Tom Delay's Joke of the Day
- Thread starter Drocket
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I don't want to click on any 
ing Moonie-funded Washington Times link. The important question is this: is he ing serious, and if so, who is he telling this to?
ing Moonie-funded Washington Times link. The important question is this: is he ing serious, and if so, who is he telling this to?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Well, given the fact that we've gone from annual surpluses under Clinton to spending deficits that would make Reagan blush under Bush, I would like to know: where did DeLay get his crack, and is there any more?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
My favorite Delay moment:
Enjoy that Cuban Hoyo de Monterrey double corona buddy!
... starting to wonder why we fought for Texas in the first place.
Enjoy that Cuban Hoyo de Monterrey double corona buddy!
... starting to wonder why we fought for Texas in the first place.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='camoor']... starting to wonder why we fought for Texas in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Oil?
Oil?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
ing Republicans with their no tax but spend spend spend. Almost as bad as the ing Democrats with their tax tax tax and spend spend spend. Goddamn lying bastards like DeLay make we want to 
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']ing Republicans with their no tax but spend spend spend. Almost as bad as the ing Democrats with their tax tax tax and spend spend spend. Goddamn lying bastards like DeLay make we want to [/QUOTE]
I'd really have to question the 'almost' in there. Putting aside the fact that the only balanced budget since WW2 happened under Clinton, along side a significant decrease of government spending compared to GDP, I would have to say tax and spend is significantly better than no-taxes and spend. While high taxes to pay for out-of-control spending is certainly not good, at least under that scenario you don't have to worry about the goverment going bankrupt. Bush's policy of tax cuts combined with spending that would embarass a drunk sailor isn't a minor problem - we're massively indebted to foreign countries. Even if we manage to avoid going completely belly-up, the debt puts a lot of bad pressure on the value of US currency, which can and is negatively affecting our economy.
ing Republicans with their no tax but spend spend spend. Almost as bad as the ing Democrats with their tax tax tax and spend spend spend. Goddamn lying bastards like DeLay make we want to [/QUOTE]I'd really have to question the 'almost' in there. Putting aside the fact that the only balanced budget since WW2 happened under Clinton, along side a significant decrease of government spending compared to GDP, I would have to say tax and spend is significantly better than no-taxes and spend. While high taxes to pay for out-of-control spending is certainly not good, at least under that scenario you don't have to worry about the goverment going bankrupt. Bush's policy of tax cuts combined with spending that would embarass a drunk sailor isn't a minor problem - we're massively indebted to foreign countries. Even if we manage to avoid going completely belly-up, the debt puts a lot of bad pressure on the value of US currency, which can and is negatively affecting our economy.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
Also, some other Republicans have chimed in with jokes of their own:
It sounds like the Republicans are stepping up to try to fight control of the federal goverment away from the Republicans. After all, we all know the Republicans are the party of financial responsibility, unlike the Republicans, who have been in charge of the budget for years now and have been flushing money down the toilet as fast as they humanly can. So remember, everyone, vote Republican in 2006, and show those Republicans who's in charge!
And finally, a joke that was actually intended to be a joke, and a pretty good one at that:
It sounds like the Republicans are stepping up to try to fight control of the federal goverment away from the Republicans. After all, we all know the Republicans are the party of financial responsibility, unlike the Republicans, who have been in charge of the budget for years now and have been flushing money down the toilet as fast as they humanly can. So remember, everyone, vote Republican in 2006, and show those Republicans who's in charge!
Yeah, hundreds of billions in new spending shouldn't affect the deficit AT ALL. Heck, lets throw in some more tax cuts for the rich while we're at it.
And finally, a joke that was actually intended to be a joke, and a pretty good one at that:
Oh, a Democrat. I should have known.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']I'd really have to question the 'almost' in there. Putting aside the fact that the only balanced budget since WW2 happened under Clinton, along side a significant decrease of government spending compared to GDP, I would have to say tax and spend is significantly better than no-taxes and spend. While high taxes to pay for out-of-control spending is certainly not good, at least under that scenario you don't have to worry about the goverment going bankrupt. Bush's policy of tax cuts combined with spending that would embarass a drunk sailor isn't a minor problem - we're massively indebted to foreign countries. Even if we manage to avoid going completely belly-up, the debt puts a lot of bad pressure on the value of US currency, which can and is negatively affecting our economy.[/QUOTE]
Oh believe me, I'm as much outraged about the debt and the fact that it is rising as anyone. But at least not raising taxes keeps us away from socialism and flushing our economy down the shitter.
Oh believe me, I'm as much outraged about the debt and the fact that it is rising as anyone. But at least not raising taxes keeps us away from socialism and flushing our economy down the shitter.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
I don't think you quite understand: out-of-control debt is at least as bad as socialism, if not worse. Even if the Democrats WERE proposing Socialism (which they're not), it is, at most, moderately damaging to the economy. The debt that Bush has created is threatening the very existance of the US economy itself. If our foreign debters decide that we can't handle any more debt and cut us off, the US dollar is going to be worthless. Not worthless as in high inflation - worthless as in they'll be scraps of paper you can use as toilet paper. We'll be back to bartering with chickens. Bush's policies are rushing us towards a point where there simply won't BE a US economy at all. That's a much bigger problem than a moderately depressed economy because everyone has healthcare (and that's ignoring the fact that the US is already losing jobs because of a lack of universal health care.)
>>But at least not raising taxes keeps us away from socialism and flushing our economy down the shitter.
Yeah because things got so bad after Clinton made a slight increase in the top rate...
And always remember "Tax and spend Liberals" always beat out "Borrow and Spend Conservatives". The borrowing has to be financed.
Yeah because things got so bad after Clinton made a slight increase in the top rate...
And always remember "Tax and spend Liberals" always beat out "Borrow and Spend Conservatives". The borrowing has to be financed.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']I don't think you quite understand: out-of-control debt is at least as bad as socialism, if not worse. Even if the Democrats WERE proposing Socialism (which they're not), it is, at most, moderately damaging to the economy. The debt that Bush has created is threatening the very existance of the US economy itself. If our foreign debters decide that we can't handle any more debt and cut us off, the US dollar is going to be worthless. Not worthless as in high inflation - worthless as in they'll be scraps of paper you can use as toilet paper. We'll be back to bartering with chickens. Bush's policies are rushing us towards a point where there simply won't BE a US economy at all. That's a much bigger problem than a moderately depressed economy because everyone has healthcare (and that's ignoring the fact that the US is already losing jobs because of a lack of universal health care.)[/QUOTE]
I guess I should have said the Democratic Party would like to move us closer to socialism, if not socialism outright. I think that's a fair statement given their policy positions over the last 40 years.
