with tears, watching Al Gore

[cwsox]

This is a bold faced lie.  I have demonstrated at least a few times that the recession was caused by the Clinton/Gore administration, but I guess I can tell it again.

And back at you with your bold faced lie. (I would have called it a different interpretation but since overwriting is the fashion, I am just going along at this moment. But I give you much credit; you do offer your thoughts and your opinions and enter into conversation despite the hyped "bold faced lie" hyperbole and actually being able to discuss is a far, far improvement from those who substitute sarcasm and smilies for thinking. We disagree but you do think. But why the overstatements? Why not an "I disagree rather than "bold faced lie'? Is being in someone's face what dialogue is about?)

 

In economics nothing is "proved" and "demonstrated" as fact. It is all interpretation.

 

And the interpretations that I follow include from thsoe who gave us the longest sustained growth in American history, beginning with the Clinton economic package passed in 1993 without one Republican vote, and gave us great budget surpluses and paydown of the national debt

 

The interpretations that you follow come from thsoe who have given us the largest deficits in US history. Which they want to blame on September 11th but that is from the same people who began the rolling deficits prior to september 11th. And who lied (or "miscaluculated") by 150 billion or more the cost of their medicaid proposal, have missed by 100s of billions their prior estimates on the war's cost and refuse to put into the budget what the current ongoing war cost is because they want to do that off budget to hide their tremendous deficits which are at te 1/2 trillion stage and growing.

 

Given the choice of who I follow, I will follow those who practiced fiscal prudence rather than those who are the biggest profilgate spending wastrals in world history.

[kapkomet]

One of the best and smartest things that Clinton did (besides welfare) was cut taxes.

 

You cannot argue with the economy such as it is today that tax cuts do not help the overall economy.

 

If John Kerry were in favor of tax cuts (or at least making the ones currently in force permanent), maybe I would consider him more.

 

SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS BETTER.

 

This platform of redistribution of wealth reeks of government control.

 

Curb spending. (Bush is a dumbass with this part)

 

Allow the tax cuts.

 

Remove government red tape.

 

All that equals real, sustained growth.

 

(This is of course oversimplified... but in general, with the "new economy" holds true.)

[southsider2k5]

And back at you with your bold faced lie.  (I would have called it a different interpretation but since overwriting is the fashion, I am just going along at this moment.  But I give you much credit; you do offer your thoughts and your opinions and enter into conversation despite the hyped "bold faced lie" hyperbole and actually being able to discuss is a far, far improvement from those who substitute sarcasm and smilies for thinking.  We disagree but you do think.  But why the overstatements?  Why not an "I disagree rather than "bold faced lie'?  Is being in someone's face what dialogue is about?)

 

In economics nothing is "proved" and "demonstrated" as fact.  It is all interpretation.

 

And the interpretations that I follow include from thsoe who gave us the longest sustained growth in American history, beginning with the Clinton economic package passed in 1993 without one Republican vote, and gave us great budget surpluses and paydown of the national debt

 

The interpretations that you follow come from thsoe who have given us the largest deficits in US history.  Which they want to blame on September 11th but that is from the same people who began the rolling deficits prior to september 11th.  And who lied (or "miscaluculated") by 150 billion or more the cost of their medicaid proposal, have missed by 100s of billions their prior estimates on the war's cost and refuse to put into the budget what the current ongoing war cost is because they want to do that off budget to hide their tremendous deficits which are at te 1/2 trillion stage and growing. 

 

Given the choice of who I follow, I will follow those who practiced fiscal prudence rather than those who are the biggest profilgate spending wastrals in world history.

Because it is untrue. That's why is why I call it a lie. And just because it gets repeated a bunch of times doesn't make it true. I get sick of seeing this repeated as fact, when is has been so clearly reputed. How would you handle it if I ran around saying that John Kerry was out to raise taxes on welfare recipiants. And no matter what evidence was posted out there, I kept repeating it. I think I it would get called out for what it was, a lie.

