Dumping OUR Money [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

luv_america

10-24-2006, 08:58 AM

46zilzal

10-24-2006, 09:18 AM

rah rah rah jingoists unite

ljb

10-24-2006, 11:10 AM

Does it matter how much we spend in Iraq?

Since the War on Terror began:
- no more people have had to jump from burning buildings in the US
- no innocent office workers have been crushed or burned to death in the US
- no trains have been bombed in the US
- no discos have been bombed killing innocent teenagers in the US
- no airplanes have been hijacked, no pilots or flight attendants have had their throats slit

It funny how we forget the RESULTS of taking the fight to the TERRORISTS. We want to stick our head in the sand and PRETEND that talking to people who WANT TO KILL YOU, just because you're not their kind of Muslim will be more effective than an OFFENSE to show these pieces of human debris that we won't stand idle while they try to terrorize us.

The War on Terror, no matter what it costs in dollars cannot be adequately measured in any other way that it has contributed to making Americans safer.

Besides, what would you spend the money on anyway? Is there a better cause then our safety?

Well, it appears the neocons have unleashed another paid blogger on this site. Sorry luv but, those issues have been debunked on this board already. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror against osama bin forgotten. We would have many terrorists wrapped up by now if we had concentrated on going after them instead of wasting our resources in Dubya's personal vendetta against Saddam. Of course Halliburton's profits might have suffered some, but we all have to sacrifice a bit don't you think ?

Lefty

10-24-2006, 11:29 AM

Well, it appears the neocons have unleashed another paid blogger on this site. Sorry luv but, those issues have been debunked on this board already. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror against osama bin forgotten. We would have many terrorists wrapped up by now if we had concentrated on going after them instead of wasting our resources in Dubya's personal vendetta against Saddam. Of course Halliburton's profits might have suffered some, but we all have to sacrifice a bit don't you think ?
What's been debunked is the notion that Saddam had nothing to do with Iraq. He paid terrorists families and he let them train in Iraq. He had enriched uranium and all the dems said he was dangerous with wmd's, so lbj, quit chewing the same old cud. Also, the fact that all these terrorists are now in Iraq is pretty good proof as to how valuable Iraq is to them.
Money wasted in the fight for our survival? I think not. And for the umpteenth time, Haliburton's profits are capped as war profits.
We waste a lot of money on the so called war on poverty. And more people are in poverty than ever before, so clearly, give handouts and more will come. It's tiresome lbj, to have to keep reminding you of the same things over and over again.
AND, do you have any proof there's paid bloggers on this board and the new guy, luv, is one?

luv_america

10-24-2006, 11:44 AM

Lefty

10-24-2006, 11:47 AM

luv america, welcome to the board. Please post frequently.

kenwoodallpromos

10-24-2006, 02:15 PM

Is there any way to estimate how much this administation has squandered
in Iraq? It's between 1 gto 2 TRILLION, but here's the web site to figure:

http://aei-brookings.org/iraqcosts/
__________
Yes- All of it!

richrosa

10-24-2006, 04:08 PM

I just looked at the link that PlanB was kind enough to dig up to start this thread. Its a liberal wet dream. Its an interactive meter that allows you to estimate how much the US is going to spend in Iraq based on troop levels, military and police deaths and injuries. Its really sick when you look at it. You can move the lever to the right and kill more US troops with your mouse. The left just loves it when US troops die, since they are the epicenter of why we are hated around the world (so they believe).

Lets get Brookings to do a few other interactive meters like:
- pre-Sadaam Iraq
- US civillian deaths by terrorism if we were without a War on Terror Policy (Kerry "smarter" plan)
- Israel deaths if they adopted a "cut and run" policy
- Muslims against other Muslims in the world
- Muslims against their neighbors in the 18 parts of the world where Muslims can't live with their neighbors (remember they are tolerant)
- Worldwide deaths by communism and socialism in the 20th century
- deaths caused by the "War on Poverty" in the US

Those charts would be more interesting.

skate

10-24-2006, 04:45 PM

Planb:

look look look, sorry to be so tiresome folks, but...as before...

paaalease take a look at Just where (xactly) does Most (almost all) of that spent money GO? where?
does it go to the Moon? i don't think sooo.
so where, well, for the very most part, it goes right back into OUR economy.

VIA, military pay (retirement$$$), our civilians, and don't forget (what is it they Keep saying) HALiBurton (remember) and what does HAL. do with the $.?

right you are, they, and everyone else, spends the $ right back here in the USA.
do ya see how that works?

and we also get to keep the OIL fields open for the rest of the world. that's right, it ($$$) keeps the whole world economy Going.

really not so hard to figure, is it???

of coarse you have an excuse called "The Media". they feed you and ...

we gotta ass-i-milation

Suff

10-24-2006, 04:51 PM

[QUOTE]I just looked at the link that PlanB was kind enough to dig up to start this thread. Its a liberal wet dream. Its an interactive meter that allows you to estimate how much the US is going to spend in Iraq based on troop levels, military and police deaths and injuries. Its really sick when you look at it. You can move the lever to the right and kill more US troops with your mouse.

If the house ( s) switch sides it will be because of thinking like yours. Totally detached from thoughtful deliberation.

The Brookings institute and the American Enterprise institute are mainly conservative. Mark McClellan from the Bush administration just had a highly publicized hiring?

http://www.aei-brookings.org/pdf/McClellan_announcement.pdf

I simply wonder if you think things through? Where would you get a Liberal stance on costing a war? That's responsible right? Or at least required? They are doing this work at the CBO right now? I'm puzzled by your reaction to it being available to you and I?

The left just loves it when US troops die, since they are the epicenter of why we are hated around the world (so they believe).

Let' spare us the polls of the worlds view on America and Americans. because they are ugly, and went south shortly after Bush took office. Just for the record... People by and large do not like Conservatives. Maybe your not aware of that reality.

Lets get Brookings to do a few other interactive meters like:
- pre-Sadaam Iraq

When we financed and armed him?

- US civillian deaths by terrorism if we were without a War on Terror Policy (Kerry "smarter" plan)

Another illogical conclusion. You asserting that George Bush has prevented a Muslim from Crossing the Mexican Border to attack us? Despite knowing the porous borders, and lack of container and shipping screening.....You can say with a straight face that Bush has stopped potential attacks by invading a country that didnt have anything to do with 9/11?

That cause/effect is so illogical it is a main reason ( I believe) that Republicans are losing ground.....because it is insane to think that.

- Israel deaths if they adopted a "cut and run" policy

Did you see this?

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/10/federal-appeals-court-upholds.php

I don't die for Israel...and none of my Countrymen should either. They have a Military....have them invade Iraq. wtf has Israel done for the USA?

Worldwide deaths by communism and socialism in the 20th century

That boat has left the Dock. Next time don't say Weapons of Mass Destruction when you mean...."Just because we want to"

I'm telling you as directly and politely as I can, that your presentation is the crux of the American divide. You accomplish NONE of your goals, and actually hamper your efforts when you take these stances.

I believe above all, you hope to be effective. Your not, and the people you support are not, yet you jam the square peg in the round hole over and over, and continue to blame the hole.

luv_america

10-24-2006, 05:40 PM

Ah!! Here's another "half of America sucks" liberal!! The rest of us are sooooo stupid.

Take notice of the attack. Its all George Bush's fault that the world hates us. Terrorism is all George Bush's fault. The borders are all George Bush's fault. The containers are all George Bush's fault. never a mention of inaction on the Democrats side. Never any responsibility taken for anyting that's gone wrong.

Never, NEVER, NEVER!! a plan or an idea, Just a willy-nilly attack.

Note the assumption that the MAJORITY of people believe his point of view. Lets just look at elections and sans the looney chad and Diebold stuff, liberals don't win anymore. You need to trot out Michael J. Fox now telling the world that Republican's are denying him a cure to get fools who will believe the lie to vote for you.

Lastly, I know you can't wait to see Speaker Pelosi bang the gravel. I think you'll have to continue dreaming that one until your party starts to love this country again and plays in the arena of ideas, not this "Bush Sucks" baloney.

Just one last thing the Iraq-9/11 thing shows just how mad your side is. Are those terrorists fighting in Iraq? You know terrorists, the ones you are scared to fight. If that's the case that they are terrorists, then they are a threat to our freedom, and we should use our POWERFUL military to kill them all. Do you have a BETTER idea, or at least a shred of one.

richrosa

10-24-2006, 05:48 PM

I don't care if Brookings is conservative. When a sliding graph represents US military deaths, I'm offended. I'm surprised you're not.

hcap

10-24-2006, 05:48 PM

luv_ says..Ah!! Here's another "half of America sucks" liberal!! The rest of us are sooooo stupid.

Take notice of the attack. Its all George Bush's fault that the world hates us. Terrorism is all George Bush's fault. The borders are all George Bush's fault. The containers are all George Bush's fault. never a mention of inaction on the Democrats side. Never any responsibility taken for anyting that's gone wrong.Take notice luv_

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/popup?id=2599476

Do you think Congress should launch impeachment proceedings against President Bush?

Yes. He has led us into an unjust war and has infringed on America's civil liberties.
16,639
No. He has done nothing that merits impeachment. He has done the best job possible.
7,179
Maybe he should be impeached but there are more pressing problems to deal with right now.
3,185
Total Vote: 27,003
Not a scientific survey.

So only dems voted? I don't think so. Stay da course luv_

luv_america

10-24-2006, 05:50 PM

Try and find one Republican on this board who thinks Bush should be impeached.

If the polls are always right, then we're looking at a Democrat trounce, aren't we?

I doubt it.

bigmack

10-24-2006, 06:03 PM

Try and find one Republican on this board who thinks Bush should be impeached.
If the polls are always right, then we're looking at a Democrat trounce, aren't we? I doubt it.
Welcome aboard luv. Consider a honk from me.

http://www.suvinteriors.org/images/tp/tp1008.jpg

Suff

10-24-2006, 06:06 PM

I don't care if Brookings is conservative. When a sliding graph represents US military deaths, I'm offended. I'm surprised you're not.

I'm offended by the whole thing. Because either way I'm left disappointed.

Even if your analysis of the threat is correct.

Suff

10-24-2006, 06:13 PM

Another issue from a practical angle.

Anyone who welcomes Luv_America is in no way shape or form in a position to send men to die.

He is a member ( past or present) that has a new ( or different) users name.

At least I hope he is. Because again, either way its a loser. Its a horse racing board, and suddenly a political expert emerges with its initial posts in OT. That profile alone warrants therapy. Although, its clear from its posts that its been here for awhile.

Its a sock puppet coward. You'd ask men to die for a person who is unwilling to be honest on a Horse Racing Message Board? That's a guy you'd place your children's life in? War's a serious thing. Not a game on a message board.

hcap

10-24-2006, 06:17 PM

Luv_

I am sure you will get more honks. Da repugs on this board? They were wrong on every prediction made about how the Iraq war would unfold. Wrong on every major foreign policy decission based on the " yeehaw" school of non-diplomacy. I see you are among the lemmings, loving uncritically the fictions of rove, and his collection of discredited facts.

But there are republicans other than those who tow the line, and carry your ubermenche's water. Thankfully. Also independents are now more in line with the dems and not the repugs.

Stay the course is now being thrown overboard. Get ready for a sea change. Too bad the election is preventing a real discussion. Maybe when the dems take the house some accountability will be pursued.

Suff

10-24-2006, 06:25 PM

I don't care if Brookings is conservative. When a sliding graph represents US military deaths, I'm offended. I'm surprised you're not.

I generally don't have political discussions with people I don't know. ( in real life), and when I do, I speak very cordially and receptively to any one's view. My PA personality isn't something I do in person. Particularly around this.

With that said, I may run into you at the Breeders Cup, and if that were to occur I'd be happy to sit with you over a coffee and hear your views. Or talk horses (which I'd prefer). I was thinking of coming by your seminar at the Galt House on Friday night.

Suff

10-24-2006, 06:41 PM

Further
Here is the abstract that accompnaied the cost scalability site.

http://aei-brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=988

You'll note it orginally appeared in "the Economist" in Jan2005

And the Bio of its author/

(http://www.aei-brookings.org/about/advisorybio.php?id=290)http://www.aei-brookings.org/about/advisorybio.php?id=290

(http://www.aei-brookings.org/about/advisorybio.php?id=290)
(http://www.aei-brookings.org/about/advisorybio.php?id=290)Scott Wallsten is a senior fellow at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Before joining the Joint Center, he had been an economist at The World Bank, a scholar at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and a staff economist at the U.S. President’s Council of Economic Advisers. His interests include industrial organization and public policy, and his research has focused on regulation, privatization, competition, and science and technology policy. His work has been published in journals including the RAND Journal of Economics, the Journal of Industrial Economics, the Journal of Regulatory Economics, and Regulation

Lefty

10-24-2006, 06:55 PM

h'cap, again with the polls. You're just helplesswithout em i reckon. Dick Morris has been predicting a Dem victory for weeks. Last night he veered off that course.

PlanB

10-24-2006, 06:59 PM

hey, I am a devoted DEM w/ tendencies to 3rd Party Independent, but
I would NOT support a Bush Impeachment. No way, but I dislike Bush
and his crew. But it's the way our PREZ & History met, and well, #43
did lead & ... well, who cares, it's the way stuff worked out, but in no way
would I want to see a knee-jerk impeachment, and I would be angry pissed
if such were to happen. Make this country work better & fairer, if you can.

Lefty

10-24-2006, 07:16 PM

luv_america

10-24-2006, 07:22 PM

This is another liberal trick. Don't fall for it. When they can't control the message, they try to kill the messenger.

They're gonna call me this name and that name for making posts that disagree with their point of view.

Lets all watch this and have fun while they exhaust the playbook.

Suff

10-24-2006, 07:24 PM

I wasn't aware luv america had the pwer to send men to die. Are you saying he's a member of congress?
If he's been on the board before under another name then i'm flummoxed because so far only liberals have done that.

Men & Women die in our name. For us. If my Son goes to war because you elected a leader who felt it necessary, then I'd like to think your a serious man, who gave your support serious contemplation.

Someone who runs their mouth anonymously while 10,000 of thousands of lives are shattered beyond repair ,would make me think: Who exactly am I breaking bread with?

I consider frequently who aligns themselves with liberals and/or democrats, and some of them trouble me. However the idea of getting into bed with the polar equivalent on the right , troubles me more.

