• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive the Point
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    Freefall Photography
  • Second Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
  1. FY 2004 was the highest deficit of the Bush years, at 413 B. It dropped each year after that, ending up at 161 B for the final Republican budget (FY 2007). Democrats took over in January 2007 and posted their first budget for FY 2008. 2004: 413 B 2005: 318 B 2006: 248 B 2007 (Last Republican Congress budget): 161 B 2008 (First Democrat Congress budget): 458 B 2009: 1412 B The Dems haven't passed a budget since 2009, but relied on 'continuing resolutions' for their spending. Jesus fucking christ on a popsicle stick! Bush grew the size of our Federal Government by almost half and then handed it off during the worst economic downturn since the GREAT DEPRESSION! And you want to put it all on the new guy! That's so ridiculously dishonest and unaccountable that I simply have nothing else to say. What a fucking waste of time.
  2. Yup... I'm sure the Democrats taking over control of Congress was just a coincidence. You nailed it. Here's an interesting read that I've posted before. Feel free to attack the messenger if you like. Some teasers: No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy. As a result, Mr. Bush already is the first president in history to implement budgets that crossed the $2 trillion a year and $3 trillion a year marks. His final budget, which comes to an end Sept. 30, conceivably could near $4 trillion, depending on the final tab for the financial rescue. (Notice a trend here?) an examination of numerous government reports over the past few years shows the administration has had difficulties in stewarding the taxpayer money spent on the mission — a total of more than $5 trillion on wars abroad and anti-terrorism efforts at home since 2002. Of that, hundreds of billions was misspent, in large part due to a broken contracting system, according to congressional oversight reports. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reviewed 700 projects and found $1.1 trillion in spending from 2002 to 2008 that was plagued by “significant waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.” Domestic spending also rose in almost every category as the White House, bargaining to get what it wanted for defense and national security, accommodated what even its supporters see as wasteful domestic spending in Congress. “Basically, we have had in the past eight years an unending growth in government and ever higher increases in the level of spending,” said Phil Gramm, And you might like this one..... Contractors, says scholar Paul Light, are a primary reason why the number of government employees - when military personnel and contract employees are included - rose from 11 million in 1999 to 14.6 million in 2005. The Bush administration did push through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. But Mr. Bush’s legacy on spending will likely be that he did not try to restrain it until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. “We’ve had too much government and too much spending, and … the size of government has grown by 40 percent in the last eight years. We can’t afford that in the next eight years,” Mr. McCain said... Give it a read if you're interested in a conservative's perspective.
  3. Not according to the Libs. The Govt just need to collect the "Fair Share" The "Lib" in the White House wants to cut the corporate tax rate but he's getting push back from some in corporate America because no one actually pays their marginal tax rate.
  4. If you had excluded the word "union" from that absolute statement then I would have agreed. As for the recent rule change on the voting, the new rules make more sense than the old ones as far as I can tell. It seems like only counting votes that were cast would lead to a more accurate election.
  5. It's a moot point as of this morning but I thought it was interesting that Mica claims it's a single issue problem but lists two issues. The union voting issue makes you wonder what our political elections would look like if we used the same standards. All non-votes would be counted as "No". Would that be "none of the above"?
  6. Good answer. Nice snip of the REST of my statement...maybe you can answer it now? "What's amazing is that you think the same old crap that HASN'T worked for the last 2 years will somehow magically work now. This is what....the sixth time he's done a "hard pivot" to jobs? Seventh?" It has been working. Growth has been anemic but it's still growth. We avoided a depression. We saved our auto industry and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people who rely on it. A couple million jobs total by some estimates have been saved or created. Although it's admittedly hard to prove a negative. I think that's going to be tough for Obama next year. It's hard to run on "hey, look what didn't happen". It would be like me being a spokesman for Vigil. "Hey there, I love my Vigil....although I have no idea whether or not mine works." But before we stray too far, none of this has anything to do with the "starve the beast" strategy that we're suffering from at the moment.
  7. Do you want the government to view everything as a revenue stream? Revenues were being collected at about $30 mil/day. Now those revenues are not being collected due to the shut down. That's a loss of revenue. And they could still be collecting it if the Dems hadn't shot down the bill. Sure, if the Dems had caved to the Republican demands then the FAA would be open. I've been hearing that argument a lot recently, especially from Boehner. If the Democrats will simply compromise their ideology and forget expecting the Republicans to compromise AT ALL then we wouldn't have these impasses.
  8. So it's ok if the Dems do it, just not the Reps? I'm not following your perceived double standard. Sure I would. .... Good answer.
  9. Do you want the government to view everything as a revenue stream? Revenues were being collected at about $30 mil/day. Now those revenues are not being collected due to the shut down. That's a loss of revenue.
  10. Wouldn't have anything to do with the content of the bill would it? Both the D's and R's are to blame for the shutdown. It's just ironic that the same R's who would destroy our credit rating in order to make a personaly political stand about fiscal responsibility have no problem throwing thousands of people into the unemployment line and ignore a revenue stream. Maybe you can start by asking Obama why he was demanding a debt limit increase that would last through the end of 2012... Because he's smart enough to take that issue off the table for the election cycle. Practically everyone in Washington agreed that we needed to increase the debt ceiling but candidates won't be honest about that while they're trying to get re-elected. Also, that's when we're going to revisit the Bush tax cut expiration again. Might as well make it a package deal. edited to add: I'll ask you a direct question. Do you want unemployment to drop and economic growth to take off in the next few months?
  11. The Republicans won't allow for a "clean" bill though.
  12. To address the OP, the "starve the beast" policy has been pursued by some Republicans for quite a while. Now that the beast is starved they are doing precisely what they wanted to do which is to attack entitlements, unions, EPA, etc. They got what they wanted and now they're in a feeding frenzy. The best example is the demand for fiscal responsibility during the debt ceiling debate only to turn around and walk out on a billion in revenue through the FAA debacle. Someone needs to call them on it. Everyone campaigned on getting people back to work and improving the economy. But that's not where the focus is. But I'm not really surprised. How many Republicans want the economy to improve or unemployment to decrease in the next 12 months? I would love to hear an honest answer to that question from our elected officials.
  13. According to your link revenues increased between 1992 and 2000. This site says the same thing. Receipts as a percentage of GDP were highest in 2000. In terms of dollars the highest receipts were in 2007, which makes sense when you consider the amount of "money" moving about in a false economy at the time. But when you think about it, income to the Treasury SHOULD increase every year under a healthy revenue system. Historically I believe that we assume to add about 100,000 workers/month into the system. Our population has also grown. We had about 227 million people in 1980. Now we're up to 308 million or so. So I don't get too alarmed when I see revenues to the Treasury increasing in a manner corresponding with outlays. However I do get alarmed when revenues tank and spending increases. That's doubly troubling (try saying that five times fast).
  14. A quick "back of the envelope" calculation and I come up with a significant omission from the poll. Americans smart enough to not tune in any of them = 294,000,000 There's hope for us yet
  15. You get full marks for the Dem talking points, though. You're right. All of those numbers and facts used to make a point. I'm beginning to think I'm a liberal.