You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress. And your points are good ones. Just like individuals, small amounts of debt may be necessary at times and desirable, but the massive levels we're at now are extremely dangerous to the future of the country. Believe me, I fully understand how all of us are going to be paying for the spending spree that today's generation of high-spending politicians are going on.
msut77 - I can certainly give credit to Clinton for not messing up the economy in the '90s, although some people have a strange idea that he somehow "caused" the prosperity (like some people think Bush somehow "caused" the economic downturn that started at the end of the Clinton administration).
I guess I should have said the Democratic Party would like to move us closer to socialism, if not socialism outright. I think that's a fair statement given their policy positions over the last 40 years.
You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress. And your points are good ones. Just like individuals, small amounts of debt may be necessary at times and desirable, but the massive levels we're at now are extremely dangerous to the future of the country. Believe me, I fully understand how all of us are going to be paying for the spending spree that today's generation of high-spending politicians are going on.
msut77 - I can certainly give credit to Clinton for not messing up the economy in the '90s, although some people have a strange idea that he somehow "caused" the prosperity (like some people think Bush somehow "caused" the economic downturn that started at the end of the Clinton administration).
>>although some people have a strange idea that he somehow "caused" the prosperity
He balanced the budget, freeing up more money for private investment.
IMHO This helped spark the tech boom.
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
You are aware that Republicans control Congress right? And that most of them are so whipped they do whatever Bush and the Party tell them to do?
I cannoting believe you man, Clinton balances the Budget and creates a surplus and Republicans create insane deficits and national debts and the problem is that Democrats help poor people.
He balanced the budget, freeing up more money for private investment.
IMHO This helped spark the tech boom.
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
You are aware that Republicans control Congress right? And that most of them are so whipped they do whatever Bush and the Party tell them to do?
I cannot
ing believe you man, Clinton balances the Budget and creates a surplus and Republicans create insane deficits and national debts and the problem is that Democrats help poor people.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='elprincipe']msut77 - I can certainly give credit to Clinton for not messing up the economy in the '90s, although some people have a strange idea that he somehow "caused" the prosperity (like some people think Bush somehow "caused" the economic downturn that started at the end of the Clinton administration).[/QUOTE]
It's a valid argument, and it is unarguable that federal income is related to economic activity. That having been said, Bush Sr. and Clinton both realized that Reaganomics (supply-side, or trickle-down, if you prefer) was a complete failure in practice. The 80's under Reagan was, much like Clinton's 90's, very prosperous. However, the debt accumulated from the Reagan years is approximately 3 times the cumulative debt from *every* president prior (side note - that's what I think, anyway; I did the math one day when looking at a CBO report, and I can't quite recall the results).
W Bush, who can't take responsibility for *all* of the poor economic conditions, doesn't seem to be aware that suppy-side economics is dead dead dead. Seriously, he'd have as much luck trying Communism again.
It's a valid argument, and it is unarguable that federal income is related to economic activity. That having been said, Bush Sr. and Clinton both realized that Reaganomics (supply-side, or trickle-down, if you prefer) was a complete failure in practice. The 80's under Reagan was, much like Clinton's 90's, very prosperous. However, the debt accumulated from the Reagan years is approximately 3 times the cumulative debt from *every* president prior (side note - that's what I think, anyway; I did the math one day when looking at a CBO report, and I can't quite recall the results).
W Bush, who can't take responsibility for *all* of the poor economic conditions, doesn't seem to be aware that suppy-side economics is dead dead dead. Seriously, he'd have as much luck trying Communism again.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>although some people have a strange idea that he somehow "caused" the prosperity
He balanced the budget, freeing up more money for private investment.
IMHO This helped spark the tech boom.
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
You are aware that Republicans control Congress right? And that most of them are so whipped they do whatever Bush and the Party tell them to do?
I cannoting believe you man, Clinton balances the Budget and creates a surplus and Republicans create insane deficits and national debts and the problem is that Democrats help poor people.[/QUOTE]
Thank you very much for reading between the lines in my posts and finding things that in no way, shape or form were there. Why, how would I know what I think without you to tell me?!
Of course I'm aware the Republicans control Congress. You seem to be under the impression that I'm a Republican or I'm somehow defending Republicans. It's like me defending Kim Jong Il in relation to Saddam Hussein.
He balanced the budget, freeing up more money for private investment.
IMHO This helped spark the tech boom.
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
You are aware that Republicans control Congress right? And that most of them are so whipped they do whatever Bush and the Party tell them to do?
I cannot
ing believe you man, Clinton balances the Budget and creates a surplus and Republicans create insane deficits and national debts and the problem is that Democrats help poor people.[/QUOTE]Thank you very much for reading between the lines in my posts and finding things that in no way, shape or form were there. Why, how would I know what I think without you to tell me?!
Of course I'm aware the Republicans control Congress. You seem to be under the impression that I'm a Republican or I'm somehow defending Republicans. It's like me defending Kim Jong Il in relation to Saddam Hussein.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']It's a valid argument, and it is unarguable that federal income is related to economic activity. That having been said, Bush Sr. and Clinton both realized that Reaganomics (supply-side, or trickle-down, if you prefer) was a complete failure in practice. The 80's under Reagan was, much like Clinton's 90's, very prosperous. However, the debt accumulated from the Reagan years is approximately 3 times the cumulative debt from *every* president prior (side note - that's what I think, anyway; I did the math one day when looking at a CBO report, and I can't quite recall the results).
W Bush, who can't take responsibility for *all* of the poor economic conditions, doesn't seem to be aware that suppy-side economics is dead dead dead. Seriously, he'd have as much luck trying Communism again.[/QUOTE]
I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for. And for the record, I thought Bush's tax cuts were too far weighted towards the wealthy as well. Of course, I also feel ideally government would be about 20-25% of its size now and our taxes would be reduced in kind. I don't feel anyone making under $30,000 a year should pay a dime to the federal government.
W Bush, who can't take responsibility for *all* of the poor economic conditions, doesn't seem to be aware that suppy-side economics is dead dead dead. Seriously, he'd have as much luck trying Communism again.[/QUOTE]
I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for. And for the record, I thought Bush's tax cuts were too far weighted towards the wealthy as well. Of course, I also feel ideally government would be about 20-25% of its size now and our taxes would be reduced in kind. I don't feel anyone making under $30,000 a year should pay a dime to the federal government.
