps a closer read is in order. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." We have EVERY right that is not proscribed by federal or state governments. That's one of the most basic parts of being an american. It can be scary, having so many rights and so much freedom, but most americans like things that way. >I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote >Democrat. I often do. (Course I also often vote republican or libertarian.) If you honestly think the parties are significantly different, you are probably buying into some pretty serious partisan nonsense. QuoteIf you honestly think the parties are significantly different, you are probably buying into some pretty serious partisan nonsense. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #73 May 3, 2006 Ok, here's something to chew on. We are currently PAYING the interest on the debt even though we haven't touched the principal for about five years. So this is basically an interest only loan and we're currently forking out about two BILLION dollars PER DAY in interest. Where do you think your income tax goes? As for the previous post, check the value of the dollar over the last few years, and also consider what's going to happen when the dollar gets so unattractive that not only does China quit financing our debt but OPEC decides to peg oil against the Euro instead of the dollar. The people who are currently running our government think about one thing, what they can get for themselves NOW, future be damned. QuoteQuoteIt seems to me, that the USA could be building up this massive debt to help fund it's wars (wow that took a huge mind stretch).... but (here comes the biggie).... They dont care because they [may] not have any intensions for ever repaying that debt... they may just say Fuck Off... if you want it come and get it......we've just saved your collective arses (not that they have, but in their minds that doesn't matter). . Most countries carry a debt and when not paid, reflects in lower value of currency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #74 May 3, 2006 I thought more about it, and I'm sticking with Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. Horrid set of choices he made that really set back the reintegration of the Southern states by decades. Possibly Lyndon Johnson, but I don't think history wlll be as harsh on him as on Andrew Johnson. Anybody know if they were related in any way? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #75 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuotePerhaps a closer read is in order. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." We have EVERY right that is not proscribed by federal or state governments. That's one of the most basic parts of being an american. It can be scary, having so many rights and so much freedom, but most americans like things that way. 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? Quote>I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote >Democrat. I often do. (Course I also often vote republican or libertarian.) If you honestly think the parties are significantly different, you are probably buying into some pretty serious partisan nonsense. 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. QuoteWhat about the second? People read it both ways. See the problem is that the Constitution can be read different ways. Just like the Bible. 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. QuoteI personally think that is good. It allows both to change some with the times, while still standing on principles. What you’re trying to say is: living Const and stare decisis, respectively. QuoteHowever, 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. 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? QuoteSo 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. So if the people elect David Duke, then we can abolish the 13th????? Please, I can’t take it anymore…… QuoteOh 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. OK, explain how the poor are benefited by the Repub Party. QuoteI 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. 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. QuoteMaybe 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. 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. QuoteI also think that some with money could vote Democrat based on how they are doing well and do not mind giving back. How is it that the Dems give money back? Look at the last 25 years and make that argument. Impossible. QuoteNeither is wrong, however some do not see that. I find that funny. 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. QuoteI 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. 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. QuoteSomeone 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. 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
