How are The DEMS doing?

[PlanB]

Well, as a business guy, and quite apart from the Iraq War, and other political items, the DEMS get a C, Minus. #1, they're NOT working 5 days-a-week as they promised. Barely 4. #2, Nancy Pelosi wants private Fed jets & a security staff when she flies home & on business. Why? #3, The Dems want to close the tax gap demanding that the IRS "go after tax cheats" --- whatever that means. Well, I know what some of that means: It means brokerage houses & how they report capital gains: Give the IRS what people paid for a stock -- and the cash-in value. Plus, give the IRS the power to obtain Credit Card transations for small businesses. To me, all this just makes gov't more intrusive. There are solutions without resorting to these ideas.

[PlanB]

BUMP. I see that John Edwards health plan for the uninsured has the idea of financing by going after capital gains' IRS reporting. IOWs, although I'm not against such data, like income from interest, I AM AGAINST THE IDEA THAT THE MONEY GAINED FROM ENFORCING THIS ISSUE MATTERS. Why must we assume that Tax Cheats abound among investors?

[boxcar]

There are solutions without resorting to these ideas.

No truer words were ever spoken. The solution: Trash the inconceivably complex and incomprehensible income tax system and replace it with the Fair Tax.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Trash the inconceivably complex and incomprehensible income tax system and replace it with the Fair Tax.

Yes, a drop the f'ing AMT.

[PlanB]

Cool. I'm against it period, but I wasn't looking at the Fair Tax issue, lol ... But now I have another reason to hate it.

[schweitz]

Yes, a drop the f'ing AMT.

DITTO :mad:

[Shacopate]

The DEM's will be doin' fine on saturday, when the "New Boss" aka BO announces that he is coming full force.

[Tom]

So will the repubs! :jump:

[Shacopate]

Tom,

If today was election day, who would you vote for?

Just curious.

[boxcar]

Cool. I'm against it period, but I wasn't looking at the Fair Tax issue, lol ...

Trust me: I know that something like the Fair Tax was the farthest thing from your mind. Things that are logical, make very good sense (in more ways than one) and would be far simpler to understand and impliment, would have zero appeal to minds like yours.

Boxcar

[Shacopate]

Ouch.

Now be prepared for a clever response by PlanB.

Dammit,

I thought this was me versus Tom.

[Secretariat]

Well, as a business guy, and quite apart from the Iraq War, and other political items, the DEMS get a C, Minus. #1, they're NOT working 5 days-a-week as they promised. Barely 4. #2, Nancy Pelosi wants private Fed jets & a security staff when she flies home & on business. Why? #3, The Dems want to close the tax gap demanding that the IRS "go after tax cheats" --- whatever that means. Well, I know what some of that means: It means brokerage houses & how they report capital gains: Give the IRS what people paid for a stock -- and the cash-in value. Plus, give the IRS the power to obtain Credit Card transations for small businesses. To me, all this just makes gov't more intrusive. There are solutions without resorting to these ideas.

I agree PlanB with some of your points. I woudl like to see the Senate take a much tougher position. I think the House is moving much better and already did their part in the first 100 hours, but then the Senate, altough having a one vote advantage has Leiberman and Nelson which makes doing something about Iraq difficult, and they seem stuck on this over non-binding BS.

Your number #2 - I think was debunked and you may have missed it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pelosi-military-aircraft/

"FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft"

I think the "going after tax cheats" is something both parties always pull out because obviously it sounds good politically. The Dem's have things they want to do especially with health care, but GW's budget has proposed a huge defense increase and a massive five year cut in medicare and medicaid, plus an increase on premiums for the drug prescription part. There's not a lot of money to even maintain the status quo in lieu of increased defense spending without borrowing more form China.

Personally, I'd take a play out of the 1994 GOP playbook, and propose a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. With this you inform the President that fiscally we cannot continue to support a foreign civil war entanglement. You also are going to have to address entitlements as well, but if you introduce this amendment it places conservatives in a difficult position - fiscal conservatives versus neocons. won't happen though - unfortunately.

