now just look as that

[skate]

here goes the Senate voting on a new tax cut, gees, what it'll bees, anothe r three boomen and bloomen years.

just when we were having some much fun, here comes some more fun.

can't wait for the press releases

[chickenhead]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_bi_ge/gold_prices

Good times are here again! Seems we can't have a 2 term publican without record oil and gold prices, record deficits, creeping inflation, massive lukewarm wars....yee haw!

[chickenhead]

almost forgot, amnesty for illegals too!

[Tom]

And, he has your NUMBER too! :eek:

[chickenhead]

I hope he phones, I'll call him a rat bastard.

[46zilzal]

I hope he phones, I'll call him a rat bastard.
call him the brain dead vegetable that he is.

[lukeelisa]

the president needs to close all the borders and stop letting all the foreign car companys sell their cars in the U.S, then we would all buy american and that would create good jobs and boost the economy.

[Tom]

CH...read USA Today - he not only has your NUMBER, he has your phone records in a database. :eek:

[Lefty]

Geez, you guys sure take good news badly. And show quite a bit of ignorance too.

[ljb]

Geez, you guys sure take good news badly. And show quite a bit of ignorance too.
Oh enlightened one,
Not everyone considers lingering war, record deficits, creeping inflation, $3.00+ a gallon gas, illegal immigration and having their phones tapped good news. But thanks for sharing your wisdom with us.

[hcap]

Anybody OTHER than Lefty still like bush?

http://www.bartcop.com/hayden-hearings.jpg


Hey Lefty, after a while, doesn't your heil bush salute hurt your heels?

[ecaroff]

I give President Bush my complete support.

[ecaroff]

Oh enlightened one,
Not everyone considers lingering war, record deficits, creeping inflation, $3.00+ a gallon gas, illegal immigration and having their phones tapped good news. But thanks for sharing your wisdom with us.

So who do you support? Iran's President? Putin? Castro? Chavez? Carl Marx? Hillary Clinton? The Terrorists? Are you involved in terrorist activity? Is so, then I want to know every phone call you make, every person you talk to, every email you send or receive? I want to know you're every move. Got it?

[ecaroff]

Anybody OTHER than Lefty still like bush?

http://www.bartcop.com/hayden-hearings.jpg


Hey Lefty, after a while, doesn't your heil bush salute hurt your heels?

Hcap, the communist speaks again.................

[46zilzal]

I give President Bush my complete support.
all hail the rutabaga

[twindouble]

What Bush should do is drop everything on Congresses lap when it comes to our national security and let them take full responsibility for it, that would shut them up real quick.

What the hell, as it stands now they go out of their way to help the enemy anyway, buy the time the ACLU finishes in the courts, congress doing their fact finding, forming commissions and holding hearings and passing legislation, the war will be over so learn all you can about Islam.

T.D.

[46zilzal]

What Bush should do is drop everything on Congresses lap when it comes to our national security and let them take full responsibility for it, that would shut them up real quick.

What the hell, as it stands now they go out of their way to help the enemy anyway, buy the time the ACLU finishes in the courts, congress doing their fact finding, forming commissions and holding hearings and passing legislation, the war will be over so learn all you can about Islam.

T.D.
Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill, even if you're at the wrong place!

[Tom]

Oh enlightened one,
Not everyone considers lingering war, record deficits, creeping inflation, $3.00+ a gallon gas, illegal immigration and having their phones tapped good news. But thanks for sharing your wisdom with us.

Whoa, Trigger!

Let's share the balme here. The illegal immigration thing is just as much dems as it is Bush, and has been longer. Teddy K was instrumental in defeating the ammnesty think in the 80's - and dems were the ones who tied the hands of officials trying to stop the flood.

Are you still passing around that phome tapping lie? sheez -you think anyonbe believes you? Forst of all, they are not tapping domestic phone calls - they arae tapping ones that involve suspicious calls from overseas. The database they have, while a bit disturbing for other reasons, doesn't contain content -just phone numbers. They are doing EXACTLY what you libs complained they didn't do pre-9-11...CONNECTING the dots. Thone only people making a big deal about this new non-stopry are the press (suprise!) and the libs, who have nothing of substance to offer. The big whine last night on all the news-whore shows was, THEY ARE NUMBERING AMERICANS!
Gee, they already did that....SS numbers. DEMOCRATS started that one. :lol: The problem I see with a new number is do I have to remember it, too?
Can't I use the same number for everything?:bang:

The real story, out of Britain yesterday, got hardly a mention. Thier investigation into the bombongs last July are pointing to the fact that if they had monitored call from Pakistan, they could have prevented the attacks.

No denying, we have issues that need to be fixed, but just stop and think for a minute, how bad it could be in DEMS were in power! :eek:

[Lefty]

lbj, yep i am the enlightened one if you think the pres controls oil prices. Supply and deman bub, and one reason we don't have the supply is the libs that have stopped us from drilling and buildinfg refineries. That's just one are you're ignorant in. The stock mkt above 11,000, unemployment low, low. When Clinton wasd in our own communist press told us everyday how great the economy was. Now, barely a mention. Oh, forgot new home buyers at an all time high. And that's just ONE are where you display naivete'

hcap, I know when a guy is doing a good job but i give you credit, you don't let facts sway you from your agenda. Don't you ever tire of the negativety? Btw, the nazi references getting a bit tired.

[Lefty]

Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill, even if you're at the wrong place!

Guess you'd rather it be NY City...

[chickenhead]

Whoa, Trigger!

Let's share the balme here. The illegal immigration thing is just as much dems as it is Bush, and has been longer. Teddy K was instrumental in defeating the ammnesty think in the 80's - and dems were the ones who tied the hands of officials trying to stop the flood.

No denying, we have issues that need to be fixed, but just stop and think for a minute, how bad it could be in DEMS were in power! :eek:

You will not hear me making a case for the Dems, but let's all just remember the Pubs have control of all elected bodies and have for awhile, what have they done with regards to Ill Imm? Saying the other guys also suck, while important to remember, does nothing to make these clowns in charge any better. They suck too!

[ljb]

Whoa, Trigger!

Let's share the balme here. The illegal immigration thing is just as much dems as it is Bush, and has been longer. Teddy K was instrumental in defeating the ammnesty think in the 80's - and dems were the ones who tied the hands of officials trying to stop the flood.

