First Lie contest!

[ljb]

To those who will be watching W's state of the union lies tonight.
How about a contest to see who can catch the first lie? I have heard he is going to lie about the medicare bill he and the republicans just rammed through. He `is going to say it is good for `seniors when in truth it is good for HMOs and Drug companies. It will eventually lead to the downfall of medicare.
But I don't know if this will be his first lie. I'm kinda busy tonight so i probably will not get a `chance to watch `it.

[PaceAdvantage]

And the democrats tell nothing but honest to goodness, 100% factual truths? Give me a break here....we're not THAT stupid.

Ps. Is it just me, or is anyone else amazed that Ms. Pelosi is actually able to blink her eyes? She looks like the poster child for Botox and/or cosmetic surgery.....

[ljb]

The democrats are not running the show. I would be the last to say they don't tell lies.
They are ALL crooks, just have to decide which crooks are more benificial to your personal well being. If you think losing hundreds of young americans and spending billions of dollars to protect the oil barons is benificial to you, then charge on!
I though Pelosi looked sorta weird but, looks are not everything.

[so.cal.fan]

"Ps. Is it just me, or is anyone else amazed that Ms. Pelosi is actually able to blink her eyes? She looks like the poster child for Botox and/or cosmetic surgery.....


Yeah, I noticed it, I'm sure she wishes she hadn't have gone on.
She looked nervous, and she usually isn't.
She has obviously had cosmetic surgery recently.

[Lefty]

and who created this godawful flawed Medicare to start with. The Democrats. And now when anything done to try and improve it who hollers, the Democrats. Who has been hollering for years for a Senior Prescription Drug plan? The Democrats. Now that we have one, who created it, A Republican. The best thing about the changes is the provision to akllow for Medical savings Accts. If this thing had been done right lo those many yrs ago, and Medical Savings Accts had been a big part of it then Medicare wouldn't be the cash guzzler it is. Mediare is costing us over a HUNDRED TIMES what Johnson promised it would.
ljb, and then you start criticizing Bushes speech before he even gives it, and then you have the temerity, after you start griping, to say you won't even be watching. Typical.
BTW, who called for the creation of HMO's after Medicare started spiraling out of control.? Give you 3 guesses.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You have already admited in previous post that the republican Medicare bill will do you no good. I admire your loyalty, take one in the arse for the party!

[Lefty]

It will not do me any good. But for the good of younger people,the Medical Savings part is a big step in right direction. I would love it if there could be a massive change in the Plan immediately, but Wash. does not work that way. Now would you rather a bad plan remain untouched or would you like efforts for it to be made better seeing as how were stuck with it? I vote for the latter.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I am not debating the medicare plans value with you. The issue here is the President lying to the masses. He made it out to be something good for the seniors when in fact it is bad for the seniors. The plan is set up to force the actual elimination of medicare.

[Lefty]

If the plan is setup to bring about the elimination of Medicare in favor of medical savings accts that would be a good thing in my mind, but you are absolutely wrong. The elimination of Medicare would leave some seniors who have ccome to depend on it in a big lurch. The Medicare plan and SS have become too ingrained in society to eliminate either one. But it's a good thing to revise both to give the younger generation better plans. The Pres on the right track.

[ljb]

The plan for prescription drugs allows no dealing for better prices by the gov't. (a bonus for the drug companys and a disaster for medicare.) The plan allows seniors to seek private insurance for the same coverage. This will result in the insurance companys taking the healthy seniors and leaving the sick ones to medicare. The results: Insurance companys make a few bucks and medicare goes broke. Causing people to say "the government can't compete with private industry shut it down" As you said Lefty ... Connect the dots.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Here's an email i just recieved:

It looks ridiculous in print

A car company can move its factories to Mexico and claim it's a free market.

A toy company can outsource to a Chinese subcontractor and claim it's a free market.

A major bank can incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes and claim it's a free market.

We can buy HP Printers made in Mexico. We can buy shirts made in Bangladesh.

We can purchase almost anything we want from many different countries BUT, heaven help the elderly who dare to buy their prescription drugs from a Canadian (Or Mexico) pharmacy. That's called un-American!

And you think the pharmaceutical companies don't have a powerful lobby?
Think again!

(Please forward this to every person you know over age 50)

[freeneasy]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
And the democrats tell nothing but honest to goodness, 100% factual truths? Give me a break here....we're not THAT stupid.

Ps. Is it just me, or is anyone else amazed that Ms. Pelosi is actually able to blink her eyes? She looks like the poster child for Botox and/or cosmetic surgery..... blink her eyes, thats funny, u a funny guy pa

[Secretariat]

I don't think there were any great lies like the WMD Niger uranium incident last State of the Union. This time the speechmakers focused on framing language, and visuals pictures.
Such as the child on the floor of the Senate, and soldiers in the balcony, and athletes. And of course the letter from the little girl in the speech. No, letters from the millions of unemployed. Yes, Clinton did this crap too and it annoys me when they frame stuff for sympathetic images rather than really addressing the issues.