Suff

10-24-2006, 07:31 PM

This is another liberal trick. Don't fall for it. When they can't control the message, they try to kill the messenger.

.

Kill it? Hell no! Keep Posting! Please post everyday, multiple times. Try and find other boards you can post on. I'll suggest a few if you'd like.

Every post you make, every word you type, is another nail in the coffin.

I encourage you to be an example of the 29%.

PlanB

10-24-2006, 07:38 PM

After 7 posts, you seem so precocious.

luv_america

10-24-2006, 07:52 PM

The strange thing is that you think that you are the MAJORITY.

Lets look at the FACTS:

2004: The last National election

Bush 62,040,606 - 51%
Kerry 59,028,109 - 48%

Senate
Republicans - 55
Democrats - 44
Mixed up guy - 1

House
Republicans - 231
Democrats - 200
Mixed up guy - 1

The facts don't lie. It won't be much different this time. Its the same trends that have the polls tightening up when the pollsters need credibility near the end of an election. I'm almost certain that we're going to pick up seats in the Senate and possibly the House too.

ljb

10-24-2006, 07:55 PM

Trust me. I'm not a paid blogger. If I was I wouldn't post here. Its the same libs posting the same crud over and over. I'd rather just have fun here taunting you. You are easy game for me.

ljb, like most liberals, cannot support the war because it doesn't fit their template that Bush and clan are no good. Notice how he doesn't acknowledge Bush's war for the fact that we've been safe at home.

What we never get from these guys is anything remotely close to an idea. The closest they have to a concept is impeachment, but never a plan besides getting the French to eat cheese with us while the Islamists take over.

ljb, Have any ideas? If not, accept the truth. You are safer with the terrorists being dealt with in Iraq. Gob Bless the US Military.
We were safer prior to Bush's poorly planned invasion of Iraq. I am still waiting to hear one of you guys tell us why we invaded Iraq. First it was wmds, then Saddam is an evil man, then bringing democracy to Iraq. What is the latest reason for this botched job in Iraq ? Also remember Bush was for stay the course before he was against stay the course. POORLY planned mess in Iraq and still being POORLY executed.

Tom

10-24-2006, 08:00 PM

Hey, Ljb....I think Luv America kind of balances out.....YOU.
Please point me to your last horse racing post.:lol:

Follow up ??? - how much money have we SQUANDERED on the war on poverty, instituionalized hand outs? Pork projects by dems? (I know, both side do it, but let's just add up the so-called protectors of our budget and see what we come up with).

And how is his posting lots of facts different from Hcap, Sec, and Suff doing the very same thing?

Like Lefty says, accurately, free speech as long you agree with THEM. :lol:

luv_america

10-24-2006, 08:07 PM

Lets again examine ljb's comments about the poor execution in Iraq. Notice that its all criticism, and has no resemblence to an idea and a plan. Its more of the same "We could do it better" attitude.

It would be so easy for the Dems to get elected if two things were true:
1) Americans really want another plan for Iraq
2) The Dems could present a plan that Americans could vote for

That being said, they blew this coming election because they can't tell the American people the truth of what their real "cut and run" plan is. If they told the truth, the landslide would be a Republican avalanche.

Just remember they libs were all for this war before they were against it.

JustRalph

10-24-2006, 08:10 PM

I am suspicious........... of Luv........ I thought the same as Suff. New moniker same message. Interesting to find out who. Might be Rush ?

lsbets

10-24-2006, 08:21 PM

That's two of us Ralph.

Lefty

10-24-2006, 08:35 PM

We were safer prior to Bush's poorly planned invasion of Iraq. I am still waiting to hear one of you guys tell us why we invaded Iraq. First it was wmds, then Saddam is an evil man, then bringing democracy to Iraq. What is the latest reason for this botched job in Iraq ? Also remember Bush was for stay the course before he was against stay the course. POORLY planned mess in Iraq and still being POORLY executed.
we've told you and told you and told you till we're blue in the face. You just don't wanna get it.

luv_america

10-24-2006, 08:51 PM

What's the big deal with my postings? I want to present an alternative to what I've been reading on the boards. I decided not to lurk on the political discussion anymore. Now I'm all in.

Lefty

10-24-2006, 09:17 PM

I don't see anything outrageous in luvs posts, but do find lbj, 46zilly and derek, I mean planb mostly outrageous.

chickenhead

10-24-2006, 09:44 PM

strange for someone to show up "built" for off topic. Name, avatar, attitude...just rearing to go. It's one thing to gravitate to OT from the horsee side...but to start here...? That's not common (thankfully).

luv,
Chickenhead

Tom

10-24-2006, 09:47 PM

chickenhead

10-24-2006, 09:50 PM

this was honestly the last place I thought to look!

Lefty

10-24-2006, 10:15 PM

boy, you guys act like this luv person doing something illegal. What about PlanB and Equineer? Yuh think maybe they've been here before and under diff names. I'd still like to know what luv has said that's outrageous? Musta escaped me. Meanwhile, PlanB asked me if i were black in a thread that had nothing to do with race. You tell me who's outrageous...

chickenhead

10-25-2006, 12:39 AM

you are black though, right?

Lefty

10-25-2006, 01:19 AM

[QUOTE=chickenhead]you are black though, right?[/QUOTE
Are you trying to be a wise guy? If so, you're not.

ljb

10-25-2006, 08:13 AM

How about a poll to determine who luv_america really is ? The posts are basic redundancy and repetitious much like other rightwingers here. Nothing new. So it could even be me ! What do you all think?
Special to Tom,
I am not allowed to post on the horsey side because of my avatar. If I were to change my avatar to the neo-nazi flag I would be allowed to post but, that is for another topic.
When I do post on the horsey side I use my other id. luv_america. :lol: :lol: :lol:

GaryG

10-25-2006, 08:29 AM

Steve R

chickenhead

10-25-2006, 09:41 AM

Are you trying to be a wise guy? If so, you're not.

Lefty Lefty....lighten up. It's ok to laugh once in a while.

Lefty

10-25-2006, 02:14 PM

Lefty Lefty....lighten up. It's ok to laugh once in a while.
I laugh all the time and I make others laugh. I have a great sense of humor but the keyword is "sense"
The Q is why would planb ask such a ridiculous question? No context for it. And people here question luv's motives? Unfrrknblvble...

Lefty

10-25-2006, 02:17 PM

It's happened again. I get an e-mail that PA has responded to this thread. But I can't find his response.

ljb

10-25-2006, 02:31 PM

Lefty

10-25-2006, 02:35 PM

Well I'm not really sure but PA is a rightwinger and some rightwingers are against blacks, especially those that accept the neo-nazi flag as a non political symbol. Perhaps you are not allowed to see PA's notes . :lol: :lol: :lol:
Another ridiculous comment, lbj. You outdo yourself.
What flag are you talking about. I hope you're not calling the American Flag a neo-nazi flag.

PaceAdvantage

10-25-2006, 02:37 PM

Well I'm not really sure but PA is a rightwinger and some rightwingers are against blacks, especially those that accept the neo-nazi flag as a non political symbol. Perhaps you are not allowed to see PA's notes . :lol: :lol: :lol:

If I'm a rightwinger, you're a moron. You guys with your labels are amazing. :rolleyes:

It's not a neo-nazi flag....look it up.....

Do you think a major Hollywood movie production studio would allow a neo-nazi flag to be seen throughout a recent major release? (Dukes of Hazzard).

If it's ok with the Hollywood elite (who by the way, hate Pres. Bush for the most part), it's ok with me.....

ljb

10-25-2006, 02:41 PM

If I'm a rightwinger, you're a moron. You guys with your labels are amazing. :rolleyes:
Well then let me rephrase this. PA supports rightwingers agendas. He is not a rightwinger but he does support them. Kinda like dubya was for "stay the course" before he was agin "stay the course" :lol:

luv_america

10-25-2006, 04:41 PM

ljb,

Please tell us all, what is the "left-wing" agenda? I'm dying to know. I bet I get a fragment of a reply or an attack.

ljb

10-25-2006, 06:07 PM

ljb,

Please tell us all, what is the "left-wing" agenda? I'm dying to know. I bet I get a fragment of a reply or an attack.
I would just have to guess at the "leftwing" agenda. So I will leave that to others. As for the Democrats, they are fighting for the middleclass. As Ohio Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown said on CNN today.

ljb

10-25-2006, 06:15 PM

If I'm a rightwinger, you're a moron. You guys with your labels are amazing. :rolleyes:

It's not a neo-nazi flag....look it up.....

Do you think a major Hollywood movie production studio would allow a neo-nazi flag to be seen throughout a recent major release? (Dukes of Hazzard).

If it's ok with the Hollywood elite (who by the way, hate Pres. Bush for the most part), it's ok with me.....
snippet
The Confederate battle flag has also been appropriated by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist hate groups. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, more than 500 extremist groups use the Southern Cross as one of their symbols.
Link to full story
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/confederate1.html
also "if it's ok with the Hollywood elite, it's ok with me". How do you feel about the movie. Assassination of a President ? Must be ok with you also.

luv_america

10-25-2006, 08:17 PM

PlanB

10-25-2006, 08:20 PM

Oh SHUT UP LUV AMERICA. You're just Lefty on his second computer.
It's amazing, but why should anyone here even answer YOU, you bot.

Tom

10-25-2006, 09:29 PM

luv_america

10-25-2006, 09:38 PM

Tom,

I never expected a real plan. You never get one. Just look at the Kerry 2004 campaign for reference.

Well apparently ljb time is over. For years I have been reading these posts and finally decided I had enough. Now they won't have the run of the mill here. I'll challenge them and ask them tough questions. They won't like it.

As I predicted, it didn't take long before my question turned into an attack. I MUST be bad if I disagree with them.

Also, we should all take note that a liberal never really tells you what they believe. If they did, they would never get elected. Generally there is a single issue that makes them liberal, then they just have to follow the rest of the agenda to get their single issue legislated through their fellow single issue liberal judges and lawmakers.

What is ljb's single issue I wonder? For now it looks like "attack the new conservative".

Secretariat

10-25-2006, 10:06 PM

Tom,

I never expected a real plan. You never get one. Just look at the Kerry 2004 campaign for reference.

These aren't tough questions. They're creampuffs.

You obviously didn't know Kerry's platform which called for a tax-cut on those making less than 200K. It was those making over 200K that he was returning to Clinton levels on taxation.

In other words Kerry advocated a middle-class tax cut. When you say there was no real plan, what you're really saying is - you don't agree with the plan. I can buy that. But saying there was no real plan is simply inaccurate.

As to the Repub plan, we're seeing it - huge deficits, rising medical costs, record poverty figures, terrorism on the increase worldwide, Iraq in civil war, PageGate, Abramoff Gate..it just goes on. Now, thats a real plan?

Tom

10-25-2006, 10:12 PM

The Pelosi Plan....:eek::eek:

luv_america

10-25-2006, 10:38 PM

Ok if that's the whole Democrat plan, "raise taxes" for the wealthy, lets try to understand whether the Bush tax cuts worked.

I'll quote from a USA Today article you can find here (its hardly a full endorsement of the tax cuts):
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-10-02-taxes-usat_x.htm

Quote:
Americans of every income have benefited from a drop in federal income tax rates as Bush administration tax cuts enacted since 2000 took effect, an independent analysis of newly released IRS data shows.

and..

• Millions of lower-income Americans — those earning $25,000 annually or less — have been taken off the federal tax rolls. In 2000, roughly 29 million tax returns had no federal tax owed. Four years later, the number rose to about 43 million returns.

it does mention this about the middle class:
Millions of upper-middle and moderately high-income earners also benefited from tax rate cuts. But the analysis shows their savings was limited by the Alternative Minimum Tax, which eliminates some deductions and credits they could otherwise claim on federal tax returns. The levy particularly hits those whose high state and local taxes become ineligible for federal tax deductions.

end quotes-----
The AMT was a Clinton creation to "help" middle class taxpayers.

I don't expect you to understand that when you cut taxes, especially on the wealthiest 1% who pay over one-third of the tax burden in this country, you get more money invested in the economy which increases the GDP, which eventually increases the tax revenues (alibeit at lower percentages) that the government collects, as more money is circulated around in incomes and the pockets of middle-classers.

We should all be horseplayers on this board. Don't we all agree that if the takeout (tax) was lowered at the tracks, we would all win more, thus we'd all play more, and the horsemen might have a chance to to make more money as a smaller percentage of a much larger handle? If you won more, you would have more money to play (re-invest) and circulate into the pools. TAXES ARE THE SAME GAME. Just take a look at the wealthiest of horseplayers. They beat the TAX system by taking their money off-shore where they get a better return on investment. If they got a tax-cut here, they'd be less inclined to invest offshore.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge that it works. It worked when JFK did it. It worked when Reagan did it. Its now worked a third time when Bush did it.

Over-taxing the wealthy hurts investment in our country, and eventually trickles down to you and I when we don't get the earnings opportunity in a full employment market like we have now.

Is there anything else on the Democrat agenda we should know about?

JustRalph

10-25-2006, 11:08 PM

What a surprise.......the Dems think Taxes should be raised............

PaceAdvantage

10-26-2006, 03:08 AM

Oh SHUT UP LUV AMERICA. You're just Lefty on his second computer.
It's amazing, but why should anyone here even answer YOU, you bot.

Wow. I thought you were a practicing Buddhist. What's a practicing Buddhist doing telling someone to shut up???!!!! You want to silence Luv America because you can't handle him/her or don't agree with him/her?

I recall a lot of the anti-Administration folks accusing Bush of doing the same thing....trying to silence those that don't agree....

Shame on you PlanB.....shame on you....I hope you don't call yourself a Democrat in addition to a Buddhist!!!

Tsk tsk tsk.....

ljb

10-26-2006, 06:46 AM

Uh, luv. You're new here. Ljb is not progammed to think, respnd, think, or dicuss. He parrots and nothing more. Well, he spins, too, and tryies to register bums with free ciggies and cheap booze every other October. But a real plan? :lol::lol::lol:
Let's see now. cj er luv asks me to tell him the Democrats plan without attacking the neocons and Tom responds with this attack on me. hmm
Tom, remember what happened last time you started attacking me ? I responded in kind and then you put me on you ignore list. This of course resulted in your becoming even more ignorant. Now come on Tom. With the election just a couple weeks away you don't want to choose ignorance do you? Oh wait a minute, it appears you already have. :lol: :lol:

ljb

10-26-2006, 07:08 AM

ljb,

Lets try this another way. What exactly is the Democratic agenda for the middle class? Lets see if you can do this without attacking me, Rush, Bush, or the Republicans. Just tell me what you as a Demoocrat believe the agenda is or should be for the middle class.