>>Why, how would I know what I think without you to tell me?!
Well you are aware that Republican in Congress more or less take their marching orders from the whitehouse right?
So lets see 1) Republicans control everything right now 2) Clinton balanced the budget 3) W wrecked it 4)and W has outspent practically everyone ever in existence. Yet you seem to think the big problem is Democrats are Librul Commie Socialists...
BTW didnt you support the war?
Well you are aware that Republican in Congress more or less take their marching orders from the whitehouse right?
So lets see 1) Republicans control everything right now 2) Clinton balanced the budget 3) W wrecked it 4)and W has outspent practically everyone ever in existence. Yet you seem to think the big problem is Democrats are Librul Commie Socialists...
BTW didnt you support the war?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't feel anyone making under $30,000 a year should pay a dime to the federal government.[/QUOTE]
I want to hug you. Seriously. I've always tried bringing up this argument to people who bray about having to pay for everybody else in society (premised on the fact that people who earn more pay more taxes).
I'm more left than you (you don't say...), so I always arbitrarily put it at $44,000 (the median income, which it has been for the past 8 years or more). My reasoning is this: if you are so bloody opposed to taxes, go earn $44,000 or less per year. That ought to make you happy, right?
Of course, the simplicity of that notion belies the fact that people making $44,001 are *ed*.
I want to hug you. Seriously. I've always tried bringing up this argument to people who bray about having to pay for everybody else in society (premised on the fact that people who earn more pay more taxes).
I'm more left than you (you don't say...), so I always arbitrarily put it at $44,000 (the median income, which it has been for the past 8 years or more). My reasoning is this: if you are so bloody opposed to taxes, go earn $44,000 or less per year. That ought to make you happy, right?
Of course, the simplicity of that notion belies the fact that people making $44,001 are *
ed*.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I want to hug you. Seriously. I've always tried bringing up this argument to people who bray about having to pay for everybody else in society (premised on the fact that people who earn more pay more taxes).
I'm more left than you (you don't say...), so I always arbitrarily put it at $44,000 (the median income, which it has been for the past 8 years or more). My reasoning is this: if you are so bloody opposed to taxes, go earn $44,000 or less per year. That ought to make you happy, right?
Of course, the simplicity of that notion belies the fact that people making $44,001 are *ed*.[/QUOTE]
Damn, I think I'm more liberal than you, but I had always suggested setting it at 25,000 or so. The government needs the money to function, and setting it at 44,000 would likely become a huge issue (even with increasing the high end of earners). You also can't increase it to much, since business may decide to locate themselves completely outside the country (instead of just outsourcing). I think military spending should be cut and social program spending increased.
I'm more left than you (you don't say...), so I always arbitrarily put it at $44,000 (the median income, which it has been for the past 8 years or more). My reasoning is this: if you are so bloody opposed to taxes, go earn $44,000 or less per year. That ought to make you happy, right?
Of course, the simplicity of that notion belies the fact that people making $44,001 are *
ed*.[/QUOTE]Damn, I think I'm more liberal than you, but I had always suggested setting it at 25,000 or so. The government needs the money to function, and setting it at 44,000 would likely become a huge issue (even with increasing the high end of earners). You also can't increase it to much, since business may decide to locate themselves completely outside the country (instead of just outsourcing). I think military spending should be cut and social program spending increased.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>Why, how would I know what I think without you to tell me?!
Well you are aware that Republican in Congress more or less take their marching orders from the whitehouse right?
So lets see 1) Republicans control everything right now 2) Clinton balanced the budget 3) W wrecked it 4)and W has outspent practically everyone ever in existence. Yet you seem to think the big problem is Democrats are Librul Commie Socialists...[/QUOTE]
Dude, you seriously need to just read what I actually say and respond to that. You'd think from my previous posts it would be pretty clear to you (if you had read them fully) that I feel both parties (and political parties in general, I might add) are a big, if not THE big, problem.
Here's a shortlist for you:
1. I never said liberals were communists
2. I never said "the big problem is Democrats"
3. I never tried to deflect any blame from the Republican Party; indeed, quite the opposite.
Now please respond only to what I say, not what your super-partisan reading between the lines to make up things I didn't say is.
[quote name='Msut77']BTW didnt you support the war?[/QUOTE]
I supported the war in Afghanistan. I supported the war in Iraq based on that I felt people with full access to the intelligence would be able to judge that information better than myself, with little to no access. As things are, I feel the intelligence was a big blunder, although I can't really blame people in power for putting stock in what they thought was accurate intelligence. I sure can blame them for mistakes in the war and idiotic things like saying the war would be paid for from Iraqi oil money (riiiight). So it's a mixed bag, I guess.
As for whether the war is ultimately going to be worth it, I think we'll see 10-15 years down the road. By then, Iraq will either be a solid democracy which has helped affect change in places like Iran and Syria, or it will be in anarchy and a terrorist base. I think it's too hard to predict this right now, but at this point we might as well try to make it come out the way we hope it will, so just leaving immediately is surely not the answer.
Well you are aware that Republican in Congress more or less take their marching orders from the whitehouse right?
So lets see 1) Republicans control everything right now 2) Clinton balanced the budget 3) W wrecked it 4)and W has outspent practically everyone ever in existence. Yet you seem to think the big problem is Democrats are Librul Commie Socialists...[/QUOTE]
Dude, you seriously need to just read what I actually say and respond to that. You'd think from my previous posts it would be pretty clear to you (if you had read them fully) that I feel both parties (and political parties in general, I might add) are a big, if not THE big, problem.
Here's a shortlist for you:
1. I never said liberals were communists
2. I never said "the big problem is Democrats"
3. I never tried to deflect any blame from the Republican Party; indeed, quite the opposite.
Now please respond only to what I say, not what your super-partisan reading between the lines to make up things I didn't say is.
[quote name='Msut77']BTW didnt you support the war?[/QUOTE]
I supported the war in Afghanistan. I supported the war in Iraq based on that I felt people with full access to the intelligence would be able to judge that information better than myself, with little to no access. As things are, I feel the intelligence was a big blunder, although I can't really blame people in power for putting stock in what they thought was accurate intelligence. I sure can blame them for mistakes in the war and idiotic things like saying the war would be paid for from Iraqi oil money (riiiight). So it's a mixed bag, I guess.