As to the speech itself, I think it was another of those "either you're with me or against me" speeches. Kerrey described it afterwards, as an agenda of simplistic choices. The choices are always painted in a black or white fashion by Bush. One such example is the No Child Left Behind Act (notice the framing - who could disagree with leaving a child behind - no one). As Bush touted the success of this, Rod Paige the Secretary of Education, stand applauding, even though the entire miracle in Houston was a fraud. Almost all school districts and teachers are complaining about this act due to setting test scores as the standard for judging school districts,without additional funding, and without any consideration of district funding toward the success of students, and evaluating teachers based on scores when the students may already be at a lower level. It's a piece of "framed marketed language" to sound good, but the reality of it is something else. Another example is the naming of the "Patriot Act" implying that if "you're against it, you must not be a patriot." The Bush request to "renew" this abuse of the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights lead Bush to say "We will renew it because it helps hunt down terrorists." Again, he doesn't list the number of people arrested and conviicted compared to those detained and released for no reason. And Lefty, as someone who had a Medical Savings Account for three years, all I can tell you is it is a joke. It requires you to pay your own expenses out of pocket completly up to a maximum limit, and THEN you can deduct it fom your taxes. I did it when I was a consultant, and it required carrying only major medical at a minimum price and high deductible and was only for self-employed people. When people come to the realization of what it is, it wil lbe like the 50,000 people who quit AARP after the medicare punishment act.

I guess he dropped the Mars thing, no mention, since it placed poorly in the polls. New job retraining initiatives in health care and biotechnology, he spoke of. Does he get it? People in their 40's and 50's from manufacturing don't want to retrain to be nurses. There's little hope in this speech. Only general rhetoric about "freedom", "privatization of Social Security for his banking friends" , "each individual has dignity in god's sight - although he didn't mention which god", that sort of general stuff.

How and with what justification can a man say who presides over the biggest deficit in US history, "either we have growth and reform or turn back" People just don't understand that interest rates are low because of Fed policy under Greenspan. People forget the Greenspan raised rates continually during the Gore-Bush election, and then cut them drastically immedialy after the election. And still that couldn't get the economy going (this is even before 911). Then he calls the largest tax cut for his millionaire friends "tax relief". No one is against tax relief, but it doesn't speak to the inequity in this so-called tax releif. Again, its either his version of tax releif, or no ones. This is the largest sham of all. We call this tax releif when we've simply stored that debt in the largest deficit in history making our children and grand children pay off our tax credit card debt PLUS interest. Pretty shameful I would say.

[Lefty]

ljb, It was the Dems who introduced Medicare. It's been the Dems
who have clamored for a presciption plan. BTW, seniors going to Mexico and Canada for drugs long before GW took office. He didn't invent the prob.And anytime a repub tried to make things better he gets hammered. But who cares, you guys are irrelevant and the american people getting wise to you. Drugs are not the same as any other product. Reason they are cheaper in Canada is there's no FDA.

Maybe you don't have a good medical savings plan, but Clark Howard, a non-partisan consumer advocate loves em, go figger. They maybe the only hope for keeping the Dems Medicare faux pas from eating up all our money.
Our children paying off the deficit? Didn't you listen to GW last night. He can cut this deficit in half in 5 yrs if Congress votes for his plan. Naturally, the Dems who holler the loudest about the deficit will vote against it. They don;t want solutions; just want to advance probs, say they can solve them and then create a WORSE PROBLEM.

If you want to cede the sovereignty of this great nation to the UN then vote for the Dems. If you want socialism, purre and simple, vote fo the Dems.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty

Maybe you don't have a good medical savings plan, but Clark Howard, a non-partisan consumer advocate loves em, go figger.

Our children paying off the deficit? Didn't you listen to GW last night. He can cut this deficit in half in 5 yrs if Congress votes for his plan. Naturally, the Dems who holler the loudest about the deficit will vote against it. They don;t want solutions; just want to advance probs, say they can solve them and then create a WORSE PROBLEM.

If you want to cede the sovereignty of this great nation to the UN then vote for the Dems. If you want socialism, purre and simple, vote fo the Dems.

I don't know Clark Howard, only my own first hand experience, was a pain.

Yes, I heard GW say he'd cut the deficit in 5 years in half, yet he didn't say how. All I can assume is we cut taxes, meaning less revenue gathered by the federal government. How does this reduce the deficit? I assume "growth" of the economy via consumer spending. How will growth occur with high unemployment and the exportation of jobs overseas, and the off-shoring for tax purposes by our so-called patriotic corporations. Lefty, you can't grow an economy by exporting jobs overseas, and reducing the money that US consumers would have in their pockets. They try to buy via credit, but american consumers are maxed to the limit as well as the government showing the highest credit card debt in history. GW's onw admission that US workers are going to have retrain into other fields indicates his awareness of this problem. His solution if fraught with "no defintes" a wish and a prayer for a sustained growing economy.

As to the weak UN, it is funny, that GW puts the UN down as unable to make determinations on their own in respect to creating a coalition to address the Iraq pre-war, BUT now that we've created a political mess, and a huge restructuring effort in Iraq, what does GW do, - - says we'll start moving troops out in July to help with his re-election campaign, AND then asks the UN and Kofi Annaan to come in and fix things diplomatically. What a hypocrite.

[Secretariat]

factcheck.org 's review of the President State of the Union

What Bush Left Unsaid in State of the Union Address
Forget Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now its “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.”
January 20, 2004
Modified: January 21, 2004

Summary
President Bush accentuated the positive in his annual State of the Union Address to Congress Jan. 20 – leaving out some pertinent but negative facts. Omitted: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the loss of 2.3 million jobs, and who's responsible for the big deficits he proposes to cut.