This is your chance to "shine".
I have neither the time or the desire to post an entire agenda of the Democrats. I will however mention a few items. They plan on cleaning up the mess in Iraq. They plan on working on paying down the excessive bills ran up by the neocons. They plan on providing affordable health care to the millions of Americans who have lost their health care since the neocons took over. They plan on shutting down the illegal immigration problem that Bush accepts as a provider of low wage labor. They plan on steering this country away from the feudalistic theocracy it is headed for under the neocon leadership. They plan on re-installing states rights and not get involved in issues such as the Terri Schiavo case or proposing constitutional amendments that take away individual freedoms. Now then, these are just a few of their plans and will not all be completed quickly as the neocons have an iron grasp and tons of corporate lobbyists money to fight tooth and nail against these progressive ideas.
But if we all work together, we can take back America so it is once again a country of, for and by the people.

grando

10-26-2006, 09:42 AM

Lets see, the Iran costs you say are in the trillion $ range and it seems to concern you. I consider it money well spent.

Does it also concern you that crooked and corrupt politicians from NY and NJ are robbing us blind? and those are the only ones we are aware of. NY has a Controller who refuses to resign, in the same light as Bill "oral office" Clintion. New Jersey has a track record of corruption that makes you want to puke. Maybe they should change their nick name to the Garden Puke instead of Garden State.

Speaking of "oral Bill", sexual predator, adulterer, perjurer, etc. his legacy goes on, maybe his impotence on terror has had a cause and effect on the trillion $, when you factor in cost of living increases and inflation, you know the ropes since the eye opener terror problems resurrected itself in 1993. You can't look me in the eye and say 1993 would have happened under Reagon or Bush Sr.

HMMMMM the WTC is bombed in 1993, embassies get hit in Africa, soldiers are gutted alive in Mogadishu (spelling?), the USS Cole bombing, and so on. Aside from shooting a few ill aimed missles at a pill factory, nothing was done of substance. Hence we experienced the second WTC bombing. The stage was set by Clinton, not Bush.

Maybe if Mr. Bill had spent as much time FIGHTING terrorism as he did looking for interns to pick-up and lets not forget that blue stained dress, looking at his poll numbers, sub-letting the White House into a Holiday Inn, and searching for a legacy I just described for you, the trillion would be significantly less, gazillions of dead civilians & soldiers would still be alive, gazillions of terrorists would be DEAD, the future safey & security of my children would be brighter, and maybe people like you who seem truly concerned but misguided, would finally see the light.

Still wondering what that light is? Getting up off our backsides and just saying NO MORE to terrorism, corruption and BLIND liberalism that is breaking down our nation's foundation. Bush took a stand and he is being roasted by the 50 % Left wing liberals in this country who just LOVE TO HATE AMERICA but they just can't seem to pick themselves up and leave if its so bad living here.

Had enough? Even scarier is the thought of Mr. Bill's "butch wife" running for president and that 50% number I mentioned before blindly voting for "her" and continuing Mr. Bill's "legacy". :eek:

chickenhead

10-26-2006, 09:53 AM

You can't look me in the eye and say 1993 would have happened under Reagon or Bush Sr.

WTF? I assume you don't mean the year 1993...you're saying the World Trade Centers wouldn't have been bombed in 1993 if Bush Sr. was still president? Why not? It was conceived and planned by them under George Bush Sr., in response to us hanging around in Saudi, right?

Why do so many think that it's not OK just to have an opinion, but that you've got to make up all sorts of shit to make your opinion seem airtight? Of course liberals only think cons do it, and conservatives only think liberals do it...but really, ultimately, what is the point?

I'll say it once: "Making shit up to bolster your argument, weakens your argument".

Full Stop.

luv_america

10-26-2006, 10:52 AM

Ahh. My other conservative friends are starting to show up. Thanks grando for an excellent and accurate post.

Once one voice starts to make themselves known, others will follow!!

Lefty

10-26-2006, 11:33 AM

I have neither the time or the desire to post an entire agenda of the Democrats. I will however mention a few items. They plan on cleaning up the mess in Iraq. They plan on working on paying down the excessive bills ran up by the neocons. They plan on providing affordable health care to the millions of Americans who have lost their health care since the neocons took over. They plan on shutting down the illegal immigration problem that Bush accepts as a provider of low wage labor. They plan on steering this country away from the feudalistic theocracy it is headed for under the neocon leadership. They plan on re-installing states rights and not get involved in issues such as the Terri Schiavo case or proposing constitutional amendments that take away individual freedoms. Now then, these are just a few of their plans and will not all be completed quickly as the neocons have an iron grasp and tons of corporate lobbyists money to fight tooth and nail against these progressive ideas.
But if we all work together, we can take back America so it is once again a country of, for and by the people.
Hmm, I guess the Dem plan is to come up with a plan for all this. You really think America will just buy a laundry list of promises with no method behind them?

Lefty

10-26-2006, 11:37 AM

grando

10-26-2006, 11:49 AM

1993 may have happened under Reagon or Bush Sr., BUT the attack would have undoubtedly had severe consequences and a severe price would have been paid. This is MY Opinion, my entitlement, my right, etc. to vent my opinion. We are not dealing with the NY Times here (left wing neo nazi journalism at it best, aside from TASS in old Russia). I personally feel it would not ever have happened.:ThmbUp:

Lets see about making things up - hmmmm - the beloved LA Times rag or NY Times rag or both, anyway the NY Times "prints only the news thats fit to print". A fine track record in doctoring photos and well basically operating as an extension of the DNC. Reminds me of "TASS". I'm sure you have no problem with politically controlled press. CNN and the rest of the trash "news" networks, and lets not forget Rather, who most rational people would "rather" forget. CBS finally took out some of its "trash". Unfortunately for the left "libshit", people are gravitating away from "the controlled liberal" press & networks, the ratings dont lie. "Libshits" are extensions of Al Qaeda, Kerry, Gore, United Nations, Hollywood, Striesand (ugh!), and they give them every reason to exist.:ThmbDown:

Back to the reply from you, why when an opinion is formed, do liberals have to revert to profanity? Do me a favor save it for your chats around your dinner table. It has not place in my life.:ThmbUp:

Yes the teroorists said they were pissed at our presence in S. Arabia, but thats a feeble excuse. See the forest beyond the trees. This movement is designed to feed global domination. May not happen in our lifetime, but the master plan is Global Islamic domination, no one else survives. I'll spend a trillion gazillion to kick the "crap" out these "Mother Puckers" if need be. I love my children too much not to. I did not abort, I took what mother nature gave me, and took responsibility for it. Antother subject for another day. :eek:

ljb

10-26-2006, 12:48 PM

lbj, you say the Dems plan on reinstating States Rights? You mean they will ask the Supreme Court to return Abortion decisions back to the States? I like that part. But the other parts don't sound so good. They'll just raise taxes like always, and talk, talk, talk about healthcare but do nothing cause the dems not about sweeping changes, but just promises to gain and hold onto power. Also they will cut and run from Iraq, and that will leave us vulnerable to more 9-11's.becausethey will perceive us as a weakwilled nation again. No thanks to Dem promises without anything behind them. Kind of like the cardboard facades they use in movies. Nice front, but no structure.
Lefty,
Last time i looked abortion rights were already a state decision. Rest of your note is just neocon rhetoric and requires no response. Other then this from Dubya, I was for "stay the course" before I was against "stay the course" . :bang:
Damn, it appears we are being invaded by the neocons. Did someone here do some recruiting on Drudge ? We can both play this game if need be.

grando

10-26-2006, 12:56 PM

Luv you are so right.

Let us not forget the Reagon taxcuts were sabotaged by the the "libshits". Democratic congress intentionally spent about $1.88 for every dollar in revenue we took in. Hence, deficits / blame was placed on Reagon - they dubbed it "Reagonomics". Patheticly, "libshits" bought it.

If Democrats were truly for the people, they would have cut spending so it was in line with revenues. You can't tell me with a straight face there are no oppotunities to cut government spending and waste. Government obesity is a "libshits" best friend and raising taxes aka legalized theft is not that far behind.

ljb

10-26-2006, 12:59 PM

grando

10-26-2006, 01:29 PM

There you go. Acknowledge what needs to be done. We know deficits exist - yes indeed because the "libshits" heroin is excessive spending. Cut the government obesity, waste and other useless spending, eg. UN costs if we started paying again, useless committees etc. and fight the war on terror to win not to please liberal ignorance, and they will evaporate. :ThmbUp:

Somehow Bush managed to reverse a Clinton recession, followed by a terror attack, and so on. For almost 8 years all Clinton and Gore did was take false credit for the economy, and pass massive BS to the people of this country. It was done on the scale of "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is". As the economy headed south in their last year and a half - dead silence - clueless - full of the BS you like to finger. :ThmbDown:

grando

10-26-2006, 01:32 PM

Forgot to mention, the braziness, the "libshit" then blamed the recession on George. Amazing lies from the Left. :)

luv_america

10-26-2006, 01:56 PM

Way to go grando!!

As usual liberals cannot be truthful about their agenda. If they were, no one would ever vote for them except the selfish "single issue" voters, which I think lgb is, but I'm not sure yet what the single issue is.

Lets examine lgb's statement about what he believes the liberal agenda to be:

They plan on cleaning up the mess in Iraq.
SUMMARY: NO PLAN / RHETORIC
John Kerry had ample opportunity in 2004 to tell us what his plan was. He never voiced it. He knows and all the Democrats know that the Sheehan/Kerry/Kennedy Cut and Run Plan is wholly impractical and won't fly with the American voter. Despite the liberal victories in Vietnam, we are not a country of losers that just gives up on the promise that we've made.

They plan on working on paying down the excessive bills ran up by the neocons.
SUMMARY: AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT / DISAGREE THAT LIBERALS ARE FOR THAT
I'll be the first to agree that this Congress and the President's willingness to promote and support blind spending has been its major failure. I do believe that liberals are only pissed because they didn't get the chance or the credit to spend all that money and much more on their voters. There's not a liberal out there that campaigns for less spending. They do distort by claiming that they are for a balanced budget, but wholly on the backs of the American taxpayer in the form of a tax increase. ljb, I don't believe that you believe Democrats are really for spending less. Conservatives (remember GW Bush is not a conservative) run on and act on this philosophy.

They plan on providing affordable health care to the millions of Americans who have lost their health care since the neocons took over.
SUMMARY: NO PLAN OR A SOCIALIST PLAN
It nice to say things like this, but during the Kerry campaign it was never specific enough to entice the voter. It isn't any more specific now. Health Care in the country is the finest in the world as driven by our free markets and lack of government control. Liberals can never point to a health care system that works better than us. Please don't give me the Canada stuff, where every wealthy Canadian comes to the US for treatment, including recently minted US citizen former Canadian Michael J. Fox.

They plan on shutting down the illegal immigration problem that Bush accepts as a provider of low wage labor.
SUMMARY: TOTAL FABRICATION
The only think I hear from liberals is that they want to make them all citizens and put them on the welfare payrolls so they can vote. No one believes that Democrats want to even come remotely close to shutting this down. Unfortunately some, and not a majority of Republicans agree with the Democrat view. This will change in 2008 where our next President will have a hard-line view against immigration and the mandate to change it. It will be a Republican.

They plan on steering this country away from the feudalistic theocracy it is headed for under the neocon leadership.
SUMMARY: FEAR TACTIC
There is no basis for this comment. There is no theocracy headed anyone's way anytime soon. I know ljb is a single issue voter, which is the reason he brings this up. Liberals eschew religion because religion brings morality and rules. There's a rule somewhere that ljb really doesn't like. Liberals like him fight against the morality because without it the people of this country would be less inclined to legislate against whatever lgb's single issue is. Single-issue liberals are generally the most selfish and religion hating of all.

They plan on re-installing states rights and not get involved in issues such as the Terri Schiavo case or proposing constitutional amendments that take away individual freedoms.
SUMMARY: TOTAL CONSERVATIVE VIEW
You got to be kidding. As mentioned previously just look at abortion and gun control as issues generally best left to the states and compare that with the liberal view.

OVERALL SUMMARY: While not a complete view ljb did his best to try to get us to believe that he's not a left-wing cook. The problem is that most liberals cannot tell you what they really believe. This behavior really manifests itself around election time as we're seeing in ad after ad. Nice try.

ljb

10-26-2006, 02:41 PM

rather lengthy reply from lug,
If he would just spout a little bible talk I would say he is boxcar. Still think PA should hold a contest to guess who lug really is. I know he's not Lefty or Tom but suspect he may be someone else here.
And his new co-hort could be Lefty as his notes are just repitious words of the neocons much like Lefty's.

luv_america

10-26-2006, 04:12 PM

What do you mean by the word "neocon"? I don't know a party named "neocon".

You are probably afraid of the Bible and people who believe in something. Its their morality that gets at you because they won't let you do whatever it is you want, isn't it?

ljb

10-26-2006, 04:20 PM

What do you mean by the word "neocon"? I don't know a party named "neocon".

That's not all you don't know. Google neocon! You should be able to get the meaning.

luv_america

10-26-2006, 05:00 PM

You used it. What do YOU think it means?

JustRalph

10-26-2006, 05:11 PM

Dang, it is a full scale invasion........I love it.

I notice that LJB says "they plan to" over and over. But they never tell us what their plan is.

skate

10-26-2006, 05:40 PM

YO Sec;
do you really expect anyone to digest this Media crap, that you and some others try to juggle.? you say the following.

"""As to the Repub plan, we're seeing it - huge deficits, rising medical costs, record poverty figures, terrorism on the increase worldwide, Iraq in civil war, PageGate, Abramoff Gate..it just goes on. Now, thats a real plan?[/QUOTE]"""

Huge deficits? do you really understand?
let me say, so you don't think im tricking you, that when they(media) tell you about "huge deficits" what they are really saying is that the money they refer to is in the hands of "We" the people and not the Gov.
that's all they are saying (woo, shudder) and they could just as easily say that if the deficits were non existing and the Gov. had a surplus, the economy would only appear to be in balence. you see now, im sure, that it is we the people or the gov that has "The Money", simple.

Now if you are talking National Debt, that is another issue. are you talking Nat. Debt?

i'm sure you know, but at the same time, i'd be happy to explain.

luv_america

10-26-2006, 05:50 PM

Ralph,

Lets not let them get away with their propaganda anymore. They are one-hit wonders that don't get played on Top-40 radio anymore.