 

This is basic economic theory. Years of spending, tax cuts, war, recession, and everything else under the sun has demonstrated these principles. I tend to believe people like Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, and Alan Greenspan when referring to economic policy. Look no further than growth numbers after tax cuts and spending increases to get your evidences. It works. As a matter of a fact what do the two longest periods of economic growth in US history have in common? Different parties were Presidents, and different parties ran Congress. It was the people in charge of the Federal Reserve. The economists.

[southsider2k5]

One of the best and smartest things that Clinton did (besides welfare) was cut taxes. 

 

You cannot argue with the economy such as it is today that tax cuts do not help the overall economy. 

 

If John Kerry were in favor of tax cuts (or at least making the ones currently in force permanent), maybe I would consider him more.

 

SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS BETTER.

 

This platform of redistribution of wealth reeks of government control. 

 

Curb spending.  (Bush is a dumbass with this part)

 

Allow the tax cuts.

 

Remove government red tape.

 

All that equals real, sustained growth.

 

(This is of course oversimplified... but in general, with the "new economy" holds true.)

One modification...

 

Curbing spending can easily be achieved by increasing effeciency in government. It is that simple. Instead of paying $100 for hammer and $1000 for a toilet, figure out a way to encourage government effeciency. It is estimated that 10-15% of government spending is waste. Hell I would be in favor of giving 10% of every percentage point saved, back to the people who achieve the effeciency. I look at it as found money anyway. Since we have come of an age where government is the be all end all of economic activity, we have to make it work better for us. We have to give them some incentive to be as streamlined as possible.

[Texsox]

One modification...

 

Curbing spending can easily be achieved by increasing effeciency in government.  It is that simple.  Instead of paying $100 for hammer and $1000 for a toilet, figure out a way to encourage government effeciency.  It is estimated that 10-15% of government spending is waste.  Hell I would be in favor of giving 10% of every percentage point saved, back to the people who achieve the effeciency.  I look at it as found money anyway.  Since we have come of an age where government is the be all end all of economic activity, we have to make it work better for us.  We have to give them some incentive to be as streamlined as possible.

Much of those spending stories are misleading. We manuafcture military items to very specific tolerances and for very specific reasons. The $1000 coffee pot was specially shielded and constructed to emit zero emmissions that could be detected. On a spy plane that flys for 20 hours at a time, coffee and concealment seem like good ideas.

 

I do not want our Troops going into battle with Coleman equipment we bought from Wal*Mart. If we are going to send our fellow Americans into harms way, I want them using the top of the line stuff, the truly best stuff that money can buy.

[kapkomet]

I'm not talking about that kind of stuff, I am talking about grants and pork that go back to local districts.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

seeing Al Gore speak at the Democratic convention...

 

that good and decent man who received more votes than any other person in American history...

 

that wise, compassionate, intellectually alive, brilliant and personable man of such courage...

 

had he taken office, America would not be as divided as it it is now;

 

had Gore taken office, he would not have been welded to ideology as Bush was: Bush who dismissed terrorism as a threat because his ideology called for Star Wars, Bush who set aside warnings on terrorism to pursue his only political bents.

 

President Gore would have taken seriously the warnings on terrorism and not ignored them,

 

If September 11th had happened, President Gore would not have sat still for seven minutes waiting to be told what to do and then fly around the country scared and frightened when the US needed its president -

 

President Gore would have flown to DC and stood outside the Pentagon and said, "we are America, we shall not be intimidated, our vision and our commitment to justice and freedom will not be challenged by the violence of terrorists.."

 

President Gore would have worked with the nations of the world in that moment when all the world was with us, to combat al qaeda, to strike at terrorists, and not disfuse our efforts and alienate our allies by confusing the real needs of this nation with the ideological goals of the near sect of ideologues that control the white house now.

 

Under President Gore we would not have recession, or a jobless economy, or these historically largest ever and economically destructive deficits that will overwhelm our future.