Are you still passing around that phome tapping lie? sheez -you think anyonbe believes you? Forst of all, they are not tapping domestic phone calls - they arae tapping ones that involve suspicious calls from overseas. The database they have, while a bit disturbing for other reasons, doesn't contain content -just phone numbers. They are doing EXACTLY what you libs complained they didn't do pre-9-11...CONNECTING the dots. Thone only people making a big deal about this new non-stopry are the press (suprise!) and the libs, who have nothing of substance to offer. The big whine last night on all the news-whore shows was, THEY ARE NUMBERING AMERICANS!
Gee, they already did that....SS numbers. DEMOCRATS started that one. :lol: The problem I see with a new number is do I have to remember it, too?
Can't I use the same number for everything?:bang:

The real story, out of Britain yesterday, got hardly a mention. Thier investigation into the bombongs last July are pointing to the fact that if they had monitored call from Pakistan, they could have prevented the attacks.

No denying, we have issues that need to be fixed, but just stop and think for a minute, how bad it could be in DEMS were in power! :eek:

Tom,
I am currently being pressed for other needs but my short reply now is:
Historical facts and conditions not withstanding, who is running the show now ?

[wonatthewire1]

No denying, we have issues that need to be fixed, but just stop and think for a minute, how bad it could be in DEMS were in power!


Dang Tom! That's exactly what I'm scared of most.

I've been thinking that if a demoncrat gets into the WH in 2009 they will have all this power & there will be nothing that we can do about it! If it is Hillary, Canada is going to look mighty tempting! :ThmbDown:

[chickenhead]

the President, by him/herself, does not have that much power. Their power has been steadily on the rise, but Congress does and always has held most of the cards...and have done a piss poor job of things lately.

[skate]

hey hey hey, chickenhead et all;

how come these democratal people keep trying to lump lump every dang thing together and together and together? man, talk bout smoke.
now, i don't care if you be honest with yourself or not, anymore than i really care if you bet the right horse or whatever. i hope you stay healthy.
and you and the likes of the democratals (so called) leaders (not) keep on telling a much much "line of BS".
which is fine, but just don't go about thinking that your also fooling Me, you aint.

hey, give me one point, like Ill-legal embryos, been going on for at least 39 years that i know about. where you people been?

this hear "phone Tapping deal" you guys refer to is nothing but :DATA MINING". it is what you refer to when you look up the term "cookies".
you'll been using this cookies deal everytime you start up you puter. or use you credit card or take out a loan etc. mater of fact the above are less obtrusive than what the (USA) nsa use.

the name of the game is "Profits", and sweetheart we 'sss got Profits, big time, like never before. deficit, is Nothing at 3 % to 4%, nothing. specially when we keep increasing our GDP at a faster pace, much faster pace than our deficit.
hey, the whole world caught on to the economic Boooom, cept ..., guess who?

[skate]

yo yo yo, as for running the show, big business, media and politicians. but it aint their fault if you don't recognize left from right, truth from lies.


you've got the media (TV, NET) leading you by the nose. start with 60 min., i've not watched them for years, but i can tell you, a percent of that program is falsified. that's enough to throw off perception.

you (whomever) don't tell them, by not tuning in, so on and on they go. to me , that is at the core of the problem. they got you so divided...

the sad part is, it is really very simple.

[ljb]

No denying, we have issues that need to be fixed, but just stop and think for a minute, how bad it could be in DEMS were in power!


Dang Tom! That's exactly what I'm scared of most.

I've been thinking that if a demoncrat gets into the WH in 2009 they will have all this power & there will be nothing that we can do about it! If it is Hillary, Canada is going to look mighty tempting! :ThmbDown:
In further response to my previous reply. The Repugs have total control now. Don't you think things are worse now then 6/7 years ago? We can't really guess how good it would be if the DEMS were in control but it would probably be safe to say it would definately be better. Wonatthewire, I am sure 46 would welcome you to Canada with open arms. They do have a more liberal government there, I'm sure you'll like it. ;)

[ljb]

lbj, yep i am the enlightened one if you think the pres controls oil prices. Supply and deman bub, and one reason we don't have the supply is the libs that have stopped us from drilling and buildinfg refineries. That's just one are you're ignorant in. The stock mkt above 11,000, unemployment low, low. When Clinton wasd in our own communist press told us everyday how great the economy was. Now, barely a mention. Oh, forgot new home buyers at an all time high. And that's just ONE are where you display naivete'

hcap, I know when a guy is doing a good job but i give you credit, you don't let facts sway you from your agenda. Don't you ever tire of the negativety? Btw, the nazi references getting a bit tired.
Lefty,
Whatever happened to all that oil we were getting from the mideast? Oh wait Bushco screwed that up. Call me back when the stock market reaches the heights it was under Clinton. Unemployment is not a good measurment of the well being of the American public. The housing market's irrational exuburance has just popped. You must be watching the neocon faux news too much. Get real Lefty.

[chickenhead]

hey, give me one point, like Ill-legal embryos, been going on for at least 39 years that i know about. where you people been?


I've been the same place always, against it...you want me to applaud you for doing nothing about it, too fixated on the Dow to care what is happening on our streets? F off. Is big bidness doing good? Great, except I'm not a big bidness, I'm a human. I'd kinda like something that included me in the mix...you know...the people, us, the ones that walk around, and breathe? My QQQ is in the crapper, and yes I do have the right to be pissed about that.

Why do corporations have all the rights of a person again? I'll tell you what, I say give the corps all the rights of people, but in exchange I want all the rights of a corp...hows that? Supreme Court f'ed up on that one, we are gonna be paying the rpice for that for a long time to come.

[ljb]

Suff,
Bad pics. :ThmbDown:

[skate]

Simple, very simple,but, ya gotta think things out.

ask, what is all the huff about the deficit? on and on they keep telling you about "that nasty Deficit" and you get scared and maybe they are scared also,but not only is the deficit "not a problem" but it is beneficent to a strong economy.

take that argument down to my (your) level. if you do not invest by going into debt, then you will slowly lose ground economically. in our capitalist society. that is what it is all about. unless you go under another form of government, which is OK with me , do whatever you like, please don't ask that i go along.


4% deficit per year is nothing, nothing.
do you think that the national DEBT did not increase during the 90s?

[skate]

oh oh oh now, the poor boy is pissed, too too bad.


you got no idea.
got me LOL with your "F' off, real tough huh?


ya can't get yourself to look at what is going down, ya can't admit what is before your own eyes, can ya?
and you want my ...what? hu

[Ponyplayr]

Suff....A picture is worth a thousand words....those pictures speak volumes.

But I cant understand how anyone can blame the President for a storm or acts of terrorism.

[46zilzal]

approval rating 29% and falling. OUT OF TOUCH and making NO attempt to change that.