At the core we have a few "single-issue" guys here. They can't match toe to toe with us on arguments.

I introduced my Harness Racing friend to this site a bit ago. He's been reading the off-Topic. He'll join in next. They'll call him names too.

Bottom line, at least they won't seduce the less informed here without an argument.

PlanB

10-26-2006, 05:53 PM

Umm, the last time I looked, like yesterday, our trade deficits totalled _________. Guess, don't Google please. And while I'm asking that
basic question, in ~10 words, why do you think the market is booming?

Suff

10-26-2006, 06:03 PM

HMMMMM the WTC is bombed in 1993, embassies get hit in Africa, soldiers are gutted alive in Mogadishu (spelling?), the USS Cole bombing, and so on. Aside from shooting a few ill aimed missles at a pill factory, nothing was done of substance. Hence we experienced the second WTC bombing. The stage was set by < insert ronald reagan here>Clinton, not Bush.

The Genesis of unanswered attacks began with the Murder of 242 Marines in Beirut. October 23rd 1983 at 6:20 am.

For a $1000 dollars; Who was President then? And wtf did he do?

,,,,

NOTHING! Thats what! But you really could give a F about that or the Marines. You just parrot. You dare to tell me who the F did what , to whom? get your facts right!

skate

10-26-2006, 06:11 PM

thats is A trade Defict, right? that you refer to..

bout 60 billion per Quarter, that IS business Not Gov.

gees, stay with it

skate

10-26-2006, 06:12 PM

cause they are making money

chickenhead

10-26-2006, 06:12 PM

Bottom line, at least they won't seduce the less informed here without an argument.

Thank God. I was wondering when someone would finally show up to argue with ljb, Sec, and 46.

luv_america

10-26-2006, 06:15 PM

Suff,

You cannot be serious about trying to blame Reagan. You guys HATED him too. Almost as much as Bush.

Reagan was not a "cut and run" President like "Black Hawk Down Billy". He stood up to the USSR and stared them down through the barrel of a gun (or a nuke) and saved this planet of another 50 years of tyranny through a nuclear enabled bunch of thugs. You're side WENT CRAZY when that happened. I can remember all the rock stars with their silly peace songs making fun of our foreign policy, nearly as bad as they're doing it now. Guess what??? History shows that Reagan did the right thing. He saw the Soviet regime for what it was, EVIL. You guys think now think the evil is Bush. You never acknowledge that anyone but an American, and usually a Republican can be EVIL.

We know you. You are a hate America, blame America first leftist. Someone made you that way. It probably has to do with your education. Some professor fed you drivel and gave you your first A grade when you handed in your "I HATE AMERICA" thesis in Accounting class.

Maybe someday you'll grow up, have kids, buy a home, and earn enough to appreciate what we all have in the country. If you travel some, you'll see what crap exists out there in other countries that don't have an accountable government system like we do. Until then you're like the 60's hippee crowd that's still smoking the same pot from their sex jamboree in the "peace, love and rock and roll" days.

We know you. You are a retread.

skate

10-26-2006, 06:16 PM

Suff

10-26-2006, 06:23 PM

Suff,

You cannot be serious about trying to blame Reagan. You guys HATED him too. Almost as much as Bush.

We know you. You are a retread.

In my little pinky I have more than a sock puppet coward.

skate

10-26-2006, 06:32 PM

ok ok Planb;

do you see that the Budget Deficit is about 2%. 2%, think about that babe.

what is important here is that the GDP is growing, that, to be specific is the growing of "New Production".
this GDP is well above a sustainable rate.

PlanB

10-26-2006, 06:54 PM

Such monetarist optimism. Business-Gov't, how naive to think there's no
overlap. And don't you think that business debt & citizen debt can easily
become US gov't debt? At what point does the US gov't deal with that issue
or do we just say to those owed big bucks 'hey i'm gonna pay you off 1/5,
and you will rejoice.' To me, I see huge amounts of money leaving this country
FOREVER, and I wonder why so? And let me ask you this: To what does
the USA owe its exalted status?

Secretariat

10-26-2006, 07:01 PM

my turn

back to buget deficit.
do you see what the budget deficit is about.
in order to be specific on any one point i ask you bout Sec. being critical on Uncle Georges deficit , do you see how simple an argument is to try and point a fingure at OR Uncle for such a trivial mater?

The budget deficit, the trade deficit, the national debt, the increase in bankrupticies, the decrease in the median wage to inflation since he took office, record poverty figures, burgeoning health care costs,and now the real estate market is struggling, increases in foreclosures, and costs of homes down 9.7% from last year. Tell him to take the rose colored glasses off. Rich people are doing well, no doubt about it. And if you can afford heath insurance, you can be comforted that a record 46 million can't afford it.

Your perception of the deficit doesn't gel with the lead budget analyst for the incredibly conservative Heritage Foundation, Brian Riedl, who stated:

"The White House has a track record of projecting budget numbers to be a lot worse than they end up, which therefore helps them defeat the gloomy expectations and declare victory." If Bush manages to make the tax cuts permanent, it will add more than $3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. The budget would be virtually in balance if there had been no tax cuts.

Or here's another eocnomist's point of view on the trade deficit:

"Bush's version of "doing remarkably well" includes a trade gap--a record $69.9 billion in August--up 2.7 percent since July. "Short of a big correction in consumer spending, the best we can hope for is that the trade deficit stabilizes," Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, told Bloomberg.com."

As the following article states:

"When Bush took over in 2001, he had predicted a surplus of $516 billion for fiscal year 2006. Last week, the administration announced a 2006 deficit of $248 billion, missing its projection for this year by $764 billion."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610260145oct26,1,6229189.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

I don't beleive the market reflects on the full stabiltiy of the economy, espeically when the big gainers are people like Halliburton - 25% profits last quarter, or Exxon-Mobil reporting the second highest profits ever, or the defense contractors who are benefitting from a mismanaged and ill advised war in Iraq.

The market is one indicator, but it does not reflect on the poor or many middle class issues above. if you beleive in "trickle down" then you mgiht beleive this is a healthy economy. I don't think so.

GW has been wrong on his proimises since 2001 whether it's been the war or the economy.

Secretariat

10-26-2006, 07:03 PM

Suff,

You cannot be serious about trying to blame Reagan. You guys HATED him too. Almost as much as Bush.

Reagan was not a "cut and run" President like "Black Hawk Down Billy".

I guess cutting and running in Beirut after those 300 Marines were killed doesn't count.

Lefty

10-26-2006, 07:05 PM

Lefty,
Last time i looked abortion rights were already a state decision. Rest of your note is just neocon rhetoric and requires no response. Other then this from Dubya, I was for "stay the course" before I was against "stay the course" . :bang:
Damn, it appears we are being invaded by the neocons. Did someone here do some recruiting on Drudge ? We can both play this game if need be.
Then yuh beetter look again. No state can overrule the supreme court in the abortion decision. Get out from under the moveon rock and learn something.
You can't respond because you have no valid argument.

Tom

10-26-2006, 07:11 PM

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

They have a 6 point plan.
Why do I have to post this?
Why do the libs not post the one thing they CAN post that is true?:bang:

Let the conservative do all the work. Just like the real world. :lol:

PlanB

10-26-2006, 07:13 PM

Tom

10-26-2006, 07:16 PM

I guess cutting and running in Beirut after those 300 Marines were killed doesn't count.

It counts. It was wrong. Regan blew it big time.
To his defense, he was far more pre-occupied with fighinting the Evil Empir e- USSR and communism. Don' tuse today's knowledge to judge yesterday's actions. But what he did only hurt us later on. He sent the message that terroism would work against us. Many blame him for arming the Afghanis and this led to the rise of the modern terroists. But by arming them, helpoing them, the USSR was defeated. That was the main job.

Credit Alie North wiht being a visionary - he sawe back then the danger OBL presented and that is why he got caught with his hand in the til - trying to set up a state of the art security system for his home because he knew OBL might come after him.

But pulling out, although the wrong thing to do, should not be considerd cut and run under the circumstances of the times.

But consider it a lesson for today.

Lefty

10-26-2006, 07:22 PM

That's the point Lefty. Bush's court doesn't consider legal arguments just
how they can lie to please their master. Lie, yeah, at that point in which
law briefs become so convulted that our founding fathers go crazy.
Ya got it exactly bkwards. The liberal Supreme Court was about imposing their ideiology on us, not inyterpreting The Constitution. It was te libs on that Court that says the Govt can take our property and give it to private cos in order to increase the Tax base. Unfrknblvble.

PlanB

10-26-2006, 07:30 PM

LOL, I luv'd it when Souter got the property threat. Where would he move
his mother & his cat? LOL, Lefty, your typing more & more like ToeToe.

ljb

10-26-2006, 07:38 PM

Then yuh beetter look again. No state can overrule the supreme court in the abortion decision. Get out from under the moveon rock and learn something.
You can't respond because you have no valid argument.
so all these state referendums to ban abortion are just for show ? 23 states have laws banning late term abortions.
link http://www.abortionfacts.com/partial_birth/state_laws.asp

Lefty

10-26-2006, 10:26 PM

so all these state referendums to ban abortion are just for show ? 23 states have laws banning late term abortions.
link http://www.abortionfacts.com/partial_birth/state_laws.asp
Oh, come on. Talking about abortion per se. We weren't talking late term but abortion in general. When you play poker do you try to change the rules as you go along?

Tom

10-26-2006, 11:15 PM

grando

10-26-2006, 11:25 PM

Whoa Suff,

Suffering a little short term memory loss are ya? Partisan amnesia ala the Clintons who recalled nothing for 8 years and now she wants the top spot. Maybe that hat yer sportin is a bit too tight, cutting the old oxygen flow. You know what they say about people who wear hats, don't ya? Ah, google it if ya don't!

Tehran embassey attack, kidnapping, 365 days or so in captivity, til Reagon came on board to get it "done".

And the very unpresidential president was? How can anyone forget 20-25% interest rates and a horse toothy smile from ear to ear that said "I'm clueless but they voted me in anyway".

Here's a guy that should have been shot for total incompetance and earning his manager, er "damager" legacy. And the winner is? Jimmy "spaceman" Carter.

PaceAdvantage

10-27-2006, 12:26 AM

This may be off-topic, but it ain't the wild west. No more use of the word "libshit" for starters....

ljb

10-27-2006, 08:31 AM

Really reaching, Ljb.
So let me askYOU a question....if life begins at birth, why is there such fuss about late term? Why not abortion jsut before the head comes out of the mother? Why nt stick a big freaking needle through the baby's - excuse me - growth's head? You got a problem with that?
Come on Tom,
I never said I was for abortion. You are stretching it a bit here don't you think ?
Both you and Lefty have tried to spin here.
Of course if we wanted to follow your guidelines, instead of a needle in their heads we could just NUKE em all.

Lefty

10-27-2006, 11:06 AM

Come on Tom,
I never said I was for abortion. You are stretching it a bit here don't you think ?
Both you and Lefty have tried to spin here.
Of course if we wanted to follow your guidelines, instead of a needle in their heads we could just NUKE em all.
lbj, still won't answer a direct question.
Let me ask one: lbj, are you for or against abortion?

luv_america

10-27-2006, 11:45 AM

Lefty,

The biggest problem with the Democratic Party today is that they are a consolidation of "single issue" voters. They all band together on the liberal party line supporting all of the major single issues like, anti-war, anti-Christian, anti-big business, anti-drug company, anti-oil, global warming, abortion, gay marriage rights, income redistibution, social services, and many, many more.

When you are "good" liberal you support all of the single issues, almost like a favor to all the other single issue voters who help you.

ljb may really be against abortion, but I doubt he'll ever tell you that.

Lefty

10-27-2006, 12:06 PM

ljb

10-27-2006, 02:24 PM

lbj, still won't answer a direct question.
Let me ask one: lbj, are you for or against abortion?
Lefty, If you want to do a search, you will find that I posted my personal opposition to abortion years ago on this board. I just think this is a personal decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor, not the federal government. States rights, individual rights ?
Does this answer your question ? How about answering one for me ? What are your thoughts about the federal government eliminating the writ of habeus corpus ? Or how about the federal government getting involved in matters so personal as the right to request DNR as a life ending decison ? Or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ? Just a few of the rights the neocons want to take away from us.

skate

10-27-2006, 05:59 PM

The budget deficit, the trade deficit, the national debt, the increase in bankrupticies, the decrease in the median wage to inflation since he took office, record poverty figures, burgeoning health care costs,and now the real estate market is struggling, increases in foreclosures, and costs of homes down 9.7% from last year. Tell him to take the rose colored glasses off. Rich people are doing well, no doubt about it. And if you can afford heath insurance, you can be comforted that a record 46 million can't afford it.

Your perception of the deficit doesn't gel with the lead budget analyst for the incredibly conservative Heritage Foundation, Brian Riedl, who stated:

"The White House has a track record of projecting budget numbers to be a lot worse than they end up, which therefore helps them defeat the gloomy expectations and declare victory." If Bush manages to make the tax cuts permanent, it will add more than $3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. The budget would be virtually in balance if there had been no tax cuts.

Or here's another eocnomist's point of view on the trade deficit:

"Bush's version of "doing remarkably well" includes a trade gap--a record $69.9 billion in August--up 2.7 percent since July. "Short of a big correction in consumer spending, the best we can hope for is that the trade deficit stabilizes," Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, told Bloomberg.com."

As the following article states:

"When Bush took over in 2001, he had predicted a surplus of $516 billion for fiscal year 2006. Last week, the administration announced a 2006 deficit of $248 billion, missing its projection for this year by $764 billion."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610260145oct26,1,6229189.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

I don't beleive the market reflects on the full stabiltiy of the economy, espeically when the big gainers are people like Halliburton - 25% profits last quarter, or Exxon-Mobil reporting the second highest profits ever, or the defense contractors who are benefitting from a mismanaged and ill advised war in Iraq.

The market is one indicator, but it does not reflect on the poor or many middle class issues above. if you beleive in "trickle down" then you mgiht beleive this is a healthy economy. I don't think so.

GW has been wrong on his proimises since 2001 whether it's been the war or the economy.