 

President Gore would not choose political stances that his pollsters told him he needed to play to his base as Bush has done with his dividing Americans by bogus constitutional proposals or refusing to meet with people who differ from him, as Bush has done.

 

Gore would not have lost 1.8 million jobs, the vast majority of them manufacturing jobs, and make speeches to wealthy political donors, as Bush did, calling them "my base" which he defined as the "haves" and the "have mores" - for that lone Bush should be tossed - Gore would have understood that he was called to unite the people of the United States, not divide them.

 

Gore would have understood what was happening in the world and responded with policies that make sense, bringing America to work with its allies rather than alienate them.

 

Gore would not cause America to lose its status as the number one beacon of liberty and freedom and democracy in the world - as Bush has caused our image to be so tarnished and shamed by cowboy go it alone strategies.

 

Gore would have appealed to our highest instincts and American values, not pandering to fear.  Gore would have called us in the most difficult times to be true to ourselves, to be Americans, to not aside our Constitution and lock people away in camps in isolation in violation of the Geneva Conventions, in violation of the Constitution, endangering our own POWS,  leaving people without information as to the charges against them, without contact with family or attorneys, and the horrors of the treatment of prisoners would not have happened and thus creating greater hostility and hatred and raise up new terrorists who hate us - Gore would have called us to live true to ourselves and show the world that we need not sacrifice one bit of what it means to be America - that it is indeed by being truest to our own American values that we are strongest and can deal with whatever confronts our nation.

 

Gore would not lie about reasons to go to an elective war.

 

Gore would take responsibility.  Bush when asked to name any mistake he made, could not think of any and called that a "trick question."  Gore would have been a president with humility, who would - unlike the current president - take responsibility for what happened under his watch.

 

If the man the people elected, Al Gore, had taken office, America would be in a better place today, stronger, more secure, more respected, safer.

 

Let the tired old jokes come.  No, Al Gore never claimed he invented the internet but he did say that he wrote the first legislation which enabled it - which he did.  Al Gore never claimed to have discovered Love Canal but he did claim to have had the first congressional hearing on it - which he did.

 

Al Gore was elected by the people.

Al Gore was the president we needed these past four years.

 

In John Kerry we have the right candidate to undo all the things which Bush has done, to let America be America again, to act against terrorists, not against enemies of (poor) choice which lead us into quagmires rather than making America safer.  John Kerry will bring America back to living as America and not as a rogue Rome which thinks it can dismiss the world with impunity with the greatest hubris seen in human history and how I fear the fall with another term of Bush.  Bush must go, to save America from the path that we are going down now, unilateral isolationism and imperial arrogance disregarding the wisdom, counsel, insights, and support of our allies, let alone the Bush disregard for voices of our own people because they belong to the "wrong" party and are not among the "haves and the have more" (Bush's own words)

 

I cried watching the President who was elected, Al Gore.  I cry with hope knowing that the leader my nation needs, John Kerry, is gong to win this election because we will not waver in reaching out with the vision of a stronger America, a respected America, an America true itself as it has surely not been these past four years.

 

Let America be America.  The choice in this election is clear.  For America to be the America of the Constitution, the America of the patriots' dreams that see beyond the years, the America of the Pledge of Allegiance of one nation with liberty and justice for all, if America is to be the America as good as its people, as honest as its people, with as much integrity as its people, the choice is clear: Kerry.  We cannot allow the travesty of 2000 to repeat itself.  It must be Kerry and Edwards.  Now.  More than ever.

Riiight. Because Clinton and Gore did so much to combat terrorism their first time around.... :headshake

[IlliniBob72]

seeing Al Gore speak at the Democratic convention...

 

that good and decent man who received more votes than any other person in American history...

 

that wise, compassionate, intellectually alive, brilliant and personable man of such courage...