As for whether the war is ultimately going to be worth it, I think we'll see 10-15 years down the road. By then, Iraq will either be a solid democracy which has helped affect change in places like Iran and Syria, or it will be in anarchy and a terrorist base. I think it's too hard to predict this right now, but at this point we might as well try to make it come out the way we hope it will, so just leaving immediately is surely not the answer.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Damn, I think I'm more liberal than you, but I had always suggested setting it at 25,000 or so. The government needs the money to function, and setting it at 44,000 would likely become a huge issue (even with increasing the high end of earners). You also can't increase it to much, since business may decide to locate themselves completely outside the country (instead of just outsourcing). I think military spending should be cut and social program spending increased.[/QUOTE]
I agree about military spending being cut, but I can't agree with you on social programs. Of course, I think just about every program in government should be cut or eliminated.
Aside from federal income taxes, what really kills people in this country are the skyrocketing property taxes. However, that's a state issue.
I agree about military spending being cut, but I can't agree with you on social programs. Of course, I think just about every program in government should be cut or eliminated.
Aside from federal income taxes, what really kills people in this country are the skyrocketing property taxes. However, that's a state issue.
>1. I never said liberals were communists
>>I guess I should have said the Democratic Party would like to move us closer to socialism, if not socialism outright. I think that's a fair statement given their policy positions over the last 40 years.
Well you got that right you just said Socialists, and of course what I said was "Librul Commie Socialists" which is the way its usually said among Cons and Conservatarians.
>2. I never said "the big problem is Democrats"
>>3. I never tried to deflect any blame from the Republican Party; indeed, quite the opposite.
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
As I have pointed out Democrats are out of power right now, have been for for a few years now. The last time Democrats had power the budget was balanced.
Now how else exactly is a rational person supposed to view your post as anything but what it is? It was a feeble attempt at muddying the waters and trying to pin some of the Republican screw ups on Democrats.
>>I guess I should have said the Democratic Party would like to move us closer to socialism, if not socialism outright. I think that's a fair statement given their policy positions over the last 40 years.
Well you got that right you just said Socialists, and of course what I said was "Librul Commie Socialists" which is the way its usually said among Cons and Conservatarians.
>2. I never said "the big problem is Democrats"
>>3. I never tried to deflect any blame from the Republican Party; indeed, quite the opposite.
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
As I have pointed out Democrats are out of power right now, have been for for a few years now. The last time Democrats had power the budget was balanced.
Now how else exactly is a rational person supposed to view your post as anything but what it is? It was a feeble attempt at muddying the waters and trying to pin some of the Republican screw ups on Democrats.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']So how exactly do you think the tax cuts can be kept with two wars going on?[/QUOTE]
To be accurate, there's really only one war going on. Afghanistan has long since been left to independent warlords who are running around the country doing whatever the hell they want. Sure, there's still some US troops in the area, but they're not actually doing much of anything (which is pretty much the only reason they're not being blown up, as in Iraq.)
To be accurate, there's really only one war going on. Afghanistan has long since been left to independent warlords who are running around the country doing whatever the hell they want. Sure, there's still some US troops in the area, but they're not actually doing much of anything (which is pretty much the only reason they're not being blown up, as in Iraq.)
Drocket
CAGiversary!
A blast from the past
I happened to stumble across a link to this tonight while webbrowsing. It represents such a completely different time in American history, it almost hard to wrap your mind around it...
I happened to stumble across a link to this tonight while webbrowsing. It represents such a completely different time in American history, it almost hard to wrap your mind around it...
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']I supported the war in Iraq based on that I felt people with full access to the intelligence would be able to judge that information better than myself, with little to no access. As things are, I feel the intelligence was a big blunder, although I can't really blame people in power for putting stock in what they thought was accurate intelligence. I sure can blame them for mistakes in the war and idiotic things like saying the war would be paid for from Iraqi oil money (riiiight). So it's a mixed bag, I guess.[/QUOTE]
Kind of interesting how BEFORE 9/11 Powell and Rice publicly said that Iraq had no WMDs:
Powell, 2/14/01: We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
Rice, 7/29/01: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
Intelligence gone bad after 9/11, or something more sinister?
Kind of interesting how BEFORE 9/11 Powell and Rice publicly said that Iraq had no WMDs:
Powell, 2/14/01: We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
Rice, 7/29/01: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
Intelligence gone bad after 9/11, or something more sinister?
[quote name='Drocket']I'd really have to question the 'almost' in there. Putting aside the fact that the only balanced budget since WW2 happened under Clinton, along side a significant decrease of government spending compared to GDP, I would have to say tax and spend is significantly better than no-taxes and spend. While high taxes to pay for out-of-control spending is certainly not good, at least under that scenario you don't have to worry about the goverment going bankrupt. Bush's policy of tax cuts combined with spending that would embarass a drunk sailor isn't a minor problem - we're massively indebted to foreign countries. Even if we manage to avoid going completely belly-up, the debt puts a lot of bad pressure on the value of US currency, which can and is negatively affecting our economy.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if this matters, but i wanted you to know that the budget was balanced repeatedly during the Eisenhower administration.
I'm not sure if this matters, but i wanted you to know that the budget was balanced repeatedly during the Eisenhower administration.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Pardon my French, but you're an idiot. Please read carefully.
[quote name='Msut77']>1. I never said liberals were communists
>>I guess I should have said the Democratic Party would like to move us closer to socialism, if not socialism outright. I think that's a fair statement given their policy positions over the last 40 years.
Well you got that right you just said Socialists, and of course what I said was "Librul Commie Socialists" which is the way its usually said among Cons and Conservatarians.[/quote]
Socialism is not the same as communism. I'm not nor have ever claimed to be a staunch conservative, nor have I ever called liberals as a whole "commie socialists."
[quote name='Msut77']>2. I never said "the big problem is Democrats"
>>3. I never tried to deflect any blame from the Republican Party; indeed, quite the opposite.
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
As I have pointed out Democrats are out of power right now, have been for for a few years now. The last time Democrats had power the budget was balanced.[/QUOTE]
I thank you for quoting me there since you are proving my point. You seem to be under the false impression that by saying Congress shares the blame I am absolving the Republican Party. As you were kind enough to point out in an earlier post, the Republicans control Congress. Therefore, how can be assigning blame to Congress be taking blame away from Republicans? You're nonsensical.
[quote name='Msut77']Now how else exactly is a rational person supposed to view your post as anything but what it is? It was a feeble attempt at muddying the waters and trying to pin some of the Republican screw ups on Democrats.[/QUOTE]
As I already said, you're simply reading into my posts what you want to argue against instead of looking at what I actually wrote. I'm tired of responding to your laughably false arguments against something that I never wrote.
Have a nice day.