Sec;

hang in there babe.
look look if idda known you had all the above, i would started this reply back in 2001.

what happens many times, and i almost always see this from leftys, they go on and on with such excessive detail, which obscures Specific Info. your absence of spicifics ( i can't cover all your points here) can be seen simply by explanations, if you care to digest two points you gave.

hey, if i can follow the examples, then so can you, thanks.

examples #1- to be criticle of George for forcasting (something i 've not heard from him, ) $516 surplus for the year 2006 and your saying he made that statement in 2001, does not make sense to me that he would make such a forcast, i mean why on earth, think about that.
but anyhow, lets say you are correct ( i'm not in doubt that you heard this, but), do you think or recall (me being smart) any pop-ups between then and now, like maybe the war in Iraq? how much spending do the leftys attribute to the war on Terror. but look please, forget about that rubbish, what i say is true, right? in other words, even if what you said on this one little point were correct, it holds No water, it has no real meaning, because you are talking about his prediction (which i never heard), does not hold any accuracy for either side.
now what would hold meaning in regards to your quote is, how is the economy holding up while being subject to the war, high fuel prices, chinas building economy, the outlandish depression from our own people (media leftys) that omit the facts that i'm about to show you and them.

#2- when i show you an untrue statement that you made, please do not think i'm accusing you, i realize that you receive this info from "media Leftys".
look, they do this "all" day long, you said "increase in Bankrupticies", no?
the latest on Bankrupt citizens in the USA (this year), it is down by 2/3.

i hope that you can see that from (if i'm correct) the two above examples, it would be difficult for me to answer all your question, but like i said Excessive detail obscures ANY Specific Info.
and that is a very bad habit, some have picked up from the Media.
just keep repeating, does not mater if it is true or not, say it over and over and then "they will think it to be true.

please, i beg you, do not mistake the fact that i only address 2 issues, with the fact that many of your points are just as wrong.

Secretariat

10-27-2006, 06:42 PM

Skate,

I don't judge the health of the economy solely on the GDP or how the Dow is doing, but there is a reason that the majority of the middle class polling is saying the economy is not going well for them. I'm not for a moment suggesting that for the wealthy it is going quite well.

But I will address one point you make, the issue of bankruptcy. Even though the rules to make it much harder to file bankruptcy filings the filings are "Now" are going back up:

Here's a good article on it and a few excerpts:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/15446916.htm

Tide of personal bankruptcy filings on rise again
Resurgence follows tough reforms that had produced a downturn.
By PAUL WENSKE
The Kansas City Star
Tough congressional reforms aimed last year at halting the record rise in consumer bankruptcies at first appeared to be working. Filings plunged in the first half of 2006 to the lowest levels in 20 years.

But a closer look at court statistics by The Kansas City Star and reports from area experts show that the bankruptcy numbers are steadily rising again.

“What I’m seeing is a slow trend upward to pre-reform levels,” said U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Berger in Kansas City, Kan.

While Berger acknowledged the bankruptcy-reform law made it harder and costlier to file, “what hasn’t changed is that there are still a lot of people with financial stresses in their lives.”

Even supporters of the tougher federal law, which took effect Oct. 17, are looking at the increased filings warily, though they insist the law is wringing abuses from the system. But there is no question many people still struggle.

...

“For us it was almost six months of filing in that first two-week period in October,” recalled John Cisternino, chief deputy clerk of the Bankruptcy Court in Kansas City.

Experts say if you took the 8,000 cases filed there during the first two weeks of October and spread them over the first six months of 2006, the monthly average would amount to nearly 1,500 filings — consistent with the monthly averages over the last five years.

...

Laura Fisher, a spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association, which was among the biggest backers of the reforms, said Congress put “new steps in place that may cut down on the convenience filings that had occurred in the past.” Despite the recent rise in bankruptcies, she said financial institutions were cautiously optimistic the numbers would still remain lower than in past years.

...

After the law went into effect last fall, Chapter 7 filings did drop dramatically. While Chapter 7 filings normally account for about 70 percent of all personal bankruptcies, during the first half of 2006 they plunged to 56 percent of those filings. Now they are creeping back up to 60 percent.

“More Chapter 7’s are coming,” predicted Kansas City bankruptcy lawyer Dan Hall. “The big and bad means test is not that big and bad.”

Hall said people now asking him to file under Chapter 7 have no trouble qualifying under the means test.

But the costs are higher. A Chapter 7 that once cost $500 can now run $1,500 or $2,000, which some lawyers say is one reason more are not being filed. Congress also increased the court filing fee from $155 to $274 for a Chapter 7. In addition, debtors must pay $35 to $50 for a pre-filing credit-counseling course. And in a little-publicized move, Congress takes $20 of each filing fee for financing the global war on terror and the 2005 tsunami relief fund.

Kansas City lawyer Doug B. Breyfogle, who mainly files Chapter 13’s, said their numbers did not drop as much as the Chapter 7 filings. He and other lawyers said some debtors were opting for Chapter 13 — though it costs even more — because it allowed them to pay attorney and court fees over time.

One reason for Chapter 13 filings is homeowners getting in trouble because of the rise in adjustable-rate mortgages and home-equity loans, which are sparking an increase in foreclosures. Some adjustable-rate mortgages are jumping to as much as 12 percent.

“The Chapter 13’s are driven more by the foreclosures than changes in the bankruptcy law,” Breyfogle said.

btw.. GDP only up 1.6% this past month.

Lefty

10-27-2006, 06:47 PM

Lefty, If you want to do a search, you will find that I posted my personal opposition to abortion years ago on this board. I just think this is a personal decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor, not the federal government. States rights, individual rights ?
Does this answer your question ? How about answering one for me ? What are your thoughts about the federal government eliminating the writ of habeus corpus ? Or how about the federal government getting involved in matters so personal as the right to request DNR as a life ending decison ? Or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ? Just a few of the rights the neocons want to take away from us.
I didn't want to do a search, just thght it simpler to ask you. It's a half-assed answer. Beteen a woman and her Dr? Not for me. I'm agin it all the way except for very extinuating circumstances.
Are you a terrorist? If not suspending Habeus Corpus does not apply to you. I'm for the Pres having the tools to fight the fiends that would have us all dead. BTW, Lincoln did it during the Civil war and FDR did all sorts of things.
Not aware the Gov is interfering in the right to Have a DNR. I think a person should have the right to a DNR.
I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. If the majority want an amendment let it fly. It was your own BB Clinton that iniated the Marriage Protection act. John Kerry even disagreed with gays marrying. So there ya go.

grando

10-27-2006, 09:49 PM

loud n clear.

skate

10-28-2006, 02:46 AM

Sec;

on the bankruptcy issue, changes were made and from here it seems they (changes) were in order.
a large part of the increase in bankruptcys (im sure you agree) was do to lenient Judges (need i say lib- type).

so the change was made, so as to let the people that really need "it" have it and those that take advantage of a law along with there greedy lawyers, would have a rough time trying to cheat the banks.

basically, people had enough money, evidently, seen by the large drop in bankruptcy cases.

skate

10-28-2006, 03:07 AM

Sec;

oh yes, i also saw the Early figure on the GDP. still good, average wise.

and many reason for a draw back, otherwise we would have an over heated economy to deal with.

some figures;
Gdp from 1993 till 2000 increased by 3,153.38 billion thats 8 years
gdp from 2001 till 2006 (only 3/4 of the year) increased by 3,114.42 billion, thats 5 3/4years.

what we should see take place is a level economy and a wage increase for workers, not my brainstorm, but rather " it is just what takes place in historic rotation.

side note;
i believe our increase of GDP over the past three years of over 3 trillion is near the total economy of china, which is likely building too fast.

ljb

10-28-2006, 06:10 AM

I didn't want to do a search, just thght it simpler to ask you. It's a half-assed answer. Beteen a woman and her Dr? Not for me. I'm agin it all the way except for very extinuating circumstances.
So then, other then this decision being made by a woman and her Doctor, you agree with me. Thanks for clearing this up.

Are you a terrorist? If not suspending Habeus Corpus does not apply to you. I'm for the Pres having the tools to fight the fiends that would have us all dead. BTW, Lincoln did it during the Civil war and FDR did all sorts of things. You may want to check with the NRA and their "slippery slope" therory. Who defines terrorists ? You know Lefty probably next to a terrorist the worst crime would be pedophillia don't you think? I think they deserve no more rights then a terrorist don't you ? And of course rapists and murders are close behind if not equal in perversity they should be stricken of these rights also don't you think? And what about those who commit murder in the commission of a felony ? Speaking of felonies such grave criminals deserve no more rights then the rest of the aforementioned thugs, don't you think ? Most criminals start with misdemenors and if not corrected eventually end up seasoned criminals commiting felonies. These thugs also deserve to be locked up don't you think. Yessir we are going to have a law abiding nation if we have to throw all those parking ticket scofflaws in jail and throw away the key. We'll clean up this country and eliminate crime for sure.
Not aware the Gov is interfering in the right to Have a DNR. I think a person should have the right to a DNR. Terry Schiavo. Nuff said !

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. If the majority want an amendment let it fly. It was your own BB Clinton that iniated the Marriage Protection act. John Kerry even disagreed with gays marrying. So there ya go.
Well if we are going to take away individual rights of gays we should really look at interracial marriage also and this mingling of religion has to go also. Yessir, blond headed white folks are the only ones that should be allowed to marry in this country don't you think ?
So there ya go.

luv_america

10-28-2006, 10:01 AM

Why don't why just compare the last three years of the Bush economy (created by tax cuts) to the best three years of the Roaring 90's Cinton economy. You'll find them to each be somewhat different but a lot the same.

Voters, you have to ask yourself why was that economy the "GREATEST TIME" and this economy is the dregs? (hint: The same thing happened when Reagan was in office)

PlanB

10-28-2006, 10:04 AM

LOL. Do you thing the FEDs engineered a cooling off of our economy? Like
actually worked up a plan & then implemented it? We are in a tough position
now. If the economy veers toward any RECESSION what could be the FEDs
response? Ah, like go skiing in Vale for a summit? re, Bankruptcies, I think
the numbers are way down but for 2 reasons: (1) Just before the new rules
kicked in, people filed for Total Chapter 7 bankruptcy en masse so the pool
of potentials went down; (2) Now with the HOUSING BUBBLE still hovering,
any Recession will be god awful for everyone, banks included, interest rates,
etc etc etc. ps: I'm a bit worried that this FED is unprepared for this potential.

Tom

10-28-2006, 10:44 AM

A good economy for some is not a good economy for all. There are SERIOUS problems with this economy that are not refelected in unemployment rates or stock prices. Bush and Clinton both shoulder the responsibility for the war on the middle class, but only Bush is in a position to address it. He has not.

ljb

10-28-2006, 11:07 AM

luv_america

10-28-2006, 12:30 PM

Yes, doom and gloom liberals. It was the GREATEST when Clinton was President and now we're all poor.

The BIG problem here is that you cannot convince the America voter that he is POOR enough to vote for your socialism.

On bankrupcies. Please lets not skew the facts. People filed en masse last year becuase the government got involved and make it more beauracratic to file bankrupcy. Debtors now have to go through a few extra legal hoops to file. Debtors were drawn by the hype surrounding it, that many filed fearing that it would be harder next year to do so. Its hardly a key indicator of the economy and is certainly skewed by the extra government interference that happened last year.

46zilzal

10-28-2006, 01:17 PM

what a load of crap

luv_america

10-28-2006, 02:23 PM

what a load of crap

that was an excellent argument to my point.

Lefty

10-28-2006, 10:31 PM

that was an excellent argument to my point.
46 makes those kinds of great aruments as a matter of course. He's a
MASTERDEBATER.

skate

10-28-2006, 10:40 PM

Sec;

my question, what is the purpose of your direction?

my purpose is to divulge falsehood with your beliefs, as stated by you. which in turn, does not mean "im trying to paint a rosey Government" in any direction. just wanted to clarify.

yo babe, you say the following qoute;

"The budget deficit, the trade deficit, the national debt, the increase in bankrupticies, the decrease in the median wage to inflation since he took office, record poverty figures, burgeoning health care costs,and now the real estate market is struggling, increases in foreclosures, and costs of homes down 9.7% from last year. Tell him to take the rose colored glasses off. Rich people are doing well, no doubt about it. And if you can afford heath insurance, you can be comforted that a record 46 million can't afford it."

my replys are;

#1- lets see now, your "increase in bankrupticies" is false and established (down by 2/3).
#2- increase in foreclosers, must happen , because of the higher total mortgages. although i do not know the figures, does not mater.
#3- decrease in wage. could be, but being somewhat conservative (you make your own nest). the GDP in Europe is at $28.00/person.
the GDP in the USA is at $40.00/person.
in my mind, the availability is here in this country. does not mean, i'm pro either party. i'm just giving facts. take em or...
#4-struggling real estate(gee), down from last year (no poop). when you say this, im thinking that you are either kidding, liberal or blinded by some force.
do you mean to say, after the Biggest increase in real estate of ALL time and places, forever and always. that (did you give praise when it increased?) you can expect the real estate market to continue on its record pace forever?
#5 health care cost (keep in mind the cut on the increase during the 90s). this health care cost, is something that has been built into our economy , at least,over the past 40 years. it is why the conservatives fought back all the free money given towards health care during those 40 years.
the increase you refer to is built into our health care system, and when the automatic increase is held back (as happened during the 90s) great praise is given for a lower budgit. but the only thing that happens is the people in need do not get more gov. health care.
god forbid, if Uncle George cuts back on health care. would you cry?

thanks

Secretariat

10-28-2006, 11:12 PM

#1- lets see now, your "increase in bankrupticies" is false and established (down by 2/3).

Over the last year, but not the trend. As I posted (and I'll do it again):

“For us it was almost six months of filing in that first two-week period in October,” recalled John Cisternino, chief deputy clerk of the Bankruptcy Court in Kansas City.

Experts say if you took the 8,000 cases filed there during the first two weeks of October and spread them over the first six months of 2006, the monthly average would amount to nearly 1,500 filings — consistent with the monthly averages over the last five years.

After the law went into effect last fall, Chapter 7 filings did drop dramatically. While Chapter 7 filings normally account for about 70 percent of all personal bankruptcies, during the first half of 2006 they plunged to 56 percent of those filings. Now they are creeping back up to 60 percent.

Bankrupticies are "increasing" (as I said) since the beginning of the year and this DESPITE severe restictions on filing costs and means tests to even file. An increase over every month this year my friend is an increase.

#2- increase in foreclosers, must happen , because of the higher total mortgages. although i do not know the figures, does not mater.

What do you mean it must happen? And it matters to the increased people filing.