 

had he taken office, America would not be as divided as it it is now;

 

had Gore taken office, he would not have been welded to ideology as Bush was: Bush who dismissed terrorism as a threat because his ideology called for Star Wars, Bush who set aside warnings on terrorism to pursue his only political bents.

 

President Gore would have taken seriously the warnings on terrorism and not ignored them,

 

If September 11th had happened, President Gore would not have sat still for seven minutes waiting to be told what to do and then fly around the country scared and frightened when the US needed its president -

 

President Gore would have flown to DC and stood outside the Pentagon and said, "we are America, we shall not be intimidated, our vision and our commitment to justice and freedom will not be challenged by the violence of terrorists.."

 

President Gore would have worked with the nations of the world in that moment when all the world was with us, to combat al qaeda, to strike at terrorists, and not disfuse our efforts and alienate our allies by confusing the real needs of this nation with the ideological goals of the near sect of ideologues that control the white house now.

 

Under President Gore we would not have recession, or a jobless economy, or these historically largest ever and economically destructive deficits that will overwhelm our future.

 

President Gore would not choose political stances that his pollsters told him he needed to play to his base as Bush has done with his dividing Americans by bogus constitutional proposals or refusing to meet with people who differ from him, as Bush has done.

 

Gore would not have lost 1.8 million jobs, the vast majority of them manufacturing jobs, and make speeches to wealthy political donors, as Bush did, calling them "my base" which he defined as the "haves" and the "have mores" - for that lone Bush should be tossed - Gore would have understood that he was called to unite the people of the United States, not divide them.

 

Gore would have understood what was happening in the world and responded with policies that make sense, bringing America to work with its allies rather than alienate them.

 

Gore would not cause America to lose its status as the number one beacon of liberty and freedom and democracy in the world - as Bush has caused our image to be so tarnished and shamed by cowboy go it alone strategies.

 

Gore would have appealed to our highest instincts and American values, not pandering to fear.  Gore would have called us in the most difficult times to be true to ourselves, to be Americans, to not aside our Constitution and lock people away in camps in isolation in violation of the Geneva Conventions, in violation of the Constitution, endangering our own POWS,  leaving people without information as to the charges against them, without contact with family or attorneys, and the horrors of the treatment of prisoners would not have happened and thus creating greater hostility and hatred and raise up new terrorists who hate us - Gore would have called us to live true to ourselves and show the world that we need not sacrifice one bit of what it means to be America - that it is indeed by being truest to our own American values that we are strongest and can deal with whatever confronts our nation.

 

Gore would not lie about reasons to go to an elective war.

 

Gore would take responsibility.  Bush when asked to name any mistake he made, could not think of any and called that a "trick question."  Gore would have been a president with humility, who would - unlike the current president - take responsibility for what happened under his watch.

 

If the man the people elected, Al Gore, had taken office, America would be in a better place today, stronger, more secure, more respected, safer.

 

Let the tired old jokes come.  No, Al Gore never claimed he invented the internet but he did say that he wrote the first legislation which enabled it - which he did.  Al Gore never claimed to have discovered Love Canal but he did claim to have had the first congressional hearing on it - which he did.

 

Al Gore was elected by the people.

Al Gore was the president we needed these past four years.

 

In John Kerry we have the right candidate to undo all the things which Bush has done, to let America be America again, to act against terrorists, not against enemies of (poor) choice which lead us into quagmires rather than making America safer.  John Kerry will bring America back to living as America and not as a rogue Rome which thinks it can dismiss the world with impunity with the greatest hubris seen in human history and how I fear the fall with another term of Bush.  Bush must go, to save America from the path that we are going down now, unilateral isolationism and imperial arrogance disregarding the wisdom, counsel, insights, and support of our allies, let alone the Bush disregard for voices of our own people because they belong to the "wrong" party and are not among the "haves and the have more" (Bush's own words)

 

I cried watching the President who was elected, Al Gore.  I cry with hope knowing that the leader my nation needs, John Kerry, is gong to win this election because we will not waver in reaching out with the vision of a stronger America, a respected America, an America true itself as it has surely not been these past four years.