Analysis
Here are some of the things the President said, along with a look at what he didn't say:

Weapons of Mass Destruction
The President made no mention of the failure so far to locate nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.
Bush: We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.
True, former UN weapons inspector David Kay, now heading the US effort to locate Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons, did report last October that he had uncovered "dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

But Kay also told the House and Senate intelligence committees:
We have not yet found stocks of weapons . . . We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW (biological weapons) production effort . . . . Multiple sources (say) that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW (chemical warfare) program after 1991 . . . . (and) to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material . . . . (and) no detainee has admitted any actual knowledge of plans for unconventional warheads for any current or planned ballistic missile.

The Economy
The President said the economy is growing and producing jobs, but failed to mention that the growth is so far insufficient to make up for what's been lost since he took office.
Bush: We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger . . . . And jobs are on the rise.
It is true that the economy grew at a yearly rate of 8.2% in the third quarter of last year, making it the best quarter in 20 years. And private economists are generally agreed that tax cuts helped propel the consumer spending that fueled the growth, which continues. Also true is that the economy has gained 278,000 jobs since July, when the job slump bottomed out.

But what the President left unsaid is that in the most recent month the job gain was almost nonexistent -- only 1,000 -- and that as of December total employment was still 2.3 million below where it stood when Bush took office in January 2001.

Education
Bush spoke of a big increase in federal funding for education, but didn't mention complaints that he's forcing states to pay for new federal requirements to test student performance.

Bush:By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country. We are providing more funding for our schools -- a 36 percent increase since 2001. We are requiring higher standards.

It is true that federal funding for education has increased sharply since Bush took office, as even his critics concede. But it is also true that Bush's new requirements for student testing impose large costs on state and local governments and that Bush hasn't pushed the Republican Congress for the full amounts authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act. The National Education
Association estimated the shortfall at $5.4 billion last year, and even a Republican senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine, said last year, "It leaves us open to the charge of unfunded mandates."
Trade

In speaking of benefits of international trade, the President failed to mention his own steps to protect the politically important US steel industry.

Bush: My Administration is promoting free and fair trade, to open up new markets for America 's entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and farmers, and to create jobs for America 's workers.

Not mentioned: Bush's imposition of tariffs on imported steel, which pleased US labor unions and steel executives but which were found to violate World Trade Organization rules. Bush lifted the steel tariffs Dec. 4 after trading partners threatened retaliation against US exports.

Federal Deficit
The President promised to curb deficit spending, but said nothing about where the deficits come from.
Bush: We can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.
Not mentioned: The projected federal surplusses at the end of Bill Clinton's term have now turned to a projected federal deficit of $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, due to Bush's two large tax cuts, large increases in federal spending, and an economic downturn.

Also not mentioned: A 12.3% rise in discretionary federal spending last fiscal year followed by a 9% rise this fiscal year, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

Sources
"Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence", 2 Oct. 2003, Central Intelligence Agency website.
Edward Alden, Guy De Jonquieres and Mariko Sanchanta "US to dismantle steel tariffs and avoid sanctions: Bush eases relations with Europe and Japan but angers Americansteelworkers," Financial Times (London,England) 5 Dec. 2003: A1.
"Current Budget Projections" Congressional Budget Office, Washington DC 26 August 2003.
David Baumann, "Rhetoric Versus Reality" The National Journal 2 August 2003.

[Lefty]

Sec, guess you don't listen too closely. He did say how he'd cut the deficit in half in 5 yrs. It's the Dems who make wild claims and don't say how they will do it.
Hint: he said he'd hold spending to 4%. Ball's in congeress' court.
You libs holler for him to involve the UN. He tried to inovlve them in the war. The UN refused. Now he asks them to take a role in Iraq in the peace movement and you have the audacity to call him a hypocrite? The guy can't win with you &%#$#Bush haters.

[bill]

no matter whats rite or wrong


all boils down to bush s statement

"whats the difference"

[Tom]

If congress is so concerned about the deficit, how is it that they continually vote themselves pay raises? A little hippocracy here?:confused:

[so.cal.fan]

Because, Tom.....they are SPECIAL......they are ENTITLED.
You know that!

[PaceAdvantage]

This is so mind numbing.....it really truly is.....most of off-topic should be razed to the ground....we'd all be much better off.

[BillW]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
This is so mind numbing.....it really truly is.....most of off-topic should be razed to the ground....we'd all be much better off.

Then we'd see a migration into the other forums :eek:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, guess you don't listen too closely. He did say how he'd cut the deficit in half in 5 yrs. It's the Dems who make wild claims and don't say how they will do it.
Hint: he said he'd hold spending to 4%. Ball's in congeress' court.
You libs holler for him to involve the UN. He tried to inovlve them in the war. The UN refused. Now he asks them to take a role in Iraq in the peace movement and you have the audacity to call him a hypocrite? The guy can't win with you &%#$#Bush haters.


Lefty,

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm385.cfm

If one looks at the above link to the Heritage Foundation, a Republic think-tank (oxymoron?), it is stated that discretionary spending WILL increase to 9% in 2004 –(their figures, not mine). Interesting to look at the chart on this Republican based web site as well since the graph provided shows that discretionary spending since 2000 has been higher under GW Bush than any recent president’s administration. The article is interesting because it addressed the accounting gimmicks used by this Republican congress to hide true discretionary spending from taxpayers.

So what is causing this increase in discretionary spending? Over 93% of it has gone to the following three items: (1) defense; (2) homeland security and (3) the war in Iraq.

