sf as for the comment about al living in a mansion, well i dont know where he lives, could really care less, just making a comment about hollywood in general.

come to the delta and live here a while you will see thta what i say is true about the how the "wards" of the state leech off my tax dollars.


as far as dennis miller is concerned well i dont use him to get my political idealology. besides he isnt funny anymore

MaumeeRocket Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Quote:By the way SF, were is your platnum " Demacard ", while the republicans are bad at spending money the demacrats are twice as bad.  :D

Ah, but Democrats at least know how to balance budgets.

I do beleive the budget was balanced during the Clinton years with a Rebublican congress. Congress has 10x more weight when it comes to balancing the budget than the president, its called the wonderful world of checks and balances.

So what's the problem this year?

Bush is a huge spender. The Cato Institute is calling him the "Mother of All Spenders." It says Clinton didn't come close and that one has to go back to the Carter era for the kind of spending increases we are seeing under Bush and a Congress of his own party.

<a href='http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html</a>

After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

Each presidents' signature is on each one of these budgets. They can't be absolved.

"I do beleive the budget was balanced during the Clinton years with a Rebublican congress. Congress has 10x more weight when it comes to balancing the budget than the president, its called the wonderful world of checks and balances."

Do you have ANYTHING good to credit Clinton with?

If there's one thing that's been agreed among reasonable people, it's the fact that Clinton ran the sh#% out of the economy.

Do some reading. Quit relying on Faux News for your entire worldview, kid.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Do you have ANYTHING good to credit Clinton with?

well since you asked jbr i think clinton did great on this
<a href='http://www.parent.net/parents/news/archives/taxcut.shtml' target='_blank'>tax cut article</a>
what amazes me is that when a dem wants a tax cut its wonderful and when the repubs want to do one it will ruin the country. what gives?

safetyeagle Wrote:

joebordenrebel Wrote:Do you have ANYTHING good to credit Clinton with?

well since you asked jbr i think clinton did great on this
<a href='http://www.parent.net/parents/news/archives/taxcut.shtml' target='_blank'>tax cut article</a>
what amazes me is that when a dem wants a tax cut its wonderful and when the repubs want to do one it will ruin the country. what gives?

1. The Earned Income Tax Credit isn't a tax cut for rich people.
2. Clinton balanced budgets.

You have mistaken me SF, their not my republicans. If you will notice most of my post have been party neutral. As for the remark about the "Demacard" I just tought it hipacritical that you just displayed the "Repubicard" since both partys spend money like its water. I do not expect etheir party to cut the budget, it is not in their nature. I am a Libraterian who would like to see the federal goverment cut back to whats mandated in the constitution and to pay as little tax as I can. :D

Skipuno, you seem to be awfully worried about taxes, and rightfully so. Then you claim you're a libertarian who wants the gov. to operate based on the Constitution.

In the U.S. Constitution, the gov. has the ability to "provide for the common defense...general welfare" among other things. For the gov. to do this, it costs money. In a free-market system, representative-style gov. like the United States, nothing is free and no one gets something without paying for it. So if you want economic progress, i.e. jobs and economic growth, along with our little quarrels in the mideast, along with a school system and roads, basic infrastructure, etc. you have to pay for it. We all have to pay for it.

And, if you want a representative gov. with all the ability to defend us and help us economically, then you have to pay those mudder fockers upward of 100,000 a year, in addition to footing the bill to elect those sonuvabee-atches!

Another little factoid mandated in the Constitution: only Congress (and it means ONLY Congress) can wage war. It seems particularly odd that you complain about taxation when we're building a nation or two overseas. It seems odd that your posts imply you belief that wars are free, that people drive those B-2s for free and that they run on air rather than gas.

Yes, it seems our gov. has deviated far and wide from the Constitution!

As for saftey-eagle, you said in one post that lazy, pot-smoking Delta households are taking your money via taxation. I suggest you look at the numbers, particularly those numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. If you don't care to log into their site, easily accessible, then watch C-SPAN. The GOP controlled Congress recently passed a budget and domestic discretionary spending (of which a portion goes to pot smoking Delta homeboyz) accounted for only about 16%. Amazingly, defense spending accounted for over 60%. Not to mention, but domestic disc. spending also pays military pensions, military disability and monies for GIs to go to college, in addition to a few Delta households who need dough for their weed. Defense spending, on the other hand, pays for the numerous military bases overseas, the current two-front war, fuel for those B-2s, along with the pilots' paychecks, bullets, and transportation costs. The NSA and CIA, along with the Pentagon, their budgets are seperate from the federal budgets that Congress passes. The first two, well,their budgets are secret--no one knows how much taxpayers' dollars support them.

Gary Nolan was on the Thom Hartmann show yesterday. Man, that was ugly.

Speaking of abuse, why do so many in the LP make the automatic jump from "If you don't agree with me, then you must be a Marxist"?

Isn't there some kind of middle ground in there somewhere. . .