 

Let America be America.  The choice in this election is clear.  For America to be the America of the Constitution, the America of the patriots' dreams that see beyond the years, the America of the Pledge of Allegiance of one nation with liberty and justice for all, if America is to be the America as good as its people, as honest as its people, with as much integrity as its people, the choice is clear: Kerry.  We cannot allow the travesty of 2000 to repeat itself.  It must be Kerry and Edwards.  Now.  More than ever.

Just so I'm not misunderstanding, we are talking about former vice president Al Gore, right???

 

And for the record, popular vote totals mean crap as long as we have the electoral college. Illinois is currently in John Kerry's pocket. Everyone knows this. You don't think Bush may get a better voter turnout in Illinois if it wasn't a waste of time voting for him? The same can be said about Kerry votes in the deep south, but like I said, popular vote totals mean s***.

 

Man alive, there's a lot of presumptions in this epic email. Marvelous considering he is best known for claiming he invented the internet and spending 8 years in America's least impactful political position. I suppose we'd also have a cure for cancer as well. Also amazing considering no one in the Democratic Party seemed too upset when he didn't run for the nomination again. Hell, with such a glowing description of what his presidency would have been, I am surprised they didn't thrust the nomination on him last year.

[IlliniBob72]

Well, the 1993 WTC bombing was almost all that AQ had done up until then.

Isn't that enough??? What on earth does a guy have to do to get some attention as a terrorist? That should have been enough. Surely he was considered a big enough threat for Billy Boy to "plead with the Saudis to take him", as he claims to have done.

[Texsox]

Isn't that enough??? What on earth does a guy have to do to get some attention as a terrorist? That should have been enough. Surely he was considered a big enough threat for Billy Boy to "plead with the Saudis to take him", as he claims to have done.

 

Regarding the 1993 WTC bombing:

 

It should have been enough. Did you join hands with your neighbors and sign God Bless America? Did you rush out to buy an American flag? Did you adorn your car with I love America bumper stickers? Did you head to your house of worship to pray for our country?

 

Most of us did not, including our government. We were about the last major country on the planet to feel terrorism at our front door.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sorry wheres your proof about Bill CLinton saying we had him but couldn't keep him? Cause I don't remember anything of the sort. I do remember a story of Sudan offering him to us, and we saying no - but I believe that story was debunked as being about as true as the Yellowcake story. As in not true.

 

What would Gore have done differently? I don't know, but the 9/11 commission shows that the White House had doubts about the voracity of their evidence against Iraq within a week of 9/11 but pressed ahead anyway. They knew their evidence was sketchy at best and they hoped that their convictions would see them through. I'm sorry, but when it comes to leading the free world, I want a president who will not be blinded by his ideology.

 

Apu, you're just as bad as the people on the right you demonize. It's an all or nothing battle with you. You can't get everything you want all at once. If you could, I'd be sexy, naked and swimming in a hottub filled with naked sexy people and hundred dollar bills right now. But that can't happen til AFTER i buy the hottub. Dude, its all about degrees, not wholesale immediate change.

 

Under the Clinton administration, fewer Americans died to the hands of transglobal terrorism than under the watch of George W Bush, George HW Bush or Ronald Reagan. The 9/11 commission concluded that there were serious efforts on the part of the Clinton administration to disable the threat of AQ during 1998 and 1999. But Republicans who couldnt be bothered at the time were too busy screaming Wag the Dog.

 

Here's the thing to consider in 2004:

This IS a referendum on the president we have had.

 

In the last four years, the percentage of adult population with a job has decreased by about 1 percent. That's the first time this has happened since Herbert Hoover in 1932.