[quote name='Msut77']>1. I never said liberals were communists
>>I guess I should have said the Democratic Party would like to move us closer to socialism, if not socialism outright. I think that's a fair statement given their policy positions over the last 40 years.
Well you got that right you just said Socialists, and of course what I said was "Librul Commie Socialists" which is the way its usually said among Cons and Conservatarians.[/quote]
Socialism is not the same as communism. I'm not nor have ever claimed to be a staunch conservative, nor have I ever called liberals as a whole "commie socialists."
[quote name='Msut77']>2. I never said "the big problem is Democrats"
>>3. I never tried to deflect any blame from the Republican Party; indeed, quite the opposite.
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
As I have pointed out Democrats are out of power right now, have been for for a few years now. The last time Democrats had power the budget was balanced.[/QUOTE]
I thank you for quoting me there since you are proving my point. You seem to be under the false impression that by saying Congress shares the blame I am absolving the Republican Party. As you were kind enough to point out in an earlier post, the Republicans control Congress. Therefore, how can be assigning blame to Congress be taking blame away from Republicans? You're nonsensical.
[quote name='Msut77']Now how else exactly is a rational person supposed to view your post as anything but what it is? It was a feeble attempt at muddying the waters and trying to pin some of the Republican screw ups on Democrats.[/QUOTE]
As I already said, you're simply reading into my posts what you want to argue against instead of looking at what I actually wrote. I'm tired of responding to your laughably false arguments against something that I never wrote.
Have a nice day.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']So how exactly do you think the tax cuts can be kept with two wars going on?
How exactly did you ever come to the conclusion that would be the case?[/QUOTE]
Again, you should read before you post. I clearly advocate in this thread cutting government spending to 20-25% of the current level. If that doesn't explain it for you, I don't know what will.
How exactly did you ever come to the conclusion that would be the case?[/QUOTE]
Again, you should read before you post. I clearly advocate in this thread cutting government spending to 20-25% of the current level. If that doesn't explain it for you, I don't know what will.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
I'd love to see your proposal of HOW to cut the federal goverment down to 20-25% of its current size. If you elimiate EVERYTHING in the US government with the singular exception of the military, it would STILL be more than 25% of the current size. Assuming we cut the military by half, we'd be at 15%. That wouldn't include functions that are absolutely essential to what the definition of the US goverment is - simply running the federal court system, paying the president and congress, and printing money would bring us up to the >20% mark.
We then get to the things that the vast majority of people (and we're talking 95%+ here) think the federal goverment should be involved in. For example, ensuring that the drug companies don't screw us over by selling us snake oil and that our food isn't poisonous (FDA.) A federal law enforcement system to ensure that simply crossing a state line doesn't make it impossible to catch you (FBI.) Building highways so you can actually GET to the next state over. An agency to collect taxes so that the goverment actually gets anything at all.
It simply isn't rational to think that the goverment can be cut to anything smaller than 50% of its current size without the US becoming a third-world nation, and even getting to that would require completely scrapping Social Security, one of the most popular and highly-approved government programs that exists.
We then get to the things that the vast majority of people (and we're talking 95%+ here) think the federal goverment should be involved in. For example, ensuring that the drug companies don't screw us over by selling us snake oil and that our food isn't poisonous (FDA.) A federal law enforcement system to ensure that simply crossing a state line doesn't make it impossible to catch you (FBI.) Building highways so you can actually GET to the next state over. An agency to collect taxes so that the goverment actually gets anything at all.
It simply isn't rational to think that the goverment can be cut to anything smaller than 50% of its current size without the US becoming a third-world nation, and even getting to that would require completely scrapping Social Security, one of the most popular and highly-approved government programs that exists.
>>I clearly advocate in this thread cutting government spending to 20-25% of the current level.
Good God that ising genius, why the didnt some other ing think of that ing masterful plan you magnificent ing bastard.
But in all seriousness...
Yeah thats great I advocate A gold toilet on every corner and a robot wife in every garage.
But it aint gonna happen.
Kill yourself.
Good God that is
ing genius, why the didnt some other ing think of that ing masterful plan you magnificent ing bastard.But in all seriousness...
Yeah thats great I advocate A gold toilet on every corner and a robot wife in every garage.
But it aint gonna happen.
Kill yourself.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>I clearly advocate in this thread cutting government spending to 20-25% of the current level.
Good God that ising genius, why the didnt some other ing think of that ing masterful plan you magnificent ing bastard.
But in all seriousness...
Yeah thats great I advocate A gold toilet on every corner and a robot wife in every garage.
But it aint gonna happen.
Kill yourself.[/QUOTE]
It's nice to see you have conceded that you were 100% wrong so graciously.
Good God that is
ing genius, why the didnt some other ing think of that ing masterful plan you magnificent ing bastard.But in all seriousness...
Yeah thats great I advocate A gold toilet on every corner and a robot wife in every garage.
But it aint gonna happen.
Kill yourself.[/QUOTE]
It's nice to see you have conceded that you were 100% wrong so graciously.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']I'd love to see your proposal of HOW to cut the federal goverment down to 20-25% of its current size. If you elimiate EVERYTHING in the US government with the singular exception of the military, it would STILL be more than 25% of the current size. Assuming we cut the military by half, we'd be at 15%. That wouldn't include functions that are absolutely essential to what the definition of the US goverment is - simply running the federal court system, paying the president and congress, and printing money would bring us up to the >20% mark.
We then get to the things that the vast majority of people (and we're talking 95%+ here) think the federal goverment should be involved in. For example, ensuring that the drug companies don't screw us over by selling us snake oil and that our food isn't poisonous (FDA.) A federal law enforcement system to ensure that simply crossing a state line doesn't make it impossible to catch you (FBI.) Building highways so you can actually GET to the next state over. An agency to collect taxes so that the goverment actually gets anything at all.
It simply isn't rational to think that the goverment can be cut to anything smaller than 50% of its current size without the US becoming a third-world nation, and even getting to that would require completely scrapping Social Security, one of the most popular and highly-approved government programs that exists.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to type a lengthy treatise on the subject, but I will outline some broader ideas.
1. More money/power/decisions to the states, less to the federal government. More in line with the Constitution's original intent.
2. Drastic cuts in the military and everything else. Abolish the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, probably others.
3. Get the federal government out of programs like Social Security and Medicare which are none of its business.
4. Obviously, these things would have to be done gradually. And we would have to run a surplus for a while to get our insane debt level under control. After we have cleaned up our parents' mess, we can make things right.