[46zilzal]

Suff....A picture is worth a thousand words....those pictures speak volumes.

But I cant understand how anyone can blame the President for a storm or acts of terrorism.
response is the key word, or rather LACK of response, wrong response, ineffective response, weak misdirected response

[skate]

47;


see, that is exactly "it". here you have a 29% figure and nothing about any reason what-so- ever. just a 29% rating and off you go, that"s all you need to make yourself happy.
the media gives you a rating and bingo. you got all your facts wrapped up into someones rating, about which, possibly, you really don't know from what this rating really consist.
for example, i would bet that a "deficit" figure that is called "Bad", day after day (when it is really not bad) by those that want to sell their scary story, would have Something to do with a 29% percent figure.
but you can see that uncle George and Chainsaw are way way way above that falsified game level , too much class to cry over nothing.

i do wonder, just where you all will be, when the turn comes ?

it is not sad, but LOL able...

[46zilzal]

Great - a few less terrorists to worry about - keep up the good worrk! Kill more of them!!!!!!!!!!
don't think the first one was foreign


anyone who is not like you, MUST be a terrorist, pitiful

[ecaroff]

Do they still get to keep their VIRGINS?????

[ecaroff]

don't think the first one was foreign


anyone who is not like you, MUST be a terrorist, pitiful

How do you know? Which one are you?

[ecaroff]

don't think the first one was foreign


anyone who is not like you, MUST be a terrorist, pitiful

You are either "FOR" them or "AGAINST" them - there is nothing in-between. You're either "alive" or "DEAD".

[ecaroff]

Do they still get to keep their VIRGINS?????

The one with only a head is going to have some problems. Guess he can "give" but not "receive".

[twindouble]

Suff;

You should have taken a trip to the morgue when those 3,000 people died on 9-11, there was very little left of them, some were never found or did you just forget about that fact? Not to mention the Cole, or our Embassies that got blown up, don't see any pictures of the them all in pieces. Want me to go on?

War is hell and we didn't bring it on ourself, it's just beginning so get use to it.

T.D.

[Tom]

.... If it is Hillary, Canada is going to look mighty tempting! :ThmbDown:

46 lives in Canada. Scratch THAT! :eek:

[Tom]

the President, by him/herself, does not have that much power. Their power has been steadily on the rise, but Congress does and always has held most of the cards...and have done a piss poor job of things lately. I am fully prepared to completely outsource Congress to India. This is the most corrupt, ineffective, corrupt congress of all time. Every member should be ashamed to walk the streets of this country.

[Tom]

Suff,
Bad pics. :ThmbDown:

We agree on this one, L.
Pointless busllshit for sure.
:ThmbDown: with Suff.

[Ponyplayr]

response is the key word, or rather LACK of response, wrong response, ineffective response, weak misdirected response
I live in Florida..I have survived three direct hits from hurricanes. Guess what I saw them coming for days in advance. My response was to stay but they were cat 1&2. If they had been as Powerful as Katrina my white ass would have walked out of the path!

I feel sorry for them but the people who stayed have no one to blame but themselves.

[46zilzal]

You are either "FOR" them or "AGAINST" them - there is nothing in-between. You're either "alive" or "DEAD".
bull, you are quoting right off the front page of the great book Banana Republicans by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

[46zilzal]

staying or evaucating had no effect on the response

[Ponyplayr]

staying or evaucating had no effect on the response
What?? Of course it did. The government had to spend millions of tax payers dollars to pluck them off roofs ect. That should never have happened!

[chickenhead]

ya can't get yourself to look at what is going down, ya can't admit what is before your own eyes, can ya?
and you want my ...what? hu

yeah, it's actually very simple to know that debt spending stimulation is a ham-handed, hard-to-time waste of money, utterly pointless when the economy is chugging along at 3%, probably not worth it when it's at 1%...if you're IQ is above 12 you'll know where the throttle to the economy is, how and why it works (and it aint with the pres, or congress). Sure they can raise taxes to the point of rolling off returns or retarding investment, plenty of debate as to where that point is, pretty much concensus we are not anywhere close to it.

I'm all for lower taxes, and I'm much more for smaller gov't than you are apparently. Don't mind a debt if the spending is necessary, we waste hundreds of billions, that we put on the charge card. That's not investment, jackass, it's waste.

Tell me how we grow out of our trade deficit? Tell me what your panacea for that is? Sure, things will still be chugging along down the line, for the corps that is, not for the American worker..nope. Good jobs shipped out, competing with $2 an hour illegals here for scraps. My my what a wonderful world you have planned for us. Where do I opt out?

My momma always said to get a service job, she said "Boy don't be no fool, get you a job at Mickey D's flipping burgers, get you a job at Sears working that cash register, them jobs aint going nowhere!" Being the rebel I was, got into electronics, and engineering. Boy, what I sucker I was. Momma, you was right!

[PaceAdvantage]

Those pictures have no place on a site like this, and I'm very, very upset that Suff posted them.

I wholeheartedly apologize to anyone who was blindsided by these terribly disturbing images. They are NOT what this website is about.

[PaceAdvantage]

I mean, what the hell is this idiot thinking posting pictures like that? Like I haven't seen that picture of the blown up Arab guy 1,000,000 times on other sites. His head doesn't even look real....he's sort of got a smile on his face! But I digress.....

What does Suff think? Does he think by posting graphic photos, all those who aren't devout Bush-bashers are going to suddenly go marching in the streets demanding impeachment? Can he be that shallow?

I notice he didn't include any photos of a partial-birth abortion among his montage....how freakin' convenient of him to leave that subject out....

[chickenhead]

thank you for taking them down. I'm not sure if there is a site where they belong, but it's definately not this one.

[Tom]

Yeah, thanks.

[Lefty]

lbj, you always say some crap that means nothing like get real when you have nothing. The Repubs are NOT in total control, other wise the dems might just as well go home. No party has total control unless they have a 60% majority in the house and senate and also have the Pres. Just either more ignorance on your part or a lie. Which is it? How did Bush screw up the oil? Nice try, but it's the dems who have stopped us from drilling in our own country and building refineries. Bush's energy policy has likewise been stopped by the dems and it's comptehensive and includes money for alternatve fuels and allows us to drill here. Sad fact is Dems want the status quo, they don't want repubs to get credit for anything.

Under Clinton we had a prgm called Echelon which was much more intrusive than just collecting ph numbers. Just more Dem B.S.

[Lefty]

staying or evaucating had no effect on the response
Hard to respond when the Gov won't cooperate and hard for people without cars to evacuate when the mayor lets over a 1,000 buses just submerge.