 

Over 1000 troops in our coalition have died in Iraq as a result of our invasion. In that time period, we have found none of the reasons we went to war in Iraq to be true. Unless you consider the one about humanitarian means and freedom. If that's the case, what about the people who suffer under the Saudi Arabian rule, what about the million displaced in Darfur, Sudan? What about the millions in Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Palestine who suffer daily without American military help? Why are we allowing the same religious extremists who harbored Bin Laden in Afghanistan regain footholds in that country today?

 

We have a ballooning federal deficit. Bush doesn't seem to care, instead asking for a new tax cut every week. Benefits to police and firefighters are axed. Benefits to states required to take care of unfunded mandates are axed. We talk about protecting our soldiers but shun the care of our veterans.

 

A lot of people say that Bush means what he says. To me, its become obvious that the opposite is true.

[Chisoxfn]

Apu, Clinton said in a speech, himself, not too long ago that they were offered Bin Laden and he didn't think they had enough to hold him on. That out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Thats what I was basing my arguments on. And Tex, I want to go with what your replied to me on.

 

First off, I'm not one to blame much anyone for 9/11. I think its ridiculous to think that the US could of somehow stopped this. Maybe they could of stopped those members from boarding the planes, but they will try, try and keep trying and eventually they will suceed.

 

Its incredibly difficult to stop terrorism, because anyone willing to die is a person who truly has no fear and will not tolerate being stopped. Thats what is scary.

 

However, I am for doing everything possible to prevent future acts, although I am of the belief that eventually the inevitable will happen again. However, I want to see the US do what it can to stop Alquaeda and any other terrorist group we have informatino and intelligence on. I'd like to see airport security improve, I'd like to see the American Public made more aware in regards to this. I'd like to see the dictatorships around the wrold better. I'd like to see Africa become a civilized country and for the Aid's epotemic to end.

 

Their are a lot of things i'd like to see done, their are a lot of things I disagree with Bush on, their are a ton of things I disagree with Kerry on. The thing that scares me the most, is not Bush, but Kerry. The man has such an awful record in senate, imo, but if those that vote for him agree with his policies and what not, fine by me. You gotta vote for your views and I'm not about to sya that Bush is the greatest president ever, but at the same time I respect Bush. I respect anyone that can become president. I also didn't respect Gore's speach what-so-ever, he really truly went out and attacked Bush.

 

I don't see how that makes the democratic party look good, personally. This seems more a war against Bush, then it is anything about politics, with exception to Clinton's speach, which I will say again, was amazing.

 

Also, Apu, thanks for that info on Bin Laden. I respect your opinion and all the amounts of reading you do. You know your stuff, even if we have different idealogies.

[Chisoxfn]

And back at you with your bold faced lie.  (I would have called it a different interpretation but since overwriting is the fashion, I am just going along at this moment.  But I give you much credit; you do offer your thoughts and your opinions and enter into conversation despite the hyped "bold faced lie" hyperbole and actually being able to discuss is a far, far improvement from those who substitute sarcasm and smilies for thinking.  We disagree but you do think.  But why the overstatements?  Why not an "I disagree rather than "bold faced lie'?  Is being in someone's face what dialogue is about?)

 

In economics nothing is "proved" and "demonstrated" as fact.  It is all interpretation.

 

And the interpretations that I follow include from thsoe who gave us the longest sustained growth in American history, beginning with the Clinton economic package passed in 1993 without one Republican vote, and gave us great budget surpluses and paydown of the national debt

 

The interpretations that you follow come from thsoe who have given us the largest deficits in US history.  Which they want to blame on September 11th but that is from the same people who began the rolling deficits prior to september 11th.  And who lied (or "miscaluculated") by 150 billion or more the cost of their medicaid proposal, have missed by 100s of billions their prior estimates on the war's cost and refuse to put into the budget what the current ongoing war cost is because they want to do that off budget to hide their tremendous deficits which are at te 1/2 trillion stage and growing. 

 

Given the choice of who I follow, I will follow those who practiced fiscal prudence rather than those who are the biggest profilgate spending wastrals in world history.