5. Low taxes + local control = more responsive and efficient government. Remember, the federal government was prohibited by law from levying an income tax until 1913! Here's an interesting read on this subject:
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm
Anyway, it's a radical change to be sure, but I believe that it can be accomplished over time and that the country would be better for it. And I've got more radical ideas that will amaze/confuse/shock/anger you as well, such as all political parties are inherently bad for the country, as George Washington wisely said.
We then get to the things that the vast majority of people (and we're talking 95%+ here) think the federal goverment should be involved in. For example, ensuring that the drug companies don't screw us over by selling us snake oil and that our food isn't poisonous (FDA.) A federal law enforcement system to ensure that simply crossing a state line doesn't make it impossible to catch you (FBI.) Building highways so you can actually GET to the next state over. An agency to collect taxes so that the goverment actually gets anything at all.
It simply isn't rational to think that the goverment can be cut to anything smaller than 50% of its current size without the US becoming a third-world nation, and even getting to that would require completely scrapping Social Security, one of the most popular and highly-approved government programs that exists.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to type a lengthy treatise on the subject, but I will outline some broader ideas.
1. More money/power/decisions to the states, less to the federal government. More in line with the Constitution's original intent.
2. Drastic cuts in the military and everything else. Abolish the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, probably others.
3. Get the federal government out of programs like Social Security and Medicare which are none of its business.
4. Obviously, these things would have to be done gradually. And we would have to run a surplus for a while to get our insane debt level under control. After we have cleaned up our parents' mess, we can make things right.
5. Low taxes + local control = more responsive and efficient government. Remember, the federal government was prohibited by law from levying an income tax until 1913! Here's an interesting read on this subject:
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm
Anyway, it's a radical change to be sure, but I believe that it can be accomplished over time and that the country would be better for it. And I've got more radical ideas that will amaze/confuse/shock/anger you as well, such as all political parties are inherently bad for the country, as George Washington wisely said.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
But, with all the changes, the standard of living has drastically improved. Suggesting we return to earlier ways is fine, but, in my mind, saying that we did spend less money at one time is a weak argument due to the lower standard of living, especially among the poor.
Though, what do you percieve would be the social impact of abolishing the department of education? I'm not sure if you want to abolish universal education/free education or just redistribute power to the states.
It also seems that, by giving so much power to the states, you would mainly be shifting who gets the money, resulting in poorer states, like louisiana, being left behind due to lack of funds while richer states, like MA and CT, prospered. While that is somewhat true even today, at least the federal money backs up the poorer states.
Though, what do you percieve would be the social impact of abolishing the department of education? I'm not sure if you want to abolish universal education/free education or just redistribute power to the states.
It also seems that, by giving so much power to the states, you would mainly be shifting who gets the money, resulting in poorer states, like louisiana, being left behind due to lack of funds while richer states, like MA and CT, prospered. While that is somewhat true even today, at least the federal money backs up the poorer states.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm not going to type a lengthy treatise on the subject, but I will outline some broader ideas.[/quote]
This is a rather typical conservative reply, and really doesn't mean anything. You simply didn't answer the question. If you eliminate Social Security, the Dept. of Homeland Security, Education, Agriculture and the like, AND cut the military outright in half, you're STILL at a federal government about 50% of its current size. What would you cut after that? The FDA (good luck buying safe medication)? No more highways (have fun getting to work)? Any and all emergency planning? The federal courts? The printing of money?
I honestly don't think you understand how much of the federal goverment's money goes to things that are ESSENTIAL to the quality of life. Hundreds of billions are wasted, and that's bad and should be worked on (which is to say, vote Democrat, because the Republicans sure as hell have proven they can't deal with the problem...) but compared to the size of the programs that absolutely cannot be cut because they're vital to the existance of the coutry, its virtually a drop in the bucket.
This is a rather typical conservative reply, and really doesn't mean anything. You simply didn't answer the question. If you eliminate Social Security, the Dept. of Homeland Security, Education, Agriculture and the like, AND cut the military outright in half, you're STILL at a federal government about 50% of its current size. What would you cut after that? The FDA (good luck buying safe medication)? No more highways (have fun getting to work)? Any and all emergency planning? The federal courts? The printing of money?
I honestly don't think you understand how much of the federal goverment's money goes to things that are ESSENTIAL to the quality of life. Hundreds of billions are wasted, and that's bad and should be worked on (which is to say, vote Democrat, because the Republicans sure as hell have proven they can't deal with the problem...) but compared to the size of the programs that absolutely cannot be cut because they're vital to the existance of the coutry, its virtually a drop in the bucket.
>>It's nice to see you have conceded that you were 100% wrong
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
>>Therefore, how can be assigning blame to Congress be taking blame away from Republicans?
Well lets see here you know that Government is out of control you know thats it in the hand of the Republicans for years now and yet you spend your posts saying Democrats are Socialists and "both parties" share the blame.
You lost a long time ago and just havent quite gotten the memo yet.
BTW the Conservatarian label I applied to you? I was right wasnt I?
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
>>Therefore, how can be assigning blame to Congress be taking blame away from Republicans?
Well lets see here you know that Government is out of control you know thats it in the hand of the Republicans for years now and yet you spend your posts saying Democrats are Socialists and "both parties" share the blame.
You lost a long time ago and just havent quite gotten the memo yet.
BTW the Conservatarian label I applied to you? I was right wasnt I?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, with all the changes, the standard of living has drastically improved. Suggesting we return to earlier ways is fine, but, in my mind, saying that we did spend less money at one time is a weak argument due to the lower standard of living, especially among the poor.
Though, what do you percieve would be the social impact of abolishing the department of education? I'm not sure if you want to abolish universal education/free education or just redistribute power to the states.
It also seems that, by giving so much power to the states, you would mainly be shifting who gets the money, resulting in poorer states, like louisiana, being left behind due to lack of funds while richer states, like MA and CT, prospered. While that is somewhat true even today, at least the federal money backs up the poorer states.[/QUOTE]
You bring up some good questions. I feel the standard of living increased dramatically in the first 100+ years of our republic, yet the tax rate did not dramatically increase. We have only seen that during the 20th century.
I feel education is a state and especially local issue, and that the federal government really shouldn't have anything to do with it. I wouldn't advocate stopping mandatory education, of course, although I'd like to see vouchers and ideally a private, better school system.
On the inequality between the states in terms of income, certainly true. I don't think this is as big a problem as you make it out to be, though.
Though, what do you percieve would be the social impact of abolishing the department of education? I'm not sure if you want to abolish universal education/free education or just redistribute power to the states.