Still early though to judge - less than a month, but I'd also like to see the Senate more agressive. Someone like Hillary could really step it up, but she's an appeaser, and has taken her traditional centrist position playing to whoever the audience is. It's what drives a true liberal like Russ Feingold nuts.

[Shacopate]

10 Feb 07

Mark it down. A monumental day to behold and cherish.

The new world begins....

[Snag]

Your number #2 - I think was debunked and you may have missed it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/pelosi-military-aircraft/

"FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi’s Use Of Military Aircraft"



Sec, you may want to revisit the Speaker P demands.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070207-123706-5963r.htm

[boxcar]

Still early though to judge - less than a month, but I'd also like to see the Senate more agressive. Someone like Hillary could really step it up, but she's an appeaser, and has taken her traditional centrist position playing to whoever the audience is. It's what drives a true liberal like Russ Feingold nuts.

You do understand, though, that a "true liberal like Russ Feingold" -- someone who wears his liberalism on his sleeve for the whole world to see -- would stand a very small chance of ever getting elected President. This is why the vast majority of liberals themselves will "repudiate" liberalism by claiming to be "moderates", "centrists" or "progressives" -- when, in fact, they're anything but in many cases. Put in terms you might, perhaps, understand better: A wolf showing up in his own skin will probably never get elected to the WH -- but if (s)he dons the costume of a lamb (or some other non-carnivorous species) -- well, that's a different story. (Pulling the wool over people's eyes is what most politicians do best.)

So, the Hilderbeast, is just being the natural born liar she is in order to achieve her ends. This is a character trait, Sec, for which you should have deep apppreciation and admiration. After all -- you are a liberal, aren't you?

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

So, the Hilderbeast, is just being the natural born liar she is in order to achieve her ends. This is a character trait, Sec, for which you should have deep apppreciation and admiration. After all -- you are a liberal, aren't you?

Boxcar

Yes, I'm a liberal, so you may be surprised that I agree with you about Hillary Clinton centrist attitudes, but I don't need to resort to chidish name calling to criticize her.

Your criticism of me ... sigh... don't you get tired of right wing vitriole and name calling once in a awhile and actually deal with an issue?

[Secretariat]

Sec, you may want to revisit the Speaker P demands.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070207-123706-5963r.htm

OK, I did revisit them

The Feb .1 Washington Times aritcle was debunked, and so now they've put a revision in the same Feb .7th Washinton Times which you've posted which continues with inaccuracies.

For a different viewpoint take a look, since i did read both Washinton Times pieces.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/07

Since Dobbs is using information espoused in the Washinton Times article I am using his talking points:

"Here are Dobbs’ claims along with the facts:

1) Dobbs: Pelosi “wants the U.S. Air Force for personal accommodation.”

FACT: Pelosi’s use of a military aircraft is about security, not “personal accomodation.” It was House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood who initiated inquiries into the aircraft. “I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert” following 9/11, Livingood wrote, and “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”

2) Dobbs: Pelosi will use the plane “whenever she sees fit.”

FACT: Pelosi’s office has already said she “will not use the plane for political travel.”

3) Dobbs: Pelosi could fly to her district non-stop “in the plane that Hastert was using.”

FACT: Both the Washington Post and Roll Call have reported that the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.

4) Dobbs: Pelosi “wants a plane that accommodates 42 people, private stateroom. … She could take a circus with her.”

FACT: Pelosi’s office says “it is up to the Air Force to decide what type and size of plane will be required,” and that “she has never asked for a plane or space on a plane to accommodate ’supporters.’”

Email Lou Dobbs and tell him to correct the record."

...

Planb,

This tidbit was on the same page above relating to your initial post on he work week.

"Lawmakers are unhappy about the 110th Congress’s five-day work week. A “visibly annoyed” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) said, “I just told [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] I won’t be back by 4:30″ for the vote Monday, “even though I’m catching a 1:55 flight.” Both Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have said they will keep the full work week, despite the complaints."

[boxcar]

Yes, I'm a liberal, so you may be surprised that I agree with you about Hillary Clinton centrist attitudes, but I don't need to resort to chidish name calling to criticize her.