Now, you tell me how Bush is going to cut those items in the middle of the war with Iraq, and still maintain homeland security promises and increases to those areas he promised. Also, he advocated doubling the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy, new budgetary support for Community college retraining programs, his prisoner re-entry program, drug testing in schools (although I doubt the federal government will pay for that, only demand it so local school taxes can be raised to make up the difference), the prescription drug plan under the Medicare punishment act, and what about the budgetary demands of the Mars/Moon mission, and the Strategic Defense Initiative continued funding all the while with INCREASING tax cuts to the wealthiest if these cuts are made permanent as GW demanded (the cuts grow in amounts as it approaches 2010 and the disparity also increases between wealthy and poor).

If you believe that GW’s hope that Congress will hold discretionary spending to 3%, then you have not read the Heritage Foundation link I posted. It is simply impossible with the foreign agenda Bush has pursued. And with his expansion on these other programs he brought up, and with less and less tax revenue coming in, the only way to cut the deficit is to hope that “economic growth” leads to people making more money and hence more tax revenue. My point about the deficit is, (1) he outlined no programs to cut in the budget, (2) he did not explain how we would pay for his new initiatives (3) he did not say how Congress could cut discretionary spending and still flight the war on terror, provide homeland security, and rebuild Iraq, not to mention rebuild our weapons arsenal which has been depleted due to the war. He did not say HOW new jobs would be created to stimulate growth, only that a community college retraining initiative would be forthcoming (not sure where the money is coming from, probably our children again), and this retraining would lead to jobs in biotechnology and health care. No mention of our former high tech jobs, which have gone to India and elsewhere; no comments on our textile and manufacturing job disintegration. The only thing propping up this economy currently is defense related spending, and the housing market, and if interest rates climb, housing will start to decline.

My point with all of this is, when you buy a used car, listen closely, because the salesman can always make it sound good. I do admire one thingabout GW's speech writers, they are masters of rhetoric with which he has manipulated so many people. It is damn good, well framed. If anything, it has taught me to research and listen more closely than ever.

As to the UN, I am confused, one minute you call them useless and weak, and that thank God GW ignored them and bombed the hell out of Iraq, and the next minute they're suddenly OK, and we need them to help administer the Iraqi peace and elections. I'm just trying to understand. What is your position? Should we get out of the UN, and save the money, or use the UN to do what it was set up to do and let it function as a free institution even if it means not rubber stamping all of GW's pre-ordained wishes?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, guess you don't listen too closely. He did say how he'd cut the deficit in half in 5 yrs. It's the Dems who make wild claims and don't say how they will do it.
Hint: he said he'd hold spending to 4%. Ball's in congeress' court.
You libs holler for him to involve the UN. He tried to inovlve them in the war. The UN refused. Now he asks them to take a role in Iraq in the peace movement and you have the audacity to call him a hypocrite? The guy can't win with you &%#$#Bush haters.


Lefty,

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm385.cfm

If one looks at the above link to the Heritage Foundation, a Republic think-tank (oxymoron?), it is stated that discretionary spending WILL increase to 9% in 2004 –(their figures, not mine). Interesting to look at the chart on this Republican based web site as well since the graph provided shows that discretionary spending since 2000 has been higher under GW Bush than any recent president’s administration. The article is interesting because it addressed the accounting gimmicks used by this Republican congress to hide true discretionary spending from taxpayers.

So what is causing this increase in discretionary spending? Over 93% of it has gone to the following three items: (1) defense; (2) homeland security and (3) the war in Iraq.

Now, you tell me how Bush is going to cut those items in the middle of the war with Iraq, and still maintain homeland security promises and increases to those areas he promised. Also, he advocated doubling the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy, new budgetary support for Community college retraining programs, his prisoner re-entry program, drug testing in schools (although I doubt the federal government will pay for that, only demand it so local school taxes can be raised to make up the difference), the prescription drug plan under the Medicare punishment act, and what about the budgetary demands of the Mars/Moon mission, and the Strategic Defense Initiative continued funding all the while with INCREASING tax cuts to the wealthiest if these cuts are made permanent as GW demanded (the cuts grow in amounts as it approaches 2010 and the disparity also increases between wealthy and poor).

If you believe that GW’s hope that Congress will hold discretionary spending to 3%, then you have not read the Heritage Foundation link I posted. It is simply impossible with the foreign agenda Bush has pursued. And with his expansion on these other programs he brought up, and with less and less tax revenue coming in, the only way to cut the deficit is to hope that “economic growth” leads to people making more money and hence more tax revenue. My point about the deficit is, (1) he outlined no programs to cut in the budget, (2) he did not explain how we would pay for his new initiatives (3) he did not say how Congress could cut discretionary spending and still flight the war on terror, provide homeland security, and rebuild Iraq, not to mention rebuild our weapons arsenal which has been depleted due to the war. He did not say HOW new jobs would be created to stimulate growth, only that a community college retraining initiative would be forthcoming (not sure where the money is coming from, probably our children again), and this retraining would lead to jobs in biotechnology and health care. No mention of our former high tech jobs, which have gone to India and elsewhere; no comments on our textile and manufacturing job disintegration. The only thing propping up this economy currently is defense related spending, and the housing market, and if interest rates climb, housing will start to decline.

My point with all of this is, when you buy a used car, listen closely, because the salesman can always make it sound good. I do admire one thingabout GW's speech writers, they are masters of rhetoric with which he has manipulated so many people. It is damn good, well framed. If anything, it has taught me to research and listen more closely than ever.