It also seems that, by giving so much power to the states, you would mainly be shifting who gets the money, resulting in poorer states, like louisiana, being left behind due to lack of funds while richer states, like MA and CT, prospered. While that is somewhat true even today, at least the federal money backs up the poorer states.[/QUOTE]
You bring up some good questions. I feel the standard of living increased dramatically in the first 100+ years of our republic, yet the tax rate did not dramatically increase. We have only seen that during the 20th century.
I feel education is a state and especially local issue, and that the federal government really shouldn't have anything to do with it. I wouldn't advocate stopping mandatory education, of course, although I'd like to see vouchers and ideally a private, better school system.
On the inequality between the states in terms of income, certainly true. I don't think this is as big a problem as you make it out to be, though.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>It's nice to see you have conceded that you were 100% wrong
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
>>Therefore, how can be assigning blame to Congress be taking blame away from Republicans?
Well lets see here you know that Government is out of control you know thats it in the hand of the Republicans for years now and yet you spend your posts saying Democrats are Socialists and "both parties" share the blame.
You lost a long time ago and just havent quite gotten the memo yet.
BTW the Conservatarian label I applied to you? I was right wasnt I?[/QUOTE]
You've been wrong with everything else. I don't know why you are trying to label me.
Democrats controlled Congress during the '80s and early '90s when spending jumped dramatically. Thus, they share the blame for such a large government. And if you think Democrats in Congress have resisted all this increased spending, your partisanship is getting the better of you.
In a very real way the Republicans are even worse, since they came into office promising to stop the runaway spending that the Democrats had been pushing through Congress year after year. But after a couple of years that promise fell by the wayside in favor of the new breed of big-spending conservative. Basically, both parties now favor big and getting bigger government, which is one reason why both parties suck.
>>>I think the problem is runaway spending, not cutting taxes. This is a problem both parties can take big chunks of credit for
>>You're also forgetting: the debt and large yearly deficits are not just because of Bush; they're just as much, if not more, because of Congress.
>>Therefore, how can be assigning blame to Congress be taking blame away from Republicans?
Well lets see here you know that Government is out of control you know thats it in the hand of the Republicans for years now and yet you spend your posts saying Democrats are Socialists and "both parties" share the blame.
You lost a long time ago and just havent quite gotten the memo yet.
BTW the Conservatarian label I applied to you? I was right wasnt I?[/QUOTE]
You've been wrong with everything else. I don't know why you are trying to label me.
Democrats controlled Congress during the '80s and early '90s when spending jumped dramatically. Thus, they share the blame for such a large government. And if you think Democrats in Congress have resisted all this increased spending, your partisanship is getting the better of you.
In a very real way the Republicans are even worse, since they came into office promising to stop the runaway spending that the Democrats had been pushing through Congress year after year. But after a couple of years that promise fell by the wayside in favor of the new breed of big-spending conservative. Basically, both parties now favor big and getting bigger government, which is one reason why both parties suck.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']This is a rather typical conservative reply, and really doesn't mean anything. You simply didn't answer the question. If you eliminate Social Security, the Dept. of Homeland Security, Education, Agriculture and the like, AND cut the military outright in half, you're STILL at a federal government about 50% of its current size. What would you cut after that? The FDA (good luck buying safe medication)? No more highways (have fun getting to work)? Any and all emergency planning? The federal courts? The printing of money?
I honestly don't think you understand how much of the federal goverment's money goes to things that are ESSENTIAL to the quality of life. Hundreds of billions are wasted, and that's bad and should be worked on (which is to say, vote Democrat, because the Republicans sure as hell have proven they can't deal with the problem...) but compared to the size of the programs that absolutely cannot be cut because they're vital to the existance of the coutry, its virtually a drop in the bucket.[/QUOTE]
Quite frankly, I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%. But you are underestimating the relative portions in the budget of Social Security (21%), Medicare (13%), Medicaid (8%), and interest on the debt (8%). That is 50% of the budget right there. Like I said, however, all these sorts of changes would have to be done over a period of time in order to wean us off of a huge, bloated bureaucracy, as well as put our fiscal house in order.
And you should be less condescending, especially when you clearly aren't informed on budgetary issues as much as you claim.
I honestly don't think you understand how much of the federal goverment's money goes to things that are ESSENTIAL to the quality of life. Hundreds of billions are wasted, and that's bad and should be worked on (which is to say, vote Democrat, because the Republicans sure as hell have proven they can't deal with the problem...) but compared to the size of the programs that absolutely cannot be cut because they're vital to the existance of the coutry, its virtually a drop in the bucket.[/QUOTE]
Quite frankly, I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%. But you are underestimating the relative portions in the budget of Social Security (21%), Medicare (13%), Medicaid (8%), and interest on the debt (8%). That is 50% of the budget right there. Like I said, however, all these sorts of changes would have to be done over a period of time in order to wean us off of a huge, bloated bureaucracy, as well as put our fiscal house in order.
And you should be less condescending, especially when you clearly aren't informed on budgetary issues as much as you claim.
>>You've been wrong with everything else.
Wow, what a completely douchey way of saying nothing. You a Conservatarian?
Why am I trying to label you? Your responses are so full of cookie cutter inanities what else could you possibly be?
>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%
So after the war you supported, in about 6-10 years then you will support cutting the military??
>>Democrats controlled Congress during the '80s and early '90s when spending jumped dramatically
Do you know why spending jumped so high? Reagans military build up. You know SDI "Star Wars".
Like I said when Clinton was in office the budget was balanced. And Republican senators (you know all them) voted against his Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
>>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%. But you are underestimating the relative portions in the budget of Social Security (21%), Medicare (13%), Medicaid (8%), and interest on the debt (8%)
Like I said cookie cutter. Simple answers for simple people.
No inkling of a timetable and nuts and bolts of transition costs are the human factor.
Wow, what a completely douchey way of saying nothing. You a Conservatarian?
Why am I trying to label you? Your responses are so full of cookie cutter inanities what else could you possibly be?
>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%
So after the war you supported, in about 6-10 years then you will support cutting the military??
>>Democrats controlled Congress during the '80s and early '90s when spending jumped dramatically
Do you know why spending jumped so high? Reagans military build up. You know SDI "Star Wars".
Like I said when Clinton was in office the budget was balanced. And Republican senators (you know all them) voted against his Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
>>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%. But you are underestimating the relative portions in the budget of Social Security (21%), Medicare (13%), Medicaid (8%), and interest on the debt (8%)
Like I said cookie cutter. Simple answers for simple people.
No inkling of a timetable and nuts and bolts of transition costs are the human factor.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>You've been wrong with everything else.