[chickenhead]

The Repubs are NOT in total control, other wise the dems might just as well go home. No party has total control unless they have a 60% majority in the house and senate and also have the Pres. Just either more ignorance on your part or a lie. Which is it?

I assume you're talking about fillibusters? Those don't occur in the House, so your 60% is meaningless there, the Republicans have as good as absolute control of the House.

In the Senate you need 60% to bust up a fillibuster, that's true...but when was the last real fillibuster? You seem to be expert on it...how long did it last? What was the result? If the Republicans felt so strongly about these issues, why don't they just let the Democrats filibuster, wait until they run out of steam, and then pass the bill?

Fillibusters don't even happen anymore, they are threatened plenty, but they don't actually happen, not really. You would think a group of highly concerned citizens such as your Republican Senators would think nothing of sitting around for a day or two and THEN passing all of this important legislation they are fighting so hard for...that is really all that is required: let them fillibuster, wait until they finish, and pass the bill.

Why is it the Republicans just fold up and go home without a fight? Huh? You might want to answer these questions for yourself before your next round of hero worship.

[Lefty]

chick, my point is, repubs don't have total control. If they did we'd have permanent tax cuts and Bush's energy plan would be law. We also have moderate repubs, that might just as well be dems. No hero worship, just don't like the lie that repubs can do what they want. Be great if that were true.

[ljb]

lbj, you always say some crap that means nothing like get real when you have nothing. The Repubs are NOT in total control, other wise the dems might just as well go home. No party has total control unless they have a 60% majority in the house and senate and also have the Pres. Just either more ignorance on your part or a lie. Which is it? How did Bush screw up the oil? Nice try, but it's the dems who have stopped us from drilling in our own country and building refineries. Bush's energy policy has likewise been stopped by the dems and it's comptehensive and includes money for alternatve fuels and allows us to drill here. Sad fact is Dems want the status quo, they don't want repubs to get credit for anything.

Under Clinton we had a prgm called Echelon which was much more intrusive than just collecting ph numbers. Just more Dem B.S.
Lefty,
We have a Repug President, a Repug Senate with Repug VP to break ties, a Repug congress, Repug supreme court. The President has not vetoed 1 bill from the rubber stamp congress since he has been in office. Congress as mentioned has given rubber stamp approval to Bush's programs. We all remember when the supreme court first appointed Bush president, and he has since then appointed two conservative judges to this esteemed body. Now what part of that don't you understand ? Like I said, the repugs are in complete control of our national government. And of course we are all now suffering the consequences of this concentration of power.
Cheney got together with the oil tycoons to put together an energy policy and just like the medicare drug plan, these polocies are designed to maximize corporate profits at the expense of the average American. I will close by saying "Get Real Lefty".

[Tom]

The lesson here is that we can never allow either party the degree of control the repubs have now - the people are no longer represented by this government. It is the most corrupt, repugnant, ineffective governement in decades, bought and paid for by special interests. Whores, the lot of them.
Now Bush decides to go live Monday night and either spread more of his ridiculous, lunatic, guest worker program, or to try to fix his poll numbers.

One ray of hope - he is going on the same night Jack Bauer is on, already on the trail of a corrupt president - Logan. Maybe we will get lucky and he take down two! :D

[lsbets]

One ray of hope - he is going on the same night Jack Bauer is on, already on the trail of a corrupt president - Logan. Maybe we will get lucky and he take down two! :D

My first thought when I heard about the speech Monday was he better not preempt 24 or I will be really pissed!

[46zilzal]

more smoke and mirrors ahead
"Call it the incredible shrinking presidency.

President George W. Bush's approval rating on Friday slipped below 30 per cent for the first time in a major poll since he took office, putting him within reach of becoming the least popular sitting president in the era of modern-day polling.

A Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive survey of 1,003 adults found just 29 per cent of Americans believe the second-term president is doing a good job in the White House."

[Lefty]

Tom, if the repubs had all the control you guys think they have wqe'd be so much further ahead of the game. We'd have SS reform. We'd have a comprehensive energy policy that included us drilling in the U.S. at Anwir, off both coasts, Utah and Nev. Whwere is all that. Dems still have a say and anybody think they don't had betterr be thwe ones that "get real."
Just a few days ago Kennedy had the Nat'l registry law bottled up by attaching another bill to it. The Registry law protects outr kids, but Kennedy played politics until he was shamed into removing it by constant berating and exposing by Bill O'Reilly.
What we need is a bigger majority by the Repubs.

[46zilzal]

must be nice to live in a world of your own.

[Lefty]

must be nice to live in a world of your own.
If you mean a world of facts as opposed to your world of opinion, then yes.

[46zilzal]

akin to the mother who was watching her son march with all the other soldiers. As he was hopelessly out of step, she perked up "Look at all those other fellows out of step to my boy!"

SAME THING here. Perspective

[Secretariat]

more smoke and mirrors ahead
"Call it the incredible shrinking presidency.

President George W. Bush's approval rating on Friday slipped below 30 per cent for the first time in a major poll since he took office, putting him within reach of becoming the least popular sitting president in the era of modern-day polling.

A Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive survey of 1,003 adults found just 29 per cent of Americans believe the second-term president is doing a good job in the White House."

I guess Lefty would claim that the WSJ is just another liberal rag.

I hope CBS doesn't air GW's immigration pep rally tomorrow as it is the season finale of The King of Queens.

Wonder if GW wil lbe commenting on this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060513/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_wmd_trailers

Ex-WMD Inspector: Politics Quashed Facts
"A year after Bush administration claims about Iraqi "bioweapons trailers" were discredited by American experts, U.S. officials were still suppressing the findings, says a senior member of the CIA-led Iraq inspection team.

At one point, former U.N. arms inspector Rod Barton says, a CIA officer told him it was "politically not possible" to report that the White House claims were untrue. In the end, Barton says, he felt "complicit in deceit."

Barton, an Australian biological weapons specialist, discusses the 2004 events in "The Weapons Detective," a memoir of his years as an arms inspector, being published Monday in Australia by Black Inc. Agenda.

Much sought after for his expertise, Barton served on the U.N. Iraq arms inspection teams of 1991-98 and 2002-03. After the U.S. invasion, he was an aide to chief U.S. inspector Charles Duelfer."
.....

"Where's Sinclair Lewis when you need him?"