As to the UN, I am confused, one minute you call them useless and weak, and that thank God GW ignored them and bombed the hell out of Iraq, and the next minute they're suddenly OK, and we need them to help administer the Iraqi peace and elections. I'm just trying to understand. What is your position? Should we get out of the UN, and save the money, or use the UN to do what it was set up to do and let it function as a free institution even if it means not rubber stamping all of GW's pre-ordained wishes?

[Derek2U]

I agree these OFF TOPIC threads are ~~100% political BullS....
Lefty is takin over from his bookend BoxCar & the posts are
largely just dumB. If U catalog Lefty's posts they b 67000 on
politics & 23 on horses. What is He & the other dimwits doing
here neways? I hardly ever see posts on movies or music or
ice carvings just the same old Bush lies & counter arguements.
CAST AWAY DEMONS.

[Amazin]

I didn't see PA mouth off like that about the off topic section when it was a total right wing board whose views he mostly supported and cheerleaded.

In all fairness to PA,in those times,I was saying the same thing he's saying now,except from the other side of the fence. Nice to see some balance now. I thought you guys like that" fair and balanced" slogan.

[Lefty]

Let's put it this way guys, you hate Bush, you think he's wrong about everything. How are the Dems going to make it better? You think they have solutions? They're great at whining about the probs but no viable solutions. Bush says he can do it with his budget in 5 yrs. Not an hr and not a yr but 5 yrs. You're so worried about deficits but you guys were worried about deficits before, remember? We grew out of that deficit and we can do it again. But not by electing tax raising doom and gloom hand over our country to the UN dems. And ythat's the bottom line.
Derek, instead of reading my posts, why not ignore me and spend that time learning to put together a coherent sentence? And then instead of telling me i'm wrong and dumb, give some specifics of where why and how i'm wrong. Do you have any logical criticism or do you just mouth off?
We've read all the Bush negatives. Now are there any Dem positives in your minds? Prob not.

[Lefty]

Sec, look where 93% of money went. You already outlined it.
DEFENSE, HOMELAND SECURITY, IRAQ WAR.
These are different times than any other in this country because of all the terrorist attacks. This Pres gotta do it all cause last one did little. Well, he did cut the hell out of defense which why gobs of money had to be spent there now. We had attacks on the U.S. Cole, an attack on the World Trade Center, attacks on a bunch of U.S. embassies and Clinton did little.
The money spent on the above items absolutely necessary and i'm glad we have the right Pres for these dangerous times.
Now all that money being spent on those necessary items, and the spectre of 9-11 still hanging over the economy and here we are in the best recovery in 20 yrs.
This mornings news said jobless rates down and business growing more confident in the recovery.
Bad news for Dems.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, look where 93% of money went. You already outlined it.
DEFENSE, HOMELAND SECURITY, IRAQ WAR.
These are different times than any other in this country because of all the terrorist attacks. This Pres gotta do it all cause last one did little. Well, he did cut the hell out of defense which why gobs of money had to be spent there now. We had attacks on the U.S. Cole, an attack on the World Trade Center, attacks on a bunch of U.S. embassies and Clinton did little.
The money spent on the above items absolutely necessary and i'm glad we have the right Pres for these dangerous times.
Now all that money being spent on those necessary items, and the spectre of 9-11 still hanging over the economy and here we are in the best recovery in 20 yrs.
This mornings news said jobless rates down and business growing more confident in the recovery.
Bad news for Dems.

Lefty,

You’re amazing. First, you’re agreeing with Bush in the State of the Union, that discretionary spending must be cut to reduce the deficit, and blaming the majority Republican Congress for not towing the line on discretionary spending, THEN when you discover that 93% of the discretionary spending demanded by this adminstration was for DEFENSE, HOMELAND SECURITY and the WAR IN IRAQ, you say “good” and proceed to blame it on Clinton. But Lefty, you miss the point. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t maintain a 3% discretionary spending cap as GW stated in the State of the Union, and still “PAY” for those Bush initiatives. Did you read the Heritage link? The Heritage Foundation is NOT some liberal group. Quite to the contrary.

As to economic news, and job creation, I’ve pasted an article from the Associated Press today from our local paper. The concept that businesses doing better means more tax revenue and growth and more job creation is fallacious. More and more countries are off shoring to avoid taxes, and outsourcing off shore to keep costs down. What impact does this have? It does not help to reduce the deficit, in fact it exports tax dollars overseas.

It surprises me that you can’t see this. Again, I pose the question, HOW will he reduce the deficit while still maintaining his initiatives?

Shipping it Out
By Bruce Meyerson, Associated Press

Moving Jobs offshore sparks hot debate

New York – More than 150 corporate executives, many paying $1,400 a head, listened intently for tips on how to move jobs overseas effectively.

Outside, on a frigid Manhattan sidewalk, a group of fewer than 20 spirited demonstrators protested the “offshore outsourcing” conference that opened yesterday.

With the loss of jobs to other countries once again being thrust into the spotlight by a presidential campaign, the newer trend of moving white-collar positions overseas has grown so controversial that attendees from major corporations such as Microsoft Corp., and Cisco Systems, Inc. declined to discuss the conference.

One speaker unexpectedly decided to bar the press from his presentation. His topic: Is offshore outsourcing unpatriotic?