Your criticism of me ... sigh... don't you get tired of right wing vitriole and name calling once in a awhile and actually deal with an issue?

Actually, I don't think you are in agreement. You think she's a "centrist" because she merely portrays herself as one publicly. Conversely, I'm saying she's anything but. In fact, let me spell it out for you: MARXIST. That's what I believe she is -- more radical than her loving hubby. So, I really don't understand what you don't like about her.

Boxcar

[delayjf]

If speaker Pelosi is entitled to use the jet, then I don't have a problem with that. I do not understand the issue with having to refuel halfway across the US. She could land in a secure US base to do so. When and where she refuels could be classified. I don't get it?? :confused:

[Secretariat]

Actually, I don't think you are in agreement. You think she's a "centrist" because she merely portrays herself as one publicly. Conversely, I'm saying she's anything but. In fact, let me spell it out for you: MARXIST. That's what I believe she is -- more radical than her loving hubby. So, I really don't understand what you don't like about her.

Boxcar

The late, great (and liberal) Molly Ivins wrote a great piece called "I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President".

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

"Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."

Her big positions (the costly ones), while not to the right of the GOP, are certainly centrist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8573139/

"If she runs for president, it’s not clear whether she’ll do so as a conservative, pro-military “Lieberman Democrat” — a strategy which did not work for Lieberman himself in 2004 — or as a candidate who shatters the usual ideological categories and unites all factions within the party.

The non-partisan National Journal, which compiles ratings of all 10 senators based on 60 roll call votes on social, defense, and economic issues, ranked Clinton as more liberal than 71 percent of all her colleagues in 2004. Lieberman was rated at 69.8, with the most liberal senator being Hawaii Democrat Daniel Akaka at 94. National Journal’s least liberal Democrat is Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, at 51.2."

Like you, she'll not get my vote. It's not that she's conservative, she's all over the place on rhetoric and votes.

So as you can see by the above study, Lieberman's voting record is only 1.2% less liberal than Hillary Clinton's. I'd certainly call Lieberman a centrist as evident in the latest election (He's now an independent)

One minute she's voting against an immigration border fence and the next she's for it. She's an opportunist and will do whatever is necessary to win. Corps know this and are rushing to give her money to get her voice. True progressive and liberal polls always showing her losing in those liberal leaning polls. It's the right of the Dem party that may get her the vote in the primary, but it won't be mine.

[boxcar]

Sec, I know -- better than you what Hillary Clinton is. She's simply a lying Marxist. She will do what she has to do to get into the WH. That's a given. And you seem to understand this. What you (and the folks you quoted) don't perceive (supposedly) is that she's truly a left-wing extremist. And this would become much more evident if she were to get elected. Once she's in office (God forbid!), she could start to let her hair down. For example, she'd once again move to nationalize the Health Care Industry. And she'd try to nationalize the Oil Industry, etc. These are are the kinds of actions Marxists would take when they want to move a nation away from Capitalism toward Communism, for example. These are not "centrist" ideas borne out of a "moderate" political philosophy.

So...once more, I really don't understand what you wouldn't like about the Hilderbeast. She's wily, deceptive and she tilts very far to the left.

Boxcar

[PlanB]

OMG. I just had an epiffany: is this what you really see BoxCar? Marxism? Nationalizing OIL? Health Care? IOWS, ruining business? Is business as usual what you want us to live with forever?

[Secretariat]

Sec, I know -- better than you what Hillary Clinton is. She's simply a lying Marxist. She will do what she has to do to get into the WH. That's a given. And you seem to understand this. What you (and the folks you quoted) don't perceive (supposedly) is that she's truly a left-wing extremist. And this would become much more evident if she were to get elected. Once she's in office (God forbid!), she could start to let her hair down. For example, she'd once again move to nationalize the Health Care Industry. And she'd try to nationalize the Oil Industry, etc. These are are the kinds of actions Marxists would take when they want to move a nation away from Capitalism toward Communism, for example. These are not "centrist" ideas borne out of a "moderate" political philosophy.