[ljb]

Tom, if the repubs had all the control you guys think they have wqe'd be so much further ahead of the game. We'd have SS reform. We'd have a comprehensive energy policy that included us drilling in the U.S. at Anwir, off both coasts, Utah and Nev. Whwere is all that. Dems still have a say and anybody think they don't had betterr be thwe ones that "get real."
Just a few days ago Kennedy had the Nat'l registry law bottled up by attaching another bill to it. The Registry law protects outr kids, but Kennedy played politics until he was shamed into removing it by constant berating and exposing by Bill O'Reilly.
What we need is a bigger majority by the Repubs.
Lefty,
The repugs are wise enough to know ss reform would not get them re-elected. (The public knows how they got screwed with the repugs medicare reform). The energy policy is just what the oil tycoons wanted, check their balance sheets. If that lying sack o s. O'lielly forced Kennedy to remove an attachment from a bill, why haven't the rubber stamp repugs passed it ? Again Lefty your fantasy has taken over. Get Real ! :D

[46zilzal]

folks are wishing for the good old days according to this poll
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

[Tom]

Tom, if the repubs had all the control you guys think they have wqe'd be so much further ahead of the game. We'd have SS reform. We'd have a comprehensive energy policy that included us drilling in the U.S. at Anwir, off both coasts, Utah and Nev. Whwere is all that. Dems still have a say and anybody think they don't had betterr be thwe ones that "get real."
Just a few days ago Kennedy had the Nat'l registry law bottled up by attaching another bill to it. The Registry law protects outr kids, but Kennedy played politics until he was shamed into removing it by constant berating and exposing by Bill O'Reilly.
What we need is a bigger majority by the Repubs.

What we need is repubs with balls to actually try to pass bills. Super majority is ridiculous - they managed to get the largest pork bill in history thorugg - the largest entitlement program in 50 years! They manags to get tax breaks fo rthe oil companies with zero results so far, and NOTHING in the works by them. They goit a bridghe to nowhere and now Trent Lott - biggist hippocrit dipstick in congress- is pushing his train to nowhere - 100% pure pork with no regaurd the Amercian taxpayer.
Lefty- this buch of yahoos do not deserve a super majority - they would sell oout the country faster than the dems ever would. This bush is the most corrupt, money grubbing losers in the history of congress. I will vote agasint ever sitting republican in every election from now on. If we get dems in office, GOOD! At least with dems in offcie, we had a surplus - the repubs turned that surplus around 360 degrees - they sold us all out and I will never, ever trsut a republican again. The libs are squarely on target when they attack this bunch. Too bad they even bigger nincompoops that cant' see golden opportunites to put real leards in offices - they flcok around this bunch of losers they have followed into defeat the last 12 years.

[Indulto]

I will vote agasint ever sitting republican in every election from now on. If we get dems in office, GOOD! At least with dems in offcie, we had a surplus - the repubs turned that surplus around 360 degrees - they sold us all out and I will never, ever trsut a republican again. The libs are squarely on target when they attack this bunch. Too bad they even bigger nincompoops that cant' see golden opportunites to put real leards in offices - they flcok around this bunch of losers they have followed into defeat the last 12 years.Tom,
How long can you be counted on to retain this state of mind? Please PM me and let me know whatever it is you're currently ingesting. :D

[Tom]

Tom,
How long can you be counted on to retain this state of mind? Please PM me and let me know whatever it is you're currently ingesting. :D

Facts are facts. It is impossible to look at this congress - this republican party - and see any good. WhileI have no doubt the dems would be idiots in office, maybe sacrificing the mid-terms will put them in power. let them shape up everything, issue some sophenas, thrwo some morons in jail, and screw up enough by the real elections to get themselves voted out by a new group of repubs - ones not yet bought and paid for, some young enough that their brains actually still work. This elder group - Lott, Nute, Frist, McCain, etc. - got to bury them before they stink any worse than they do now.

[46zilzal]

just reminded of a character who is so like the rutabaga it is amazing. Look at Guy Kibee's character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a 'propped up" idiot. interestingly both associated with Texas

[Lefty]

46, just read 3 of your posts and not 1 fact in one of them. As the mann said, "write what you know."
lbj, nothing but b.s. from you, either.

[skate]

chickewhatever;

you got one point right and bout 10 wrong.
gees, i'm really debating with myself, about a reply. hey look, if i was teaching, maybe third grade or there about (wait, my race just went) (back), where was i , oh ya, i would consider.
the only point(you got right), even closely, would be my IQ, but hey, 12. you see, even i know that a 12 is impressibly impossible. so now, instead of impressing me, teaching me, i stand, scatching, waiting, for something, anything, gees, is that all you have.
let's see, you got the "F- off" deal and then you have the "jackass"(oh my) thing and what is (na i can't) after those two points, you fail, that's it babe, nothing, all those points and Nothing.
so ok, here i am trying not to insult any... and with a very low IQ, so what i'll do is, i'll take "A" point that i think you try to make (man this aint easy) and [that's it] i'll try to splain why you are wrong. but please do not think that this is your only F up.

[QUOTE=chickenhead]yeah, it's actually very simple to know that debt spending stimulation is a ham-handed, hard-to-time waste of money, utterly pointless when the economy is chugging along at 3%, probably not worth it when it's at 1%...if you're IQ is above 12 you'll know where the throttle to the economy is, how and why it works (and it aint with the pres, or congress).

hey chick, the above is very weak, seems as if you are walking with a Wedggy. but we'll keep it in mind, thanks. ugm, are you saying "STIMULATION IS A WASTE" ? (maybe i should stop here?)
hey hey hey, look ,what is it that you think the "gov" can, should do ???? please. don't put me in here ,you error, when you put me into your explaination.



sure they can raise taxes to the point of rolling off returns or retarding investment, plenty of debate as to where that point is, pretty much concensus we are not anywhere close to it.




chick AAAgain;
I'm all for lower taxes, and I'm much more for smaller gov't than you are apparently.


ME:
if it's a kiss for "this", go see "tom".


chick, Again
Don't mind a debt if the spending is necessary, we waste hundreds of billions, that we put on the charge card. That's not investment, jackass, it's waste.

Me again:
ok ok ok , now we are getting to the HUMP. this will be the question i'll answer and with your superior(glad i checked the spelling) IQ'S, you'll grasp what you already know. so simple.
the word "necessary" naa, fling it, now. wadda you doing, running a poor house or the USA, a capitalistic society. now see, it gets tough cause you come with the" jackassable stuff" , but since i've got the low IQ (that is a gimmy), i'll assume, you know the differential tween "deficit and debt", not all thoughts are the same.
two points:
1) the total amount owed by USA is smaller than the share of GDP in the 90s.
Reason, the increase(real increase, not the DOT com, over -inflated BS, of the 90's) in Gross Domestic Product.