“I’d prefer not to comment” the speaker, Jeffrey Cohen of the big consulting firm McKinsey & Co., said impatiently when asked why the session had been closed.

But despite the hesitance of participants to draw attention to themselves or their companies, the size and makeup of the crowd pointed to a rising tide of jobs destined for overseas.

I have yet to be at an outsourcing conference with this many people interested in learning about “offshore out sourcing,” compared to consulting firms trying to sell outsourcing services, said Lisa Rosen, founder of Ross Research, an outsourcing research firm based in Cambridge, Mass.

“There are huge-name companies here trying to build up their knowledge, as well as smaller organizations and nonprofit organizations.”

The debate over offshore outsourcing, which in the past centered on the loss of factory jobs to nations with lower wages, has gained new vigor now that the technology and service industries that thrived in the 1990’s are sending many non-manufacturing operations abroad to cut their costs.

Increasingly, U.S. corporations are farming out programming, customer support, data entry and various back-office jobs to lower paid workers in countries as diverse as India, Romania and Ghana. The average computer programmer commands $60 an hour in the United States, six times the rate in India.”

In a research report in mid-2003, Gartner, Inc., predicted that at least one out of 10 technology jobs in the United States would move overseas by the end of 2004.

Forrester Research predicts at least 3.3 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion in wages will shift from the United States to low-cost countries by 2015.

The threat of unemployment was serious enough for Steve Ward, a computer programmer in Philadelphia, to take a day off from work, drive two hours to Manhattan, and picket outside the Times Square hotel where the conference is being held.

“The consulting firm I work for is sending jobs to India,” said Ward, who came to the protest with a former co-worker who was laid off last year.

Ward, holding a sign – “Will Code for Food” – dismissed the notion that everyone benefits from the corporate savings generated by offshore outsourcing. “Companies are predatory institutions, and they have to be controlled,” he said.
However, economists and outsourcing proponents warn that more harm than good is done by protectionist policies.

They contend that the flow of work to the lowest-cost supplier is a healthy market process that eventually pays off or the country losing jobs by giving companies the financial might to develop new products and technologies.

At the same time, they say higher employment in developing nations puts more money in the hands of foreign consumers, spurring demand for US products.

“In the short term you have pain, but in the medium term you get more jobs. We are an innovative society. We are going to create jobs, and investments are going to come back into the community,” said Atul Vashistha, chief executive of NeoT, an outsourcing firm in San Ramon, Calif., that was a sponsor of the conference.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

I also forgot one other cost initiative which Bush has not outlined how we'll pay for. Beside the Mission to the Moon and Mars, there is also the 1.5 billion he asked Congress to provide for "training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain healthy marriages" - NY Times

Unbeleivable. I'm surprised he didn't mention that one in the State of the Union.

[Show Me the Wire]

Secretariat:

Did you scoffaw at JFK's plans to put a man on the moon or were you to young to know better?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Secretariat:

Did you scoffaw at JFK's plans to put a man on the moon or were you to young to know better?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

Who scoffed at it? I remember it well. My question remains, how do we pay for it, AND still reduce the deficit. If Bush has promised to reduce it in half in five years, I hold him accountable to explain how without smoke and mirrors.

[Show Me the Wire]

Just like JFK's administration. Cut funding to unnecessary welfare programs. Only fund the welfare programs in existence at JFK's presidency and to the same ratios.

Eliminate LBJ's Great Society programs and there will be plenty of money to fund history making space exploration.

And that is without smoke and mirrors.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Well, I didn't hear GW propose any of those solutions. But let's see, the biggest two Great Society programs are Medicare and Medicaid. I think if you attempted to dismantle them you'd have a revolution in this country. Especially with today's medical premiums at an all time high. It is interesting to imagine what would happen if this country if all of a sudden Medicare and Medicaid were gone. I'm sure my 89 year old father with osteoporsis would enjoy trying to work at McDonalds to pay for those private insurance benefits.

As to public welfare...amazing...I used to work with support services and I can tell you most of those people are some of the poorest folks in our society. But maybe it makes sense. Give the largest tax cut in history to the wealthiest in our society, plus massive capital gain tax cuts, and cut welfare (except massive corporate welfare) and throw those welfare bums out in the streets. Maybe they should get a job. Wait a minute. Isn't unemployment at highest rates in a decade? how will they find work? Wait a minute, isn't this unskilled labor for the most part? Maybe what we should do is buy new aircraft carriers, load up these welfare recipients, and ship them over to China or India so they can work for so-called American corporations. What;s frightening to me is that some users on this post would probably think that is a good idea.

Don't think GW is going to go that far..but I could be wrong.

[Tom]

If you didn't pay taxes, you don't get a tax cut.
If you paid #1,000,000 in taxes, you OBVIOUSLY get more of a tax cut than someone who pay $50 in taxes.
It is REMARKABLY like a gate scratch at the track.....if you didn't bet the rae, you don't get a refund. If you bet $2, you get back less than the guy who bet $200.
And let's not forget that spending bills originate in the congress and they are passed or defeated in the congress. The president does NOT pass legislation.
Why is there a deficit? P-O-R-K. Now, look at your own plate....how much do you have on it that you will give up.
Poor people? You bet we got 'em. For every UAW worker making OBSCENE pay for the truly little value they add to a car, there has to be another person making 3 cents an hour to compensate. The economy cannot support inflated salaries that do not in turn add value. Do you think the UAW would give gack a buck or two an hour to help out?