#3- decrease in wage. could be, but being somewhat conservative (you make your own nest). the GDP in Europe is at $28.00/person.
the GDP in the USA is at $40.00/person.
in my mind, the availability is here in this country. does not mean, i'm pro either party. i'm just giving facts. take em or...

The latest GDP in September was below significantly below estimates. That's a fact.

#4-struggling real estate(gee), down from last year (no poop). when you say this, im thinking that you are either kidding, liberal or blinded by some force.
do you mean to say, after the Biggest increase in real estate of ALL time and places, forever and always. that (did you give praise when it increased?) you can expect the real estate market to continue on its record pace forever?

In other words exactly as I stated, the real estate market is struggling

#5 health care cost (keep in mind the cut on the increase during the 90s). this health care cost, is something that has been built into our economy , at least,over the past 40 years. it is why the conservatives fought back all the free money given towards health care during those 40 years.
the increase you refer to is built into our health care system, and when the automatic increase is held back (as happened during the 90s) great praise is given for a lower budgit. but the only thing that happens is the people in need do not get more gov. health care.
god forbid, if Uncle George cuts back on health care. would you cry?

Skate,

There are 46 million uninsured people in this country and countless underinsured. Are you denying there are as I said "burgeoning health care costs"?

I think you're being truthful, but I want to post one more time what I actually wrote:

"The budget deficit, the trade deficit, the national debt, the increase in bankrupticies, the decrease in the median wage to inflation since he took office, record poverty figures, burgeoning health care costs,and now the real estate market is struggling, increases in foreclosures, and costs of homes down 9.7% from last year. Tell him to take the rose colored glasses off. Rich people are doing well, no doubt about it. And if you can afford heath insurance, you can be comforted that a record 46 million can't afford it."

All if the above are true. Yuo can argue if you want that bankrupticies are down, but they have been increasing as I said since the year began, AND this is under much tougher means testing. This president has had massive deficits EVERY year in office, and sports the five highest deficits in US history. THe trade deficit is at an all time high. Minimum wage adjusted for inflation is at its lowest buying power since 1951.

As I said, wealthy people are doing well in this economy, but when you do polls of the middle class on the eocnomy you find they're not doing well in this economy. As to the poor don't even bother to ask as poverty is at a high again.

Something is wrong in a country when someone on minimum wage has to work all year to make the same a CEO does before lunch. The division between worker pay and cEO has widened to obscene proportions. This is not good for the country, but yes, it is good for some individuals. FDR called them "economic royalty"

Lefty

10-28-2006, 11:18 PM

I know a lot of people that are doing well in this economy, including me, and like me, they are not rich. I'll take tax cuts over tax increases any friggin day.

Tom

10-29-2006, 12:41 AM

I know a lot - hundreds - who are not doing well at all. In fact, I see people every day worrying about the end of January when thier jobs will disappear.

"Si. We don't need no steenking American laborers!"

Drove down North Stree last night - Five FOR SALE signs in front of emtpy factories that used to employ over 400 people. Used to put food on over 400 tables every day. In under a year, 400 families devastated because you wnat to compete with cheap mexican labor.

I am sure everyone of them would be delighted to hear you are doing well. To bad you don't give crap about them. But you got yours, eh? Well goodie for you. I guess those 400 families were just lazy or something.
Hmmm. LKLaura Bush was in Rochester yesterday, campaigning for local politician on the tax dollars of those 400 families. Seems that money could have been put to better use than ferry her arse around the country, working for a policitcal party at the taxpayer;s expense.

Ya know, we are talking impeachment for a democrat comptroller in NYS becasue he used offical resources to provide chauffer service for his wife. I wish somebody would explain to me how what he did is in the least but different than what Bush is doing???? Except that what he did was chump change compared to what Bushis spending on jhis personal business.

GREAT COUNTRY!

Lefty

10-29-2006, 01:14 AM

Tom, no it's not about i've got mine, but it's about millions doing well. Everybody in any economy don't do well, always some that don't. But when opportunity is there, the ones with the will and imagination can go on to something else. I've always made out in any economy it's just that it was always tougher when dems were in. And don't lay all this immigration crap on Bush. We have 11-20 million illegals here and they didn't all come in the last 6 yrs. Don't try to lay the guilt trip crap on me, doesn't work. There's been times when i didn't have a job and i stayed up all night writing freelance stories, articles, jokes, etc to get a little money. I always fed my family and never applied or got any welfare in my life.
1977 I was out of work and the wife had major surgery and was off a couple months. I learned to count cards and made enough to pay the bills. It was a tough way to make a living but i did it for a few months.
I don't have much in sympathy for anybody that wants to roll over and quit.
So save your friggin tone with me.

Tom

10-29-2006, 01:59 AM

Lefty

10-29-2006, 01:15 AM

Nice spin...sounding more like Ljb today. Illegal immigrant - nice dodge. Hot button, deflect facts. Impressive.

People rolling over and quitting?
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. No idea at all.
I'll keep the tone with ignorance no matter who spouts it, thank you.
Your classifying a lot of good, decent people as quitters is really getting old. You know as much about this as 46 does about Iraq.

I bet you would have been the life of the party during the depression or the dust bowl!

BTW, I 'm still waitng for a reply to my question a long time ago - when you were glorifying all the jobs Bush created.....as to what was the value of the jobs compared to the value of the ones lost? Never did get that. I mean, losing 100 $50K a year jobs being replaced by 110 $25K jobs is technically an increase, but wow! Even Bush shold be able to handle that math. Then again........
Tom, my life is not spin.
As far as value to value, i've never done the calculations. But I do know that tax cuts are better than tax raises. I do know that over 50% of americans are involved in the stock mkt one way or another and the stock mkt has hit record highs. I do know that more americans than ever before own homes.
I do know I've never whined about losing a job. I once quit(again in the late 70's)a $9 hr job cause i don't take crap from anyone and took another making $5. Still never went hungry.0
I've been through many ups and downs so i do know what i'm talking about.
I hate pessimism and whiners.
Some people during the depression and the dust bowl did survive didn't they? Do you think the ones that survived were the whiners or the doers?

JustRalph

10-29-2006, 04:17 AM

Tom, you and Lefty are both right. two points:

1. In this tax crazy economy local taxes have more to do with Jobs and the lack of them, than any other time in history. You want to run off the jobs, raise taxes. I can tell you that in Columbus Ohio the local Government ran off tons of work and several different companies by taxing them into looking elsewhere. And some of them picked up and moved less than 50 miles when offered tax incentives. Taxing yourself right out of the local economy can be done. End of story.

2. In this new economy, you need to be willing to move to where the jobs are. If you aren't willing to move (i.e. to favorable job markets) then time is not your friend. And neither is your local tax levy. it all ties into the larger picture of Nafta and Cafta and who gives a Crapta that started with Bush I and Clinton etc. The immigrants have one thing over most americans. They are willing to pick up and move for a job, a couple of years at a time or six months. If it pays well, they move.

You are both right in some ways.

luv_america

10-29-2006, 07:49 AM

Tom,

I hate to argue with you, but I will take you task for one thing.

You have to ask, why have American manufacturing jobs left? I think a few reasons.

1) The high cost of labor burden as established by labor unions and their associated overhead
2) High taxation (just look how we want to setup special taxations for big business like drug, WalMart, oil, etc, and we'll wonder why they'll leave)
3) Legal liability (why get sued in your factory when the Chinese can ship you the product)
4) Environmental regulations - the cost of complicance have killed companies
5) General govenment regulations

I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats for this, but these jobs have disappeared on everyone's watch. Granted I'm encouraged that they've been replaced by service, information or financial secor jobs for the most part, and people have to adapt.

I'll start a thread on this some day, but the creeping devil in our economy is this thing called Sarbanes-Oxley, which Preseident Bush signed into law as a reaction to the Enron crisis. This puppy is killing big and small businesses alike. Companies are going private faster than ever, and newer companies are finding better ways to avoid going public in the first place. This in turn probably stifles growth of the economy at some point.

Aslo, when companies don't make it to go public and still get the capital to grow, its the "private equity" and "hedge fund" firms that make all the money. I'm not saying at all that this is wrong, as they take the risk and put up the equity, however it effects the rest of the economy because the public never gets to share in the weath or success of such companies.

The costs going in to Sarbanes-Oxley are worse than union overhead. This law should be repealed immediately. We need to get back to common sense, not EXTREME government regulation.

Tom

10-29-2006, 10:30 AM

And let's not forget Bush totally ignoring the trade abuses of the chinneses. And his signing of CAFTA. And his refusal to enfore imimgration laws and hold employers accoutnabel for hiring illegals.

But, hey, I understand he has been busy - attended 90 fund raisers so far thie year. I guess keeping control of the house, senate, and Ku Klux Kourt and not accomplishing anyhting of substance is a prioirty - two more years of nothing important. Stay the course, if you will.

Your 5 points are partial contibutors. why, to actually change any of them would take...what's the word? Oh, yeah....governrment leadership and responsibility. If only bush came to the defense of the middle class as fast he did the Dubai ports guys, Hasslert covering up perverts, and illegal immigrants invading our country.

This guy has done a few things right, but his overall performance is he has been bad for America.

skate

10-29-2006, 08:41 PM

Secretariat

10-29-2006, 10:18 PM

SEC;

ya ok sec. bankrups.... ARE DOWN by 2/3, two F...THIRDS .

not on an increase .

hey ,, go ahead put in al l the bull shit you prefer.
i didn't expect that crap, but i live and learn.

ya got nothing

Yeah, I got nothing. Even with the restrictions put in last year on bankruptcy, AND massive filings last October before the law is enacted, bankruptices have been up almost every month this year. And as for foreclsoures, I've posted a link as far back as March, and when the new rates adjust next year and people with creative mortgaging see what their payments are get ready for new records.

http://www.legalhelpers.com/legal_helpers/brc_articles_foreclosures.html

March 27, 2006
Foreclosures Skyrocket Nationwide

The real estate boom that Americans have seen for the past several years is beginning to subside. In January 2006, Realtytrac (www.realtytrac.com) reported a 45% increase in foreclosures nationwide over the same time period last year. This is an astounding increase in one year. It was also a 27% increase over the previous month. The biggest reason for this increase has been attributed to the rising interest rates and the amount of homes on the market. This increase has put the nationwide foreclosure rate closer to the historic average of 1% of all homeowners.

...

Beleive what you want. You address none of the other issues I posted but seem fixated on bankruptcies without taking into account the new costs in filing. What about the deficits mentioned or the poverty figures or the median wage. Don't they matter.

Lefty

10-29-2006, 10:23 PM

sec, so you are blaming the Repubs for peoples' inability to manage their finances? Did you also blame the Dems when they were in for peoples' failings?

JustRalph

10-30-2006, 04:32 AM

The housing market has been over the top for a long time. I have a house that I haven't been able to move for a year. The entire state of Ohio is in a real estate slump. everybody is losing their asses. This has been predicted for a long while. Well it happen in Ohio about a year or more back. And it is hanging on. I have seen several houses in my neighborhood east of columbus go into foreclosure because people have lost jobs or had to move to follow jobs etc. they can't afford two houses and they have to give one up. I am trying to wait it out. But I see at least a 15-25 percent loss in my house no matter what happens in the next couple of years. There is no other way to get around the inflated values. I made tons of money on my house in California in just one year, and I will probably be giving it all back on this house in Columbus. At least over time I will have a wash. Most don't.

I blame the builders and Real Estate agents. They fed this bubble and rode it for every damn dime it was worth all the while having knowledge of what was going to happen. I have personally witnessed some pretty crappy treatment by Real Estate Agents and builders over the last few years. They deserve much of the blame. But of course.........people kept on buying........

ljb

10-30-2006, 07:06 AM

And what about the mortgage brokers and banks ? Don't you think they deserve some of the blame also ? And then the people, aren't they responsible for their own actions ?
As for bankrupticies, a majority of bankruptcies occur because of unexpected catastrophic medical expenses.

TRUEFREEDOM

10-30-2006, 09:33 AM

Luv you're right there isnt a republican that wants to see G.W. impeached. In fact that are a few who would like to see him run for a 3rd term. But we know the Constitution doesnt allow such a thing. And I for one don't want to see the Constitution changed one bit. Because all it will do is expedite the destruction of the greatest country on the planet as those from the "MoveOn" organization are trying hard to do. It is quite obvious to many of us that it is happening and we won't just stand by and watch. There are things taking place in this country that do concern me and the welfare of "MY" children. It is become more and more prevelant these days with the bashing of Christian/Judeo beliefs and the "propping" up of others by the same group(s). Saying you cant teach such beliefs in public schools because it violates the seperation of church and state laws. Meanwhile in a few public schools they are teaching children muslim ways with no objection from the ACLU or other groups.

here is some interesting reading.

WHY JOHNNY IS READING ISLAMIC PROPAGANDA

Critics Charge Muslim Radicals Determining Textbook Content

Bob Unruh © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com Oct. 29, 2006

Islam is being taught in the nation’s public schools as a religion to be embraced because "organized Islamists have gained control of textbook content," according to an organization that analyzes textbooks.

The American Textbook Council has concluded that the situation is the consequence of "the interplay of determined Islamic political activists, textbook editors, and multiculturally minded social studies curriculum planners."

Full Text Link Here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52623

TRUEFREEDOM, I KNOW YOU ARE NEW, SO THIS IS A REMINDER NOT TO POST THE FULL TEXT OF ANY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. ONE OR TWO PARAGRAPHS AND A LINK TO THE FULL TEXT ARTICLE IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED (and allowed).

THANKS - PA

Secretariat

10-30-2006, 10:26 AM

True,

I've gone off the thread on occasions, but I am still struggling to see where your post has anything remotely to deal with the topic of this thread - dumping our money.

TRUEFREEDOM

10-30-2006, 01:17 PM

We can talk about all the money thats being spent in Iraq and I do believe that the reason why we went there is valid. However I do believe that solving a problem thru a military action should always be considered last. And patience with Sadam had completely run out. Since 9/11 there have been a few attacks made on U.S. soil but they were carried out by individuals and not by an organized group as Al-queda. Is it money well spent ? In the name of safety I have to say yes, absolutely. Looking back at the topic I had posted about the muslim religion being taught, esentially, in our schools when Christian/Judeo ideals are trashed in the media. I find it a total waste of public funds and a slight to the memory of those that died on 9/11. Its almost as if it were reliving 9/10/01 over and over.