2)the Deficit (not debt)is money available to people in this country "only". since that is the case, either the gov. OR the people have this money. if we send (see this is where, you do not give examples) a rocket to the moon or build a bridge to no place, it doesn't mater, the money stays here. you have no case when you say "waste". because it is , as everything else IS "just moving money" and all within our country.
oh oh, if you think we should cut back on some overseas expense, fine, but lookey lookey; that is what George and Chainsaw are trying to do.


one more CHICK:
Tell me how we grow out of our trade deficit? Tell me what your panacea for that is?


AND me;
ok ok, but this is the last for now.
trade deficit, we do what we are doing, quite now, we decrease the value of the DOLLAR.

[chickenhead]

hey chick, the above is very weak, seems as if you are walking with a Wedggy. but we'll keep it in mind, thanks. ugm, are you saying "STIMULATION IS A WASTE" ? (maybe i should stop here?)
hey hey hey, look ,what is it that you think the "gov" can, should do ???? please. don't put me in here ,you error, when you put me into your explaination.


2)the Deficit (not debt)is money available to people in this country "only". since that is the case, either the gov. OR the people have this money. if we send (see this is where, you do not give examples) a rocket to the moon or build a bridge to no place, it doesn't mater, the money stays here. you have no case when you say "waste". because it is , as everything else IS "just moving money" and all within our country.
oh oh, if you think we should cut back on some overseas expense, fine, but lookey lookey; that is what George and Chainsaw are trying to do.
.

Wow that was difficult to read. Let me make my premise as simple as I possibly can, and then can refute it as simply as you can.


You seemed to be making the claim that govt stimulation is necessary, for investment, to guarentee further growth. I say you are wrong, that the excess investment is causing the interest rates to rise, which will cause a decrease in investment. There is no NEED for the government to get involved.

I take this from Milton Friedman btw, if you want to explain to me in a little clearer terms where I'm wrong please do so, I'd like to learn, but I have a really hard time reading your stuff.

I found as decent a summary as I could, which I'll quote here. It makes a mighty large bit of sense to me:

Many monetarists sought to resurrect the pre-Keynesian view that market economies are inherently stable in the absence of major unexpected fluctuations in the money supply. Because of this belief in the stability of free-market economies they asserted that active demand management (e.g. by the means of increasing government spending) is unnecessary and indeed likely to be harmful. The basis of this argument is an equilibrium between "stimulus" fiscal spending and future interest rates. In effect, Friedman's model argues that current fiscal spending creates as much of a drag on the economy by increased interest rates as it creates present consumption: that it has no real effect on total demand, merely that of shifting demand from the investment sector (I) to the consumer sector (C).

What part of that is wrong? We are currently running a deficit, yes? Our interest rates are rising, yes? Wouldn't it make sense to throttle back the spending? What am I missing here? What is it you see that cries "More Stimulation Required!"

I understand your "no such thing as waste" argument, but I disagree.

It makes a difference where the money goes, it is not all equal. If it goes to people who will immediately blow it at WalMart buying goods made in China, and our only return is a bridge to nowhere, it is near 100% waste. If it goes to Military R&D, thats pretty good money spent, we get some very good returns on that money in technological terms. It is not all the same, and you know that. All that money doesn't stay here.

[chickenhead]

the excess investment is causing the interest rates to rise, which will cause a decrease in investment..

sorry, should read excess spending, not investment.

[Tom]

just reminded of a character who is so like the rutabaga it is amazing. Look at Guy Kibee's character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a 'propped up" idiot. interestingly both associated with Texas

Who the hell is that..."Curly" Joe Bessmer?

[skate]

checkenhead;

i gotta admit, you did surprise me, while sticking to one point. thank you.

i have a tough time getting any point, let alone many points, at one time,and when specifics are not given, well, it even harder.

when you say waste...ok, fine, where do you want to cut. do you know that nobody (speaking of our gov, over the last 50 years) has ever ever ever Cut expense. so can we start there.
but you want cuts, go ahead, tell me (specific) where.

and once that is settled, let me say again. that money that you will cut will stop distribution ($) to whomever got it in the first place.
you may use the term "waste" and that's ok, i saw that same waste, years ago. but now i see the reality and the benifit to spending. the way i see things now, to advance society (as with rising water) you advance people with more jobs(which is $), hopefully enough gets to the right people, nothing is perfect and along with the people that rise, the poor (whose fault i do not care) will benifit, it is factual, look around.
hey, take a look at Zimbabwe, you want BIG BUSINESS OUT. now i'm not saying that those people did not have a good reason, cause whever, but what i'm saying is that now they have over 1000% INFLATION and and and , over 70% UNEMPLOYMENT. what friedman say bout that.
now i'm not saying(not that dummb) freddy is a fraud, i'm sure he has some points, but if you ask any 10 economist (or race fan) you'll get at least 12 differings among em.

i'm also glad that you left me out of "making your points", cause some time i'll splain it. in others words, it is of no use to try to put me in a cacophony, when you do not really know what your are talking about when you assume bout me. i've been there and there and now i'm back.


when you ask about the Deficit, i'm here to say that the conception of "DEFICIT" that the Media (and whatever party) try to make , and yes, the public sucks it up, cause they are likely lazy (nothing wrong with being LAZY, that's people being people, god made em, not ME), the conception is;
when $ is in the hands of the gov, things "APPEAR" in balance.
consider that, when you refer to money in the USA, we are not talking about any money concerns other than what is here in our country.
Money(the dollar) that is not in our (USA) country is another mater.

gees, i gotta go down to DEL PK. today, what a waste (wait a minute, i found some waste by myself) as far as racing goes, but some good friends (not many left) will be there. so, i'm hating up.

[skate]

chechinhead;


i guess you think you are making sense, and easily read. i'm looking for a specific from you. i can also understand, i would not be easy to follow, since you may not understand, without going to another (uncle Milton...). where are Your ideas? i will refute Milton, but what good would it be, if you need to go to him or 1000 other economist and end up with 1349 opinions.


this is not an opinion, such as when you use Milton. these are facts, that you should answer.
History (not an elusive opinion as Milton would acknowledge):

we've had SIX periods of Significant Debt reduction, as follows.
from 1817 thru 1821 (debt reduction 30%)
from 1823 thru 1836 (reduction 100%)
from 1852 thru 1857 (59%)
from1867 thru 1873 ("panic of 1873", 27% reduction)
from 1880 thru 1893 (50% reduction)
from1920 thru 1930 (33% reduction)

these facts, not just another opinion (Milton agrees) are what the present economist use for a guide. we are still learning, from mistakes.
Bad things will happen, if we reduce our Nat. debt, sorry.
bad things did happen after each and every significant debt reduction.