The economy was going into a depression when Clinton/Gore were in office. The stock market was incredibly inflated, with absolutely abnormal PE ratios and it was due to adjust down. 9/11 definately added to it, just like the war has created a type of false economic recovery. Wars spurn the economy, as much as we hate to admit it.

 

However, the recession begin just as Bush took offense and their are very few things a politician can do to create a recession in just six weeks, this side of completely ruining the dollar or something else that would be outrageous.

 

You can disagree with how Bush is going about fixing the economy, but to blame him for the recession is ridiculous, imo.

[Chisoxfn]

One of the best and smartest things that Clinton did (besides welfare) was cut taxes. 

 

You cannot argue with the economy such as it is today that tax cuts do not help the overall economy. 

 

If John Kerry were in favor of tax cuts (or at least making the ones currently in force permanent), maybe I would consider him more.

 

SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS BETTER.

 

This platform of redistribution of wealth reeks of government control. 

 

Curb spending.  (Bush is a dumbass with this part)

 

Allow the tax cuts.

 

Remove government red tape.

 

All that equals real, sustained growth.

 

(This is of course oversimplified... but in general, with the "new economy" holds true.)

Kap, Bush's spending is what pisses me off the absolute most about him. The size of the government is increasingly growing and thats something I hate to see. As far as I'm concerned, if I were ever in office, I'd go out and do what I could to cut the waste. I realize some people would be offended in what I cut, but in general, I think I have a lot more faith in the public sector then I do the private sector.

 

Whenever you have to depend on the private sector for anything, it means the public sector has failed. The only exceptions to this in my opinion are sectors that are just too important to risk failing, such as Defense. However, for health and education, I may create a way to mix the public and private sector, because I think it would lead to exponentially better efficiency.

[Texsox]

Kap, Bush's spending is what pisses me off the absolute most about him.  The size of the government is increasingly growing and thats something I hate to see.  As far as I'm concerned, if I were ever in office, I'd go out and do what I could to cut the waste.  I realize some people would be offended in what I cut, but in general, I think I have a lot more faith in the public sector then I do the private sector.

 

Whenever you have to depend on the private sector for anything, it means the public sector has failed.  The only exceptions to this in my opinion are sectors that are just too important to risk failing, such as Defense. However, for health and education, I may create a way to mix the public and private sector, because I think it would lead to exponentially better efficiency.

The private sector has not shown any ability in the past decade to manage this sort of thing in the public's best interest. How about the Enron department of Energy?

 

Private business have an obligation to turn a profit. IMHO any "waste" that the public employees may cause will be less than the profits that a private company would take.

[kapkomet]

And the dirty little secret of our government is that they have to show a profit too, well sort of. That's why we have deficits.

 

Oh wait... that sounds nuts, but buckle in for the next couple of sentances.

 

If it were as simple as every senator and congressmen not having to bring back money for their own districts or be a failure or worse, not get re-elected, we wouldn't be quite so happy to not balance the budget every year.

 

There are other reasons, but spending is horrid. Everyone has to get a slice of the pie, and it's disgusting.

 

Trim out this fat for studying the poppy suckle purple headed monster flower in central Kansas, and the federal river study of the DorkemFlowless River (on Mapsco known as a "dry river") in Central Utah as to why there is not any water, we might not have this problem.

[Texsox]

And the dirty little secret of our government is that they have to show a profit too, well sort of.  That's why we have deficits.

 

Oh wait... that sounds nuts, but buckle in for the next couple of sentances.

 

If it were as simple as every senator and congressmen not having to bring back money for their own districts or be a failure or worse, not get re-elected, we wouldn't be quite so happy to not balance the budget every year.

 

There are other reasons, but spending is horrid.  Everyone has to get a slice of the pie, and it's disgusting.

 

Trim out this fat for studying the poppy suckle purple headed monster flower in central Kansas, and the federal river study of the DorkemFlowless River (on Mapsco known as a "dry river") in Central Utah as to why there is not any water, we might not have this problem.