[Show Me the Wire]

Secretariat:

It is hard to give tax breaks to welfare recipients; after all they are tax users not payers. Also, unemployment is high because of a recession starting under Clinton and the economic fall out from the infamous 9-11 attack.

Yes, the majority of the unemployed labor force is unskilled. How could this be after the Great Society program and the public school system? The military as you suggest may be the answer. The military may be a viable option to give these individuals some marketable skills.

The military serves two functions. The military is a form of government welfare (this should be pleasing to Democrats), which provides for the national security. Actually, using the military in this way it is not too much different than FDR’s work programs, which immensely benefited the Country, during the Great Depression, economically and structurally by establishing the infrastructure for future development.

The real failure is LBJ’s Great Society and the Democratic Party’s leadership still embracing this proven failed concept.

We are in agreement too many manufacturing jobs have been transferred outside the U.S. and it is not beneficial in the long run. Our buddy Clinton had a hand in losing a lot of these manufacturing jobs to China along with some top-secret data, but that is another story.

One proven method to overcome an economic downturn is to make the government the largest consumer of goods. It makes sense to implement this government spending strategy to encourage advancement in science i.e. space program and subsidies in the form of military spending rather than multi-generational housing subsidies, food stamp programs, etc.

Regards.
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Amazin
I didn't see PA mouth off like that about the off topic section when it was a total right wing board whose views he mostly supported and cheerleaded.

In all fairness to PA,in those times,I was saying the same thing he's saying now,except from the other side of the fence. Nice to see some balance now. I thought you guys like that" fair and balanced" slogan.


The most amazing fact not reported here (conveniently) is that "the total right wing board" never INITIATED a post (to my knowledge). They were simply having to DEFEND the attacks INITIATED by the Bush-haters....

Believe it or not, the OFF-TOPIC section happily existed for QUITE SOME TIME with little or NO political discussion WHATSOEVER. It only became like it is today AFTER AMAZIN, LJB and posters of their ilk provoked these types of discussion with their inflamed anti-Bush rhetoric.

That, my friend, is 100% fact.

Like I said, mind-numbing (from BOTH SIDES) and PONDEROUS (from BOTH SIDES)

[Lefty]

97% spent was good because it's keeping this country safe. He says 4% growth will cut the deficit in half in 5 yrs. That and a booming economy will do that. If Heritage doesn't agree, too bad. They are not a republican think tank. They are libertarian i blve, but no matter, I blve Bush. I know you don't, but who do you think is better and why? Don't give me the copout answer.
Democrats running on same old empty promises without telling you how they can fulfill their promises because they think the promise is enough. Same old platform, class envy and empty promises.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Like I said, mind-numbing (from BOTH SIDES) and PONDEROUS (from BOTH SIDES)

Really, we are learning about and exploring history, right Suff.

I must admit Amazin's mantra is mind-numbing "Bush is a liar .................................................. ......" Otherwise the discussions can be educational and diverse.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[hcap]

PA

The thread, "I Just can't help it" , was initiated by Dave Schwartz.

"It seems that I often post provocative things and then resist the urge to respond. Well, this is another of those times. I got this one from a good friend who shall remain nameless (but he always uses interesting signtaure lines <G> And his first name is Dick. Schmidt.).

Anyway, since things have cooled off on the other political threads, it was probably time for a "heater" anyway. <G>"
I don't think as you say "inflamed anti-Bush rhetoric", is totally off the wall.
Some of us have tried to make thoughtful arguments in support of our point of view.
I would suspect that those on the right have posted some pretty inflamatory things as well.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by hcap
PA

The thread, "I Just can't help it" , was initiated by Dave Schwartz.



I'm talking about when these political tennis match debates first started taking off in earnest, about 2 years ago or so.....

Heck, I don't mind off-topic, I was just kidding about burning it to the ground. However, the constant "Bush is evil" is getting old. How many times are people going to say the same thing and pretend we haven't already heard it all?

To some, the current administration can do no right, and to some, it can do no wrong. I don't agree with either camp, but hey, that's me, Mr. Middle Of The Road.....

[Secretariat]

PA,

I look at most of the posts in these threads, and generally whenever you disagree with Bush on something, Lefty or someone else refers to you as a Bush hater. I’ve never seen a phrase uttered by a liberal here saying you’re a Clinton hater, or a liberal hater. Many of the right wing posts tend to attack the poster and all liberals in general, or Clinton, rather than talking about solutions. As VetScratch said:

“Good Bush? Bad oil-stained Bush? Good Bill? Randy-ass deceptive Bill? The figureheads will come and go... somehow we need to penetrate beyond the superficial campaign rhetoric and figure out if anyone has real solutions to economic and foreign policy issues.

Can't we debate solutions instead of conducting more court marshall hearings?”