[chickenhead]

I'll have to go look up your six data points to see what the negative economic consequences were, and what caused them. Most of them are from so far in the distant past it might be hard to get much good info on them, including what other things were going on at the same time, including Fed Reserve policy.

One thing of course, is I think most of those are directly following wars, i.e. a significant debt increase, so an economic contraction following a big expansion is not necessarily surprising, is it? We spend a bunch on a war, then quit spending it, and btw we were on the gold standard, oops bad things. I'm guessing most of those contractions had more to do with starving the money supply than anything having to do with debt reduction....but I don't know, you kind of threw those out there as proof of something....there is a whole lot more that needs to be known to state any sort of cause and effect, don't you think?

But a big contraction following a big expansion is one of Miltons points I think, which is that markets are relatively stable in the absence of big government spending fluctuations...so it makes sense to me if you want to hold government spending relatively stable, and it has no real effect on the economy what level it is (his equilibrium concept btwn rates and spending), lets keep it low, not high. Lets not run a deficit, all things being equal. And you certainly haven't proven to me a deficit is necessary.

I am not and certainly would never begin to think of myself as some kind of original economic thinker, I'm not trying to come up with my own theorem for you...I go to Milton because from what I've read it makes sense to me, what little I know. You have something else, great, I want to hear it...but throwing out some years and saying that leaves only one conclusion as you know is totally false...economics wouldn't be much of a study of anything if everything was so clear.


I realize in % terms it is not huge, I get that. At some point though I think absolute terms start to enter the equation, don't they? Interest rates will rise if our deficit is big enough in absolute terms relative to the economies that are would be lenders. Yes? And doesn't devaluing our currency only put more pressure on those interest rates?

I honestly want to understand, if you can answer these please let me know.

[skate]

chickhead;

well ya, i did just "throw those figures out there" and i was thinking that you just thru out "a milton" opinion. of which i think, unlike facts, his opinion can assuredly be changed. even by " the almighty one Milton".

but if you check (sure you can dispute and argue these points) and find my figures even close to what i say, then you can at least draw a caution to significant reduction in debit.

so, what i see, you called on a quote or some opinion and i called on facts, does not mater how you refute these facts.
you can refute "the Babes record" on home runs, but it's gonna stay. not his opinon of home runs, but his actual record will stay, may not be the best, but , hey, that"s his record and not his opinion.

you can always, always, always, but other factors into the times that these reductions took place, so many other points took place at those times, sure did, and new points will take place today, but you must go back to the very fact that when debt reduction took place, the resulting economics were very Bad.

[chickenhead]

Well you didnt give facts, only years....you are saying X followed Z therefore its probable Z caused X, but I don't even see any hint of what X was, or an idea of what Z was. I'm gonna have to do a whole lot of research to see if what you say is not just reasonable but remotely causal.

I will look into it, but it's gonna take me awhile. I was hoping you could give me some opinion as to why a balanced budget necessarily precipitates a crash, so I could give the idea a sniff test. I guess I'll search online to see if I can find anyone who can explain that one.

[skate]

chickenhead;


oh, absolutely keep gov spending low, as you quote from Milton. don't just go off and put " a big spending Gov. is good" quote on me , please, please.

do you see that what You and maybe Milton (but i doubt that Milton feels this way) are saying is that: "at 4% of GDP (bout $12 trillion a year), that 4% is high. what i say it is very very low, as a mater of fact, we just went 4.8% increase in 1 Quarter alone. and ya, adjustments will come.

debt is good, that's what i say, because we are talking 4%. we could afford to go much, much higher.

[chickenhead]

we could afford to go much, much higher.

Good, cause with SS and Medicare/Medicaid, and the total inability of Washington to do anything about it -- we'll have no choice.

[skate]

chickenhead;

along with the Media, you are saying that our trade debt is harmful. all i will say is that , yes it does seem to be harmful, but , but but, what is China (for example) going to do with the $$$'s they get from the USA?

i want you to answer, but if you will not, then i will tell you.
China will do the only option they have, they could burn the $ (nope), they could hold the $ (nope), or they could invest the $. now where do you think they will invest?
they will put the money right back where they got the money. and that is what makes our economy as strong as it is today. no mater the opinion of Milton.
China will buy our airplanes our software, because that is the only good to come from having our money. they gotta spend IT ($$) back here, noplace else, only here.

[chickenhead]

I know that they send it back here, but why is that their only option? You lost me there. They can't buy oil from Iran? Or wheat from Russia? Or goods from Europe?

I have a feeling I know why they don't, but don't see why they couldn't, if at some point they decided that was in their best interest, rather than propping us up.

[skate]

checkenhead;


no no no , you are rolling two seperate figures together Deficit and Debt
now you can give either definitive to whatever term you prefer.

debt, deficit, defict, debt and i don't care , but they're two situations and not at all the same.

one is money value here in our country (deficit, when over spending) that is the money that either our gov has gotten from we the people or the money that we the people are holding, spending. when the gov is spending more, we have deficit.
that is why, when they refer to deficite, it "Appears" bad, but in reality it is a fact that when a deficit accrues, that means that the deficit amount is in the hands of the people.
i stress this because it appears to me that the economist from the Clinton error, falsely refer to some accomplishmwnt, because they balenced the budget. this balence has nothing to do with the increase in our Debt.
which increased during the 90's, at about the same rate as it does today.

our debt, to which i refer to the dates when we reduced our debt, deals with the money from Outside the country. it is this very debt that has been increasing all along and it has NOthing to do with OUR Deficit.

i ask you this, i'm sure you are aware, that the DEBT has increased in the 90's, even though we could say we had a balenced budget, the DEBT increased at very near the SAME rate as it does increase Today, is this what you know as factual?

[skate]

ok ok , yes, Turks could take the $ for some grapes etc.but that would put the turks in the same position. they would have the American Dollar and the only place it is good is in the USA. that does not mean that others will not accept the dollar but it does mean that they accept the dollar because the USA will back the dollar.

what China would really do is to spend their money in turkey. or trade in their dollar to the USA.

the result being, these countrys would buy from the USA, that's what China has been doing recently.

[chickenhead]

i ask you this, i'm sure you are aware, that the DEBT has increased in the 90's, even though we could say we had a balenced budget, the DEBT increased at very near the SAME rate as it does increase Today, is this what you know as factual?