46zilzal

10-30-2006, 01:19 PM

do you sleep better at night waving the flag all day?

luv_america

10-30-2006, 01:41 PM

46, don't take this as an attack. Mostly, I don't care what you post.

It might be a good plan to post an idea once in a while. At least Secretariat and Indulto gives an argument and makes a point. It gives us something to debate. Frankly, your posts are a void of a point.

Sheesh.

46zilzal

10-30-2006, 01:42 PM

gee am I being graded here? I give a poop

46zilzal

10-30-2006, 02:11 PM

luv_america

10-30-2006, 02:38 PM

46, my class as a person prevents me from going further with you.

46zilzal

10-30-2006, 02:42 PM

my goodness now I can sleep tonight!

TRUEFREEDOM

10-30-2006, 03:38 PM

I sleep well at nigtht as long as my bulldog doesnt wake me to let him out. Other than that I do sleep well at night. Under the very blanket provided to me and my family by the U.S. of A.

ljb

10-30-2006, 04:51 PM

And yet another paid neocon hack enters the fray. You guys must be getting desperate. :lol:

luv_america

10-30-2006, 05:08 PM

Another new guy disagrees with you, so go right for the hack job. That's a nice welcome from a tolerant liberal like you who really wants to debate the issues.

Lefty

10-30-2006, 05:21 PM

And yet another paid neocon hack enters the fray. You guys must be getting desperate. :lol:
Can you prove he's paid? You wouldn't like it someone said you were a pd socialist hack, now would'ja? Huh, huh, huh?

PaceAdvantage

10-30-2006, 07:45 PM

And yet another paid neocon hack enters the fray. You guys must be getting desperate. :lol:

You guys all brought this upon yourselves with your constant barrage of anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-everything postings.

As an observer outside the fray (most of the time), I will admit to being pleased to see the Republican righties on this board, who were being beaten down day-in and day-out by the Democratic lefties who dominate off-topic, get reinforcements.

njcurveball

10-30-2006, 08:18 PM

Whether you are a Republican rightie or a Lefty Democrat or a donkey or an elephant, you should embrace your freedom as an American.

Every day we are faced with tough choices. What to eat for Breakfast, what to eat for lunch, what to eat for dinner, what to watch on TV, how far to drive our cars, where to go at night to have fun, etc. etc.

When you label another person, you basically are labeling yourself. And that label really doesn't fit someone who calls themself an American.

We should all agree that we are all different. Because when people are different and come together, the whole is stronger than any of the parts.

Jim

TRUEFREEDOM

10-30-2006, 08:20 PM

And yet another paid neocon hack enters the fray. You guys must be getting desperate. :lol:

I don't feel paid.

PaceAdvantage

10-30-2006, 08:28 PM

When you label another person, you basically are labeling yourself. And that label really doesn't fit someone who calls themself an American.

We should all agree that we are all different. Because when people are different and come together, the whole is stronger than any of the parts.

Jim

And that's why, in every single post of mine in off-topic, I don't think I have ever labeled someone personally in terms of Liberal, Conservative, Neocon, Leftist, etc....

There are some who deserve these kinds of labels, but I have made sure to personally never use these labels when posting with others on off-topic.

I'm sure I may have screwed up once or twice in the past, but it should be a rarity if anyone is dumb enough to try and prove me wrong....lol

PlanB

10-30-2006, 08:58 PM

Isn't that just like you, PA, so tolerant, no labels, no judgments. Your a fine
example to others, as you should be, my leader, Together NO 1 will prove us
wrong ... LOL.

chickenhead

10-30-2006, 09:12 PM

I don't feel paid.

But you do feel like a neocon hack?

Tom

10-30-2006, 09:22 PM

True,

I've gone off the thread on occasions, but I am still struggling to see where your post has anything remotely to deal with the topic of this thread - dumping our money.

OK, it's not just me then.

JustRalph

10-30-2006, 10:42 PM

Let's all go to the war room and type the lyrics to god bless america in unison.

That's a joke on Congress.......boy!

http://www.jwccpa.com/images/foghorn.gif

luv_america

10-31-2006, 12:17 AM

A new conservarive comes to the board, and he gets labeled:

- neocon (aka Jew)
- hack

Aren't liberals supposed to be tolerant (except when they're mouthpiece gets busted up like its being busted up here, hehehehehhe)?

ljb

10-31-2006, 07:53 AM

I don't feel paid.
Let me introduce you to Lefty. Lefty will explain to you how a $300 tax rebate is your pay.

luv_america

10-31-2006, 08:06 AM

Truefreedom,

Don't bother with ljb or 46. They just post one-sentence insults. They're not into debating ideas, or coming up with plans, just complaints, rants, and supression.

TRUEFREEDOM

10-31-2006, 09:36 AM

Let me introduce you to Lefty. Lefty will explain to you how a $300 tax rebate is your pay.

I don't feel like I got a rebate. In fact the government owes us more than $300. All that money wasted on social programs. Whatever happened to midnight basketball ?

Lefty

10-31-2006, 11:02 AM

Let me introduce you to Lefty. Lefty will explain to you how a $300 tax rebate is your pay.
Weaker than water.

46zilzal

10-31-2006, 11:19 AM

Truefreedom,

Don't bother with ljb or 46. They just post one-sentence insults. They're not into debating ideas, or coming up with plans, just complaints, rants, and supression.
the clowns at the helm are responsible for plans no one else

Lefty

10-31-2006, 11:32 AM

the clowns at the helm are responsible for plans no one else
46, if you continually dump on the plans of the admin then it would be reasonable to assume you know of better plans and what they are. But since you never elaborate on anything you come across as just a socialist that hates conservatives.

luv_america

10-31-2006, 11:45 AM

lefty,

we'll never find out what 46 thinks. Lets leave him be. There are better fish to fry here (that have been noticeably quieter).

ljb

10-31-2006, 11:53 AM

I don't feel like I got a rebate. In fact the government owes us more than $300. All that money wasted on social programs. Whatever happened to midnight basketball ?
You may be correct about all that money. This administration has increased domestic spending more then any administration since lbj's admin. Whatever happened to those good old Republican fiscal values ? Neocons put them aside for shame, for shame. When the Republicans regain control of their party, I may consider a Republican candidate. But, with the neocon's firm grip on the party, it may be awhile.
Aside to luv_some_Americans,
I am busy talking to middleclass voters, getting out the vote and will be posting less for the next week. If you are still here after the election we can talk more then. :D

46zilzal

10-31-2006, 11:56 AM

You fight it out amongst yourselves.

luv_america

10-31-2006, 12:15 PM

Luv,

When you talk to middle class voters, getting out the vote, are you telling them the truth about your party. Are you telling them that your party wants to repeal their tax cut, send our troops home in national disgrace, adhere to foreign laws when making Supreme Court pronouncements, begin impeachment proceedings against the president, and make gay marriage legal in your state?

Just checking to make sure you're being honest with them.

Also, for the record, George Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative. I have many areas where I disagree with him, and this one of the big ones.

Lefty

10-31-2006, 12:15 PM

lbj, the best thing for middleclass america is to keep the tax cuts in place and to win the war on terror. In that respect, you're stumping for the wrong party.

luv, I respond to 46, cause i love to expose him, and expose and keep on exposing. Don't worry, plenty of fried fish for all.

Lefty

10-31-2006, 12:21 PM

Congress does the spending and there are still plenty of dems in congress. And i blve they've hid a lot of spending in important bills, so without the line item veto the Pres cght between a rock and the proverbial hard place. And then there's the matter of baseline budgeting. Sigh...

Secretariat

10-31-2006, 02:08 PM

Also, for the record, George Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative.

This may be the most truthful post ever made on this board.

Lefty

10-31-2006, 05:42 PM

This may be the most truthful post ever made on this board.
sec, well, the dems while criticizing Bush for spending(imagine that)still want more money for evertrhing under the sun, so think we'd be in worse shape under dem rule, so voting REPUB>

skate

11-01-2006, 04:08 PM

Sec;

ok ya, i avoided lots of what you stated, only because if you can't see by my example given, then why should i keep going on and on, only to confuse the issues further.

basically or not so basic, you have stated (always) how things (bankr..mortgages) have gone Up. and what i am saying is "of coarse certain issues will go up", because the economy has gone up, as NO other economy in the History Of The World.

simple, we will have (my example) 1 bankruptcy for every 10 mortgages.
so when we go from 10 mortgages per year to 20 mortgages, then the defaults will also increase.

and when we see the biggest increase in property, housing markets, over such a short term, then we will also see a larger drop. yes the pricing for housing in the areas of the country where we had the biggest increase, will have a bigger decline than the areas that did not increase.

the only issues we can address fairly, should be address either on a yearly or monthly or daily or every five years, whatever, but it makes No sense for me to address an issue yearly and then you give me a monthly comparison.

look look, how about if i respond to the economic situation by telling you (this is true) that Personnel Income grew by .5% in Sept 06, that would be a 6% increase in PI for the year and it is a fact. but i would be carefully plucking specifiics out from the whole picture.

you see, i can not move from the fact that the BR rates are down and (hate wafting) you say they were Up.

if you take the unemployment of Mich at 7% then you must find that someplace else the rate would be at 1% if overal the rate is 4.5%.

if you take the companies that move from the USA and relate to how business is not very good, then you must also figure that new compaies have increased; because overall we have an econmy that is unequal to any other economy in the world....

and and and,yes, our debt should also increase (debt is good/ if you wanna make money) because or economy did (is) increase ...

Secretariat

11-01-2006, 07:29 PM

...
and and and,yes, our debt should also increase (debt is good/ if you wanna make money) because or economy did (is) increase ...

I'm not going to rehash the same arguments over and over. The median wage is down according to the government's Bureau of Labor and Statisics when adjusted for inflation despite what may have occurred in Spetember. Min. wage has lost almost 80 cents to inflation since 1997. That's a huge indirect tax on the poor.

But I disagree with you about national debt. I don't beleive "debt is good/if you wanna make money". Debt is sometimes necessary to get started, but building five of the highest deficits in US history during his presidency and never running a surplus is not sound fiscal policy. I'm not a tax and spender. I am all for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and voted for Dole in 96. I will never be fooled by the non-fiscal conservatives again. This Republican Congress and administration has spent more money than any administration in history. Their illusion of a tax cut which is simply borrowing from their kid's future for poltical gain is reprehensible. You can't have a tax cut when in fact you owe money. As Jefferson said, "Never spend your money before you have it." That's what this administration has been doing for the last 6 years.
I simply disagree that debt is good and massive deficits are a good thing for the country as well as a lower median wage. If you think that's "good", then I can understand why you beleive this is a good economy.

TRUEFREEDOM

11-01-2006, 09:23 PM

You may be correct about all that money. This administration has increased domestic spending more then any administration since lbj's admin. Whatever happened to those good old Republican fiscal values ? Neocons put them aside for shame, for shame. When the Republicans regain control of their party, I may consider a Republican candidate. But, with the neocon's firm grip on the party, it may be awhile.
Aside to luv_some_Americans,
I am busy talking to middleclass voters, getting out the vote and will be posting less for the next week. If you are still here after the election we can talk more then. :D

The middle class suffers no matter who is in charge. "WE" just suffer more when the dems are running things. TAX TAX TAX. Tax cuts are good for the economy and until the dems agree and actually follow through with tax cuts then I will vote conservative/republican. As in prior elections if the turn out is heavy then it will mean doom for the dems. Low turn out then the dems have a good chance. So get out and vote everyone.

ljb

11-02-2006, 05:27 AM

The middle class suffers no matter who is in charge. "WE" just suffer more when the dems are running things. TAX TAX TAX. Tax cuts are good for the economy and until the dems agree and actually follow through with tax cuts then I will vote conservative/republican. As in prior elections if the turn out is heavy then it will mean doom for the dems. Low turn out then the dems have a good chance. So get out and vote everyone.
Am I to believe taxes are your only reason for voting Republican ? Remember when the republican mantra was "tax and spend dems"? Whatever happened to the spend part of that mantra ? So you would rather just pass this mess on to your heirs, typical neocon greed, don't you think ?
Average wages increased about 3 percent average inflation about 4.3 percent. Healthcare costs up 60 percent in last 5 years. And your still trying to tell us the middleclass is not suffering more now then when dems were running the show ? Get real !

grando

11-02-2006, 09:10 AM

Not really, 10 obvious reasons to vote Republican:

1. Kerry

2. Clinton

3. Clinton

4. Gore

5. Kennedy (all of 'em - especially the fat alchy)

6. Rangel (Waters' zookeeper)

7. Waters (Maxine - the one who belongs in a cage)
DNC. Black caucus racists, Ruth Ginzburg bench legislator, etc, regain
freedom of speech, press etc......... , voluntary privatized SS account
like the ones your senators and congressman apparently have BUT
YOU CAN'T!
8. Dean
9. Socialist republic of California
10. Socialist republic of Massachusetts, Colorado etc.

Do the math on # 7 SS accounts, why would the Dems call it the best deal in town? I've seen some pretty impressive dicussions here about inflation and the like from the lefties and I need you to help me out with this one. Why can I choose to kill my unborn baby but I can't choose to invest a portion of my SS $ taxes to fund my retirement without deficits? You may recall the Dems walked out on this discussion and killed it, yet they are enjoying it themselves today as we speak! If this is true, hmmm something is clearly "rotten in the state of Dem land" on this point.

Keep your emotions in check if you can - I just want to know the "logic" behind it.

TRUEFREEDOM

11-02-2006, 10:10 AM

7. Waters (Maxine - the one who belongs in a cage)
DNC. Black caucus racists, Ruth Ginzburg bench legislator, etc, regain
freedom of speech, press etc......... , voluntary privatized SS account
like the ones your senators and congressman apparently have BUT
YOU CAN'T!

Apparently ? Dude they have it and dont want to share it with the rest of us. After all they know whats best for the average american.

Secretariat

11-02-2006, 11:54 AM

grando,

10 reasons to vote Democratic

1. Bush
2. Cheney
3. Rumsfeld
4. Rice
5. Wolfowitz
6. Feith and Perle
7. Rove
8. Libby
9. Iraq
10. Ralph Reed- Jack Abramoff- Grover Norquist

Damn, I can’t even fit Limbaugh and Hannity in or Novak.

grando

11-02-2006, 12:23 PM

Thanks, BUT the original question was - well you can read it more slowly above, again, and then understand my reply.