I respect Show Me the Wire’s arguments because they attempt to arrive at a solution, despite my complete disagreement. I posted “how will Bush reduce the deficit if he can’t in fact cut discretionary spending, (due to 93% of it being military related – see Heritage link or look at the percentage breakdown yourself), as he asserted in his State of the Union address?” Lefty doesn’t refute it, but generalizes with his “I trust Bush.” It doesn’t answer the question with any kind of solution. And by asking the questin, it doesn’t imply that I am calling Bush evil, or hating the man so intensely I resort to calling him a Fascist, or Hitler. Yes, some might do that, but the “you hate Bush” rhetoric is promulgated more here on this board by people replying to questions rather than addressing the information. (exception might be Amazin)

As to the tax cuts for welfare recipients, I see nowhere in my posts I advocated that. As to Congress passing legislation on the budget, we must remember that the president sets the agenda he wants to take the nation on in his speeches, and he has the power to veto spending bills. What I was trying to point out is the hypocrisy of Bush calling himself a “compassionate conservative”, while borrowing our children’s future money by giving huge tax breaks to large corporate political donors. To blame welfare recipients for the deficit is absurd. Welfare gives peanuts to people at the lowest end of our scale. Most of us couldn’t survive on it, and welfare survived fine during previous presidential administrations without creating the massive deficit we now have under GW. All one has to do is look at the following statement to see who’s paying the bill:

“In 1940, companies and individuals each paid about half the federal income tax collected; now the companies pay 13.7% and individuals 86.3%.” - Businessweek., 03/31/2003

I’ve also attached a link to a chart of the History of the Top Individual Income Tax Rate. (the millionaires and billionarie one). Take a look, and think.

http://jec.senate.gov/economy/charts/Top%20Tax%20Rate%20History%20Graph.pdf

If corporations are playing considerably less as outlined by BusinessWeek, and individuals are paying more as outlined by BusinessWeek, AND the top indivudal tax rate has declined from the 90% level to the 35% percent level today, who is paying to make up the difference, especially with all those Great Society programs such as Medicare and Medicaid? Yep, the middle class. Yet, Bush supported a massive tax cut for the wealthiest despite these figures with the perception it will trickle down to the lower classes. But, corps and wealthy individuals can hire the best tax people in the business to avoid paying taxes, and do so

From Businessweek:

“But in the late 1990s, the hunt for tax breaks became a much bigger business. For one thing, a new class of professionals -- Wall Street investment bankers -- joined the legions of lawyers and accountants hawking tax-management services. "Squadrons of lawyers, accountants, and Wall Street structured-finance experts have made an art form of minimizing the U.S. multinational's effective tax rate within this maze of the U.S. tax code, tax treaties, and global tax systems," says Selva Ozelli, international tax editor for RIA, a New York provider of tax information and software.”

The philosophy is simple according to Businessweek:

“What strategies do those experts pursue? Exploiting low tax rates overseas was and is one of the most common methods of cutting the tax bill. The game has one simple goal and many routes to get there. The aim is to pile up income in low-tax nations while shifting expenses to high-tax nations. The most extreme version of this, and the tactic that has drawn the most fire, is to simply incorporate in a tax haven. Although it cost Tyco International Ltd. shareholders $1 billion in capital-gains taxes when the company moved to Bermuda in 1997, by 2001 the company was saving $600 million a year. Cooper Industries, Ingersoll-Rand Co., and a dozen or so others have made similar moves in the past five years. Washington has decried the trend, but Congress has yet to enact curbs.”

Don’t tell me it’s the welfare recipient causing these deficits.

[ljb]

Pa,
I have to disagree with you again. I can't speak for Amazin but, when i first started posting on this board it was nothing but the rightys huffing and puffing about going after Saddam. I thought it should have another opinion just to keep it "fair and balanced".
Shortly thereafter i got a reply from Amazin telling me i was in for a hard time as this board was dominated by right wingers. This didn't bother me as my experience on internet bbs has been with rightwing dominated boards. I was/am a little upset with the board administrator being biased and expressing his bias in his criticisms.
But fear not, when the spirit moves me i will continue to point out the fallacies of the right wingers on this board. Just as i am pointing out your obvious bias here.

;)

[Amazin]

PA quote Believe it or not, the OFF-TOPIC section happily existed for QUITE SOME TIME with little or NO political discussion WHATSOEVER. It only became like it is today AFTER AMAZIN, LJB and posters of their ilk provoked these types of discussion with their inflamed anti-Bush rhetoric.

That, my friend, is 100% fact.

Not quite 100% correct. I got into this when your buddy Dave S.(and I'm not blaming him),put up a thread asking for opinions of who'se for and against an Iraqi invasion. All the posters were for it. Dave S. was more curious to hear from someone against it, and why, and kept asking to hear from the other side.. I simply replied in my first 'off topic" "drop Bush,Not bombs".I did not have an interest in continuing after that.But Dave stepped in again and tried to get me to elaborate.Again I was reluctant,and said something small.But then I was deluged with right wing rhetoric which caused me to reply to their allegations. And that's how it started for me.

So you see PA. I didn't start the "liberal" influx into this board.I was asked to.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Amazin
[b]Not quite 100% correct. I got into this when your buddy Dave S.(and I'm not blaming him),put up a thread asking for opinions of who'se for and against an Iraqi invasion.


You've been a registered member since 12/01. The war started in May 2003, did it not?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. All the posts ARE STILL HERE. Go back to the beginning of the off-topic section and see what was going on back then. I will do this when I get off work, but if you have the time now and can provide a link showing that the "right wing nutties" were provoking all this, I'd like to see it....

[Amazin]

Pa

This is the thread that started it for me,dated 9/30 /02.So for the first 9 months as a member,I never got involved in the off topic section:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=3162

[Tom]

OK.
I got a bottle of Prosec.
A bottle of Wild Turkey.
Some bandages.
I am going back. Back to the begining.
Re-read all the first posts here.
Did this over at Yahoo before its demise.
Spend two months in a rest home afterwards.
If I don't post again this weekend, I'll see you guys in late March or so.
:D