So...once more, I really don't understand what you wouldn't like about the Hilderbeast. She's wily, deceptive and she tilts very far to the left.

Boxcar

A liar? Yes. A Marxist? C'mon, not even close. She's done nothing significant with Health Care while in the Senate, let alone nationalize it (I wish she would have!). She's done nothing to "nationalize" the oil industry (I wish she would have!).

I dont' think she's wiley at all. I think she's pretty transparent. She looks at polls, talks to corporate lobbyists, and moves in whatever way will advantage her fiscally and politically, BUT she does not tilt very far to the left as you say, or she would have got Molly Ivins' endorsement and the Cindy Sheehan's and the Michael Moores. She's a Democrat, but as I showed you, not that much more liberal according to that rating above than Joe L.

But why the argument? We both will vote against her. Not worth getting worked up over.

[boxcar]

A liar? Yes. A Marxist? C'mon, not even close. She's done nothing significant with Health Care while in the Senate, let alone nationalize it (I wish she would have!). She's done nothing to "nationalize" the oil industry (I wish she would have!).

I dont' think she's wiley at all. I think she's pretty transparent. She looks at polls, talks to corporate lobbyists, and moves in whatever way will advantage her fiscally and politically, BUT she does not tilt very far to the left as you say, or she would have got Molly Ivins' endorsement and the Cindy Sheehan's and the Michael Moores. She's a Democrat, but as I showed you, not that much more liberal according to that rating above than Joe L.

But why the argument? We both will vote against her. Not worth getting worked up over.

You are so naive! Unbelivably so! She's done "nothing" in the Senate because "no record" is better than a leftist one. The senate is and has always been a mere stepping stone for her to get into the WH.

The reason those Whack Jobs you mention don't support her now is out of fear that they'll fall out of grace with fellow whackos who are only interested in supporting outspoken, transparent Loonies like themselves. Hillary is a little too subtle -- too sophisticated -- too polished for their tastes. But make no mistake about it: If she wins the nomination, they'll support her. She'll have them eating out of her hand.

It all comes down to what I stated much earlier about Loony Lefties and the WH. No outspoken, transparent left-wing extremist would stand a chance to get elected. Just follow the money and follow the numbers. There simply aren't enough Loonies out there to get another outpsoken Loony elected. It's that simple. Therefore, they all have to masquerade as "centrists" in order to try to appeal to a broader base.

And have you so soon forgotten what she wanted hubby to do during his second term in office with the Health Care Industry? And, evidently, you haven't been keeping up with her more recent remarks about the Oil Industry and what she would like to do with their corporate profits, etc.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Tom,

If today was election day, who would you vote for?

Just curious.

No one.

So far, I have not seen anyone remotely qualified in the race.
My hope is that, over the next two years, someone remotley qualified will show up.:bang:

[Shacopate]

You don't like McCain?

[boxcar]

You don't like McCain?

As a RINO, there isn't very much to like.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Isn't it so bizarre, and so telling at the same time, that HILLARY CLINTON is now TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT for the Democratic party!!!???!?!?!?!?!

Who would have ever dreamed that day would come?

The dems are practically GUARANTEEING that a Republican will win the White House in 2008. It's almost a lock at this point.

[chickenhead]

My hope is that, over the next two years, someone remotley qualified will show up.:bang:

?

[Shacopate]

PA,

I agree with your assessment of the Hillary campaign. She has been "positioning" herself for this for quite some time. The YANKEE CAP comes to mind. And she has alot of baggage...land deals and such, that will be exploited by the ever-grinding Karl Rove and his republican war machine.

I think that Barack Obama is a brilliant man with fresh, positive ideas on how to move the country forward. He is also an incredible orator, which will play well in network soundbites. I give this man a huge chance.

[Tom]

You don't like McCain?

Not at all. Never did.
I don't trust him.
I'm quite sure this election, lke the last two, will come down to two butt-heads, and I will choose the one iwth the smaller cheeks.

I have not seen anyone, of any party, at any time, that I would think was qualified.

Except Jack Bauer.

[DJofSD]

I have not seen anyone, of any party, at any time, that I would think was qualified.


Time for a third party.