Secondly, you did not respond to the part of my write-up that requested a response in the first place. Please read it slowly, not a trick question.

Sorry, but you can't google the answer either. You can take a pass on answering as well - no problem. Please stick to answering the question if you can.

TRUEFREEDOM

11-02-2006, 01:53 PM

Tom

11-02-2006, 05:22 PM

5. Kennedy (all of 'em - especially the fat alchy)

Isn't that ALL of them anyway? :rolleyes::lol:

skate

11-02-2006, 05:42 PM

yo ho de oh ho, hey Sec me boy;

oh, how ya gonna lovvve this. and try some digesting while your at IT.
let me start with my previous question, i asked before. notice, i don't go off assumptively bout you.
please give me the point you are making. and paaalease stop with the impulsive insolent democraticly styled use of words such as "massive" (did i use massive/where did that come from?).

I'm not going to rehash the same arguments over and over. The median wage is down according to the government's Bureau of Labor and Statisics when adjusted for inflation despite what may have occurred in Spetember. Min. wage has lost almost 80 cents to inflation since 1997. That's a huge indirect tax on the poor.

But I disagree with you about national debt. I don't beleive "debt is good/if you wanna make money". Debt is sometimes necessary to get started, but building five of the highest deficits in US history during his presidency and never running a surplus is not sound fiscal policy. I'm not a tax and spender. I am all for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and voted for Dole in 96. I will never be fooled by the non-fiscal conservatives again. This Republican Congress and administration has spent more money than any administration in history. Their illusion of a tax cut which is simply borrowing from their kid's future for poltical gain is reprehensible. You can't have a tax cut when in fact you owe money. As Jefferson said, "Never spend your money before you have it." That's what this administration has been doing for the last 6 years.
I simply disagree that debt is good and massive deficits are a good thing for the country as well as a lower median wage. If you think that's "good", then I can understand why you beleive this is a good economy.

now. oh yes, nobody goes anyplace without debt. unless it's the grave yard.
and by the way, if we had invested in to the market, when Unk George suggested, we'ed a been outta the Soc.Sec. situation right bout NOW!

give me some more dat Jefferson "hot stuff" you got. but, do recall, they needed "Mad Tom" in order to put maters in proper form. that's where "the skate" comes to bat.
you see, you have lots of good ideas bout nice things(help for people) and things not so nice(debt). but you confuse (maybe yourself) others when you use words like "Massive", when you refer to 2% of GDP. tis not.
keep in mind, "deficit and National Debt" are separate issues.

for examples of why the Bushey admin, had to spend as much as they did, we can look at the previous admin. , which had an economy in need of "financial controls".
today we sent Sanjax Kumar to jail for 12 years, for fraud (2.2 Billion $), that's one guy who attributed to a false economy. i could give you over 100 others that did the same during the 90s, that's where i stopped counting, 100, such as Enron, worldcom, etc.
how much did, the Poor People (thru pension etc.) lose because of that phony economic system, how much money did they (working man) pay towards taxes to balance the False economic error of the 90s? those that sold stock or a business, and paid taxes to a false econmy and then later (if luckey) received a lose carry over from the next administrations account.

and and and , how bout the cut backs during the 90s, 20% at the very least, cut back from "the military" alone. think about how much the Bushey adm. had to put back into the Military, just to satisfy present needs.
look hard, because when you cut back 20% to make your books look good and then you try to add that much back in the desense system, you are talking about at the very least 40%.

so now you goona act all funny because we have a 2% over budget. and sure, go ahead, feel right at home and use the word "Massive".

Nat. Debt, is another concern. during the 90s, the Nat. Debt rose also. bonds were sold at a record pace and those bonds are now being paid back. a small increase in the Nat. debt has taken place, just as it has for meany years.
it is now 8.6 Billion and our economy does that in less than one year.

i've posted this before. look it up. some (enough)points are in Wykopidia?
6 periods of Significant Surpluses and Debt reduction, as follows.

the last being 1920-1930 (33% debt reduction), we had 1929.
1880-1893 (50% debt reduction) 1893
1867-1873 (27% debt reduction) 1873 (the panic of)

ya gotta think,

PlanB

11-02-2006, 06:35 PM

Okay, the Gov't spends OUR money, to the tune of about ~1 Trillion on the
Iraq fiasco. And the 1T figure may be an under-statement. Now think:
our population is aging & we are entering a low-growth, low employment
period. ummm, tax revenue may not look so keen in the days ahead, but
this administration shows no signs of less spending, not on social programs,
but on war. And the war casualties that will follow. And how about corp profits? ummm, I don't think many corps will invest big bucks given the dreary
time-period ahead. And don't forget the housing bubble, cause bank stocks
will take a dip too. Budget deficits do exist & are real & the national debt is
rising & MAY lead to one very real consequence: Who will want our dollars?
There are many ways to make big bucks & US holdings are just ONE such
way, but NOT nearly as attractive as before this administration.

Secretariat

11-02-2006, 07:15 PM

Secretariat

11-02-2006, 07:17 PM

Or maybe you prefer a bar graph depiction.

Lefty

11-02-2006, 07:44 PM

Secretariat

11-02-2006, 09:29 PM

The price of freedom mr B. BTW, the National debt is lowest it's been in 4 yrs.
Why don'tcha spread your negativety around the office of the corp you work for? Or there, do you masquerade as a conservative?

Lefty,

That's simply not true.

Jan. 19, 2001 - $5,727,776,738,304.64
Jan 1, 2005 - $7,591,307,997,129.40
Dec 31, 2005 - $8,170,424,541,313.62
Jan 1, 2006 - $8,153,881,581,212.99
Nov .1, 2006 - $8,571,794,835,082.73

Check for yourself.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi

Snag

11-02-2006, 10:04 PM

Lefty,

That's simply not true.

Jan. 19, 2001 - $5,727,776,738,304.64
Jan 1, 2005 - $7,591,307,997,129.40
Dec 31, 2005 - $8,170,424,541,313.62
Jan 1, 2006 - $8,153,881,581,212.99
Nov .1, 2006 - $8,571,794,835,082.73

Check for yourself.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi

Sec, are you really sure you want to post this link as support?

Lefty

11-02-2006, 10:34 PM

I saw it on the news the a couple weeks ago. Guess they were wrong. Oh well, I don't care, i got mine. heeeeeeeee...heeeeee.heeee
"but Lefty, the sky is falling."
heeeeee...heeee...heeee

Tom

11-02-2006, 11:22 PM

Lefty

11-02-2006, 11:39 PM

Tom, it was on the news it is lowest it's been in 4 yrs. Don't know if it's true, don't really care because if the economy keeps humming it gets pd dn. It's a "straw man" these people who prefer socialism always use when Repubs are in.

grando

11-02-2006, 11:50 PM

Tom,

You are probably correct. They either crash planes, ski into trees etc.

The old man was a hell of a bootlegger, survived, as did the alchy who did his impersonation of eveil Knieval at Chappa... whatever some 40 yrs ago.

Only problem is the fat alchy belongs in Norway where the socialism fits but I doubt they would take him. We're stuck with him. :ThmbDown:

46zilzal

11-03-2006, 02:12 AM

looks like it continues to rise as Wikipedia shows. 1980 to 1990 is a huge jump percentage wise.

Lefty

11-03-2006, 11:07 AM

skate

11-03-2006, 04:00 PM

Skate,

You're just plain wrong. Deficts help to contribute to the deficit. As to lower median wages, and poverty record figures, they don't help either. Of course when you in essence tax people on the minimum wage it is not surprising, but let's look historically of trickle down polices in terms of debt from whitehouse.gov

Sec;

yo yoo buddy, if nescessary i may go on another "title" page.

your graph didn't transfer (?), doesn't mater.

i keep bringing to somebodies attention, the fact that "Deficit" and "debt" are at least (three) two seperate figures and they have difference in meaning.

but when you say (above) "Deficits help to contribute to the deficit", i say No poop.

the deficit,really and truely, does not hinder our economy. why, because that money is either in the "Hands of the Gov." or it is in the "Hands of the people (citizens of the USA)".

right now, the only concern, is the Nat.debt. not a problem, only a concern, sure.
this is important, i'm sure you know, because these figures represent money in our economy (defict) and money outside of our economy (debt).

now , we know that it is said (falsely) that Clinton did balence the Deficit. which says, he put more money into the hands of the Gov.. to do this, he took it from the people. now if you want to say he took from the rich (BS) only, fine, but then the rich would not have as much money to give to others, right.

now the serious part of our economy "Nat.Debt", is where the Clinton adm. added to the increase.
just one question, is it clear that Clinton added to the Nat. Debt? and is it understood, this is the part of our economic situation that should be watched. let me add, it is not a problem, nor is it close to any problem at this time.

and is it agreed that the higher our economy goes (GDP) , the higher amount of debt we can sustain.?

i did ask,(maybe not) what is your direction, we might be able to save time, hereabouts.

skate

11-03-2006, 04:14 PM

put these figures in proper perspective

yes indeed, $8.5 trillion is big time.
you have to compare that figure to "something". is it big time to compare it to $13.5 trillion, i doubt that.

ex. lets say you make $100,000 and you buy a house or boat (as long as it is not wasted) for good reason, and you go into debt for $80,000 over 20 years.

that is what we are looking into, the fact that the Gov. spends on worthwhile causes is key to the fact that we are NOT spending our children future. rather we are GIVING them a gift (schools, roads, hospital. milatery, etc.), which cost us less now than it would cost them in the future.

skate

11-03-2006, 04:36 PM

when you look into the debt, you must look at "how much is the person (or country) making".

of coarse the debt goes up up and quess what, up again, always. what happens when we cut back on debt? hey i'm only looking at the figures from past history.

Wiki, from;
1791 debt was $75,400,000.00
1835 debt was at the lowest point, $33,733.00, actually it went to zero.
guess what, we crashed.in 1837.
1852 (debt was up again) thru 1857, again they cut back 59%.
we crashes in 1857
1867 (debt going up) thru 1873 we cut back by 26%.
they called it, in (1873) panic of 1873. but they were learning.
1880 thru 1893, again they cut 50%
bang, crash, 1893.

when will they learn?
1920 thru 1930, once more, they cut by 32%.
yep, crash of 1929.

so now we are looking at a building up of our econmy for 85years and the more (responsibe) we go into debt, the more economically stronger we grow. and that is what we give to our children.

and here comes somebody that says "we can't handle the debt".
Others say, get the f... outta da way.

just so we know
i don't like the gov
i don't like big busness
i don't like religion (for myself)
can't stand the media
i do not vote

skate

11-03-2006, 04:41 PM

the debt went higher from 1993 to 2000 by;

$1,262,689,327.
even if you balence the budget.

one way is to sell more bonds, which are paid back by the next administration.

PlanB

11-03-2006, 07:53 PM

Yes SKATE,
"yes indeed, $8.5 trillion is big time.
you have to compare that figure to "something". is it big time to compare it to $13.5 trillion, i doubt that."

HUH? The only way this country gets away with this deficit is because
of our military might + our economic clout --- and the military might is #1
factor, reinforcing #2. Oh how dreary. We could do so much better if we
had a president who knew money. Not many know the power of money.
SKATE, you keep a rosy picture of debt comparing it to buying a boat, on credit no doubt, yet every boat owner knows that the price of the boat is the least expense; using it costs more. Hey, i get your analogy, but its a wasteful mind set. What you're really saying is that WE, the USA, because of our might,
have nothing to fear. We don't even have to repay our debts, if we chose,
and what can anyone do about it? Thank you Buddha that Robert Rubin got
his way when confronting just that philosophy.

Secretariat

11-03-2006, 08:30 PM

Well, know I heard it and looky, here's a link and if you google deficit lowest in 4 years you'll find more articles.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deficit12oct12,0,5575449.story?coll=la-home-nation

one more.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/11/news/economy/budget_deficit.reut/index.htm

Deficit Lefty not Debt. And we're still talking about huge deficits. GW has presided over the five highest is US history. That is not fiscally conservative. That adds to the debt. Deficit is for each individual year.

Secretariat

11-03-2006, 08:45 PM

Sec;

but when you say (above) "Deficits help to contribute to the deficit",

If I did I typed incorrectly and meant "Deficits help to contribute to the debt"

the deficit,really and truely, does not hinder our economy. why, because that money is either in the "Hands of the Gov." or it is in the "Hands of the people (citizens of the USA)".

I disagree, because it adds billions of dollars to the debt. Money that goes to nothing. Also when you say it goes to the "Hands of the people" it is in the form of a "loan". I didn't object when GW intially wanted deficits to jump start the economy, but it's been HUGE deficit spending, and nothing is "trickling down". Median wage can't keep up with inflation and the minimum wage has the same buying power as in 1951. This is why poll after poll shows the middle class dissatisfied with the economy. It's an economy that has created more and more division between CEO pay and regular workers. Economists disagree on this jump start deficti approach, but even the Fed. Chair Greenspan spoke about the significant dangers of these continual deficits before he retired. Makes sense, you don't spend more than you have. We don't in our own life, but you seem to advocate it as sound fiscal policy for government. We all need to take out a loan sometime, but not on a giant credit card that just keeps expanding.

right now, the only concern, is the Nat.debt. not a problem, only a concern, sure.
this is important, i'm sure you know, because these figures represent money in our economy (defict) and money outside of our economy (debt).

THe deficit ADDS to the debt. Look at the parallel growth of the debt in comparision with the deficits. It's almost a mirror.

now , we know that it is said (falsely) that Clinton did balence the Deficit. which says, he put more money into the hands of the Gov.. to do this, he took it from the people. now if you want to say he took from the rich (BS) only, fine, but then the rich would not have as much money to give to others, right.

now the serious part of our economy "Nat.Debt", is where the Clinton adm. added to the increase.

Of course he did. Interest on the debt continues to expand it. But it's a shame you can't see the graph I posted. I suggest you go to the website I posted that shows as a percentage of GDP the debt was much lower under Clinton than Bush. I'll try to find that link since the picture isn't showing.

Here it is. Look for yourself.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

just one question, is it clear that Clinton added to the Nat. Debt? and is it understood, this is the part of our economic situation that should be watched. let me add, it is not a problem, nor is it close to any problem at this time.

See above comment.

and is it agreed that the higher our economy goes (GDP) , the higher amount of debt we can sustain.?

That's why I posted the debt graph based on the GDP. So yes, I definitely agree. You realy do need to see that graph.

i did ask,(maybe not) what is your direction, we might be able to save time, hereabouts.

Direction?