No, I don't understand what you are saying. When I say deficit I'm talking budget deficit. The govt takes in X amount of dollars, spends X+Y, so they have to sell Y worth of bonds to cover it. That is what the budget deficit is, yes?

I thought the "debt" was essentially the sum of the liability of those bonds. It sounds from what you say like I am wrong on one of those points, or we are talking about two different things. The "debt" charts that I look at do not show it steadily increasing, like half way down this page:

http://brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have no clue what you're talking about?

[skate]

chickenhead;


ok, glad you mention this, and i'm not hear to say that you are wrong, but i do think that the public (due to media frenziazation) is mislead-ed.

Deficit ( the difference between Fed. expenditures and Revenue(tax) in any ONE year) those Fed. expenditures are, schools, military, hwy etc.
the feds cover those exp., with tax received from business, people in this country.
so, if ( i'm not picking on anyone) in the 90s we cut back on the increase in schools, military etc. and we get a balence in budget, then we find that more money is needed (due to war) or an increase toward education, we are making up for being shorted, and we have a Deficit.
that money is either in the hands of our gov., or in the hands of its people.

this is very timely to a report from "Pacific Reseach Int." and "Nelson Rock INstitute". it shows the 15 highest and 15 lowest taxed States and the economic situation of those states.

sorry for sidetrack

back to business.
National Debt (which is noted on the site you gave) is very different, it is the amount owed by the USA, to people that are into buying into our country. this sounds "not so good" at first but, the reason we owe so much to other countrys is because we do so well economically.
it is very true that this amount keeps rising and the reason it keeps rising is because we (big business) do as good as we do.
these figures (Nat. Debt) are huge in comparison to any other figures BUT in comparison to our economy, they are really very small. our total Debt which has increased a lot since 1980's basically, is actually the main reason that our standard of living has increased.
personally, i don't need that high standard, but what the heck.

the reason i say what i say:
the (not exact) total Debt is about $12 trillion, and it climbed during the 90s, almost as much as it climbs today, as a mater of fact, the difference would be impossible, due to a false economic situation, and that would be the .COM error as good as it was. hundreds if not thousands of companys were reporting False figures and paying tax on these false figures. this had to be corrected at a high cost and its still costing (my opinion).

but anyhow, the amount of money that our economy is generating yearly is just about the same as the Debt amount, even a little higher, between $12 and $13 trillion. so, we have a debt amount which covers over 25 years and we have a economy which is equal to that 25 year debt. that one year economy covers 25 years of debt.

ok, i'm too too windy, but look, if you can put those figures in relation to yourself, just imagine that you make $120,000/per year and you have a mortgage on you house for $100, 000. not bad, mainly because you can pay the mortgage at the same time your house value will increase.

here's something on how big we (usa) are, economically, we cover 20% of the worlds whole economy, while China, alone, has between 15 to 20 times our population.

[skate]

Good, cause with SS and Medicare/Medicaid, and the total inability of Washington to do anything about it -- we'll have no choice.

this is good, gives me a chance to note, that if we adopted the uncle George program for giving help to S.S., we would have BEEN there by now. we would be home free of that problem.
hey, put $1.00 on G.E. in 1890 and you would have $1200 today and that includes ALL the debt reductions that caused the crashes.

that's easy

[skate]

checkenhead, this is from your post, quoted.


the milton...

"""Many monetarists sought to resurrect the pre-Keynesian view that market economies are inherently stable in the absence of major unexpected fluctuations in the money supply. Because of this belief in the stability of free-market economies they asserted that active demand management (e.g. by the means of increasing government spending) is unnecessary and indeed likely to be harmful. The basis of this argument is an equilibrium between "stimulus" fiscal spending and future interest rates. In effect, Friedman's model argues that current fiscal spending creates as much of a drag on the economy by increased interest rates as it creates present consumption: that it has no real effect on total demand, merely that of shifting demand from the investment sector (I) to the consumer sector (C).

What part of that is wrong? We are currently running a deficit, yes? Our interest rates are rising, yes? Wouldn't it make sense to throttle back the spending? What am I missing here? What is it you see that cries "More Stimulation Required!"

I understand your "no such thing as waste" argument, but I disagree.

It makes a difference where the money goes, it is not all equal. If it goes to people who will immediately blow it at WalMart buying goods made in China, and our only return is a bridge to nowhere, it is near 100% waste. If it goes to Military R&D, thats pretty good money spent, we get some very good returns on that money in technological terms. It is not all the same, and you know that. All that money doesn't stay here.[/QUOTE]"""


ok, me again;skate


lots of points here, so i avoided for a while.. the Milton ideas have nothing to do with any of my opinions. especially without a specific, such as a date (maybe you gave a date) or an amount, such as interest rate amount.
but gees, if anything, the interest rates could not have been any lower, due to Bush. so now that the rates are going higher you think its a bad thing?
well ok, but the reason the rates are going higher is because the Economy is increasing too too fast and with that in mind, the rates are still very very low, compared to any other prime rates over the last 50 years.

also along the same "milton" thoughts. look, nobody is any more anti big business, media and/or government than "the skate'", nobody.
regardless of that, you, we should be able to navigate between what the Media feeds the people, but yes i can understand the problem that people would have in trying to sort the facts from fiction, since most people don't have access to much of anything, unless the media brought it to them.
yes the net could be helpful, but not when it is wrong. you can see the errors, the crap, we get flooded with, pictures doctord, whatever....


but with that in mind. i 've seen this coming for a long time , i'm not the only one, i'm sure.
for a time, way back when, i was very active and now i just really have to laugh, which could just be a cover for my feelings...
but, this increase in gov. spending, it's done now because it started years ago. and once you start something, you just cant stop, like bingo.
this is where the conservative part of politics comes in, now that we have been giving, it is tough to stop, because the libs will just cry about how "the conservatives are trying to hold back from the needy".

it is very obvious, the democrats will raise taxes more than the republicans, that is why i would favor the republicans, not because i like them.
when they (DEMocrats) raise taxes, they will have more money to spend, simple. with this in mind, in regards to your "Milton Qoute" it is when these taxes are raised, that the Gov. has more money to spend and that's what "Milton" was referring.


now, when you ask "wouldn't it be good to cut back on spending", ok some times it would be, but when things aint too good, like the CIA, schools, FBI, manpower in the military, Katrina, floods, it can be tough without a strong, real economy.,
hey, they cut the military in the 90's and now they gotta wonder "how come we don't have more troops available for whatever"...

that is where i am...

i ask again , where do you want to cut. keep in mind, that cut is only money being keeped from some of your neighbors? because that money was being given to them a long time ago... welfare or whatever.