Wow, what a completely douchey way of saying nothing. You a Conservatarian?
Why am I trying to label you? Your responses are so full of cookie cutter inanities what else could you possibly be?[/quote]
I don't know why you insist on being such an ass. According to conservatarian.org:
[quote name='conservatarian.org']Believe in small government, oppose excessive taxation and want the government
out of the everyday lives of individuals.[/quote]
Generally that seems to jive with my points of view, although I have hardly researched these types of groups. You want to label me to attack me with the label, but you fail to realize that I'm fully independent of political parties.
[quote name='Msut77']>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%
So after the war you supported, in about 6-10 years then you will support cutting the military??[/quote]
Do you know how big our military is? I've always supported cutting it.
[quote name='Msut77']>>Democrats controlled Congress during the '80s and early '90s when spending jumped dramatically
Do you know why spending jumped so high? Reagans military build up. You know SDI "Star Wars".[/quote]
Oh really? First off, the trend started before Reagan's time:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013es.html
Secondly, remind me again who controlled the Congress, the branch of government which controls spending levels, for the whole of the '80s (except for a short time of Republican Senate control)?
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
As for SDI, you're completely wrong as usual.
http://www.ustrek.org/odyssey/semester2/030301/030301madstarwars.html
That's $7 billion a year, chump change to our massive government.
[quote name='Msut77']Like I said when Clinton was in office the budget was balanced. And Republican senators (you know all them) voted against his Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.[/quote]
Correct, because it included the biggest tax increase in American history.
[quote name='Msut77']>>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%. But you are underestimating the relative portions in the budget of Social Security (21%), Medicare (13%), Medicaid (8%), and interest on the debt (8%)
Like I said cookie cutter. Simple answers for simple people.
No inkling of a timetable and nuts and bolts of transition costs are the human factor.[/QUOTE]
You're hopeless. I give you information and general ideas as a starting and you demand a plan that has all the details filled in. I'm not doing a dissertation for you, just showing where things could change.
PS - your last sentence was incoherent, so you might want to rephrase that.
Wow, what a completely douchey way of saying nothing. You a Conservatarian?
Why am I trying to label you? Your responses are so full of cookie cutter inanities what else could you possibly be?[/quote]
I don't know why you insist on being such an ass. According to conservatarian.org:
[quote name='conservatarian.org']Believe in small government, oppose excessive taxation and want the government
out of the everyday lives of individuals.[/quote]
Generally that seems to jive with my points of view, although I have hardly researched these types of groups. You want to label me to attack me with the label, but you fail to realize that I'm fully independent of political parties.
[quote name='Msut77']>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%
So after the war you supported, in about 6-10 years then you will support cutting the military??[/quote]
Do you know how big our military is? I've always supported cutting it.
[quote name='Msut77']>>Democrats controlled Congress during the '80s and early '90s when spending jumped dramatically
Do you know why spending jumped so high? Reagans military build up. You know SDI "Star Wars".[/quote]
Oh really? First off, the trend started before Reagan's time:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013es.html
Secondly, remind me again who controlled the Congress, the branch of government which controls spending levels, for the whole of the '80s (except for a short time of Republican Senate control)?
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
As for SDI, you're completely wrong as usual.
http://www.ustrek.org/odyssey/semester2/030301/030301madstarwars.html
That's $7 billion a year, chump change to our massive government.
[quote name='Msut77']Like I said when Clinton was in office the budget was balanced. And Republican senators (you know all them) voted against his Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.[/quote]
Correct, because it included the biggest tax increase in American history.
[quote name='Msut77']>>I'd definitely support cutting the military more than 50%. But you are underestimating the relative portions in the budget of Social Security (21%), Medicare (13%), Medicaid (8%), and interest on the debt (8%)
Like I said cookie cutter. Simple answers for simple people.
No inkling of a timetable and nuts and bolts of transition costs are the human factor.[/QUOTE]
You're hopeless. I give you information and general ideas as a starting and you demand a plan that has all the details filled in. I'm not doing a dissertation for you, just showing where things could change.
PS - your last sentence was incoherent, so you might want to rephrase that.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>You're hopeless. I give you information and general ideas as a starting
You call that a "starting"?[/QUOTE]
A starting point. Thanks for pointing out the typo. I'm sure that you can't refute my points, as evidenced by the non-reply, so enjoy your win on the typo front.
You call that a "starting"?[/QUOTE]
A starting point. Thanks for pointing out the typo. I'm sure that you can't refute my points, as evidenced by the non-reply, so enjoy your win on the typo front.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>A starting point.
I knew what you were trying to say but it isnt that either.
Its aing wishlist from someone who wants to drag this country back to the Gilded Age.[/QUOTE]
Correction, from someone who thinks the federal government is far too involved in just about every aspect of our lives. And I don't think that is going backwards, rather it would be a great improvement -- although evidently you feel the government should be running everything even though it does a crappy job at most of it.
I knew what you were trying to say but it isnt that either.
Its a
ing wishlist from someone who wants to drag this country back to the Gilded Age.[/QUOTE]Correction, from someone who thinks the federal government is far too involved in just about every aspect of our lives. And I don't think that is going backwards, rather it would be a great improvement -- although evidently you feel the government should be running everything even though it does a crappy job at most of it.
>>rather it would be a great improvement --although evidently you feel the government should be running everything even though it does a crappy job at most of it.
Yeah because things were soing great back when we let corporations run everything.
The FDA, all those nice highways and roads? Who needs them.
All the elderly who depend on Medicare and Social Security them with an iron stick.
Yeah because things were so
ing great back when we let corporations run everything.The FDA, all those nice highways and roads? Who needs them.
All the elderly who depend on Medicare and Social Security
them with an iron stick.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>rather it would be a great improvement --although evidently you feel the government should be running everything even though it does a crappy job at most of it.
Yeah because things were soing great back when we let corporations run everything.
The FDA, all those nice highways and roads? Who needs them.
All the elderly who depend on Medicare and Social Security them with an iron stick.[/QUOTE]
I find your ignorance quaint, but I'm going to conclude my part in this thread at this point, seeing as you have nothing meaningful to say and haven't for, well, pages now.
Yeah because things were so
ing great back when we let corporations run everything.The FDA, all those nice highways and roads? Who needs them.
All the elderly who depend on Medicare and Social Security
them with an iron stick.[/QUOTE]I find your ignorance quaint, but I'm going to conclude my part in this thread at this point, seeing as you have nothing meaningful to say and haven't for, well, pages now.
bread's done