We all love pork if the money is spent in our district, that is all too true.

 

Some research is necessary, some is seemingly a waste. Some necessary leads to waste some waste becomes a necessity. Imagine injecting a disease into someone so they do not get the disease. Crazy research. Only an idiot would have spent money researching that. And what about these tiny things called germs? Yeah right we all know spirits are what make us sick.

 

All in all every politician likes to spend money, that is what they do. I have become a Dem fan because they at least will tell me they are having to raise taxes to afford some of this stuff, the GOP tells me they can cut their income and increase spending. Do that every year for 100 years and tell me how things look.

[kapkomet]

All in all every politician likes to spend money, that is what they do. I have become a Dem fan because they at least will tell me they are having to raise taxes to afford some of this stuff, the GOP tells me they can cut their income and increase spending. Do that every year for 100 years and tell me how things look.

This started with FDR. The government HAD to bail this country out.

 

65 years later, the Dems still feel like they have to bail the country out.

 

To me, that's the fundamental crossroad we are at with this election. Do we want the government to handle the redistribution of wealth, or do we want to let the market place grow and take it naturally?

 

Example: My dad is out of work. He can't find a job ANYWHERE, but part of that is the LOCAL government is so friggin' stupid in the town I grew up in, that they can't land a major employer to save their city/county. Oh... so how about they pick up stakes and move to where there is a job?

 

Wrong. They can't, because that part of the state isn't selling but about 10 - 15 houses a MONTH... holy s***, you do the math in a county of about 50,000. That's horrible.

 

Does my dad look to the government to bail his ass out? Nope. Unemployment ran out a long time ago. (I view unemployment as a means to prop people back up, not to be dependant on). He knows, as hard as it is, that things are going to have to taken into his own hands.

 

These last 4 years have been the hardest on my parents in their life. But they are not so blind to think that daddy government is going to take care of it. These are the kind of people that usually Dems clean up - because those friggin' rich people get richer and the have nots get nothing when the republicans are in the White House... or so the stereotype goes.

 

My point is that the Democratic party can stop trying to solve the problems of America by taking control of everything with the government (ie Health Care, Medicare, Social Security, etc) and just start representing .... then maybe I would vote for them more... and so would many "conservatives".

[1549]

This started with FDR.  The government HAD to bail this country out.

 

65 years later, the Dems still feel like they have to bail the country out.

 

To me, that's the fundamental crossroad we are at with this election.  Do we want the government to handle the redistribution of wealth, or do we want to let the market place grow and take it naturally?

 

Example:  My dad is out of work.  He can't find a job ANYWHERE, but part of that is the LOCAL government is so friggin' stupid in the town I grew up in, that they can't land a major employer to save their city/county.  Oh... so how about they pick up stakes and move to where there is a job?

 

Wrong.  They can't, because that part of the state isn't selling but about 10 - 15 houses a MONTH... holy s***, you do the math in a county of about 50,000.  That's horrible.

 

Does my dad look to the government to bail his ass out?  Nope.  Unemployment ran out a long time ago.  (I view unemployment as a means to prop people back up, not to be dependant on).  He knows, as hard as it is, that things are going to have to taken into his own hands.

 

These last 4 years have been the hardest on my parents in their life.  But they are not so blind to think that daddy government is going to take care of it.  These are the kind of people that usually Dems clean up - because those friggin' rich people get richer and the have nots get nothing when the republicans are in the White House... or so the stereotype goes.

 

My point is that the Democratic party can stop trying to solve the problems of America by taking control of everything with the government (ie Health Care, Medicare, Social Security, etc) and just start representing .... then maybe I would vote for them more... and so would many "conservatives".

The situation with your dad is very unfortunate and I wish your father all the best. In fact, an uncle of mine was unemployed for a very long time and it was great to see him get back on his feet again, the stress of the previous year and a half was erased.

 

I believe the government must get involved in helping people find jobs and redistributing wealth.

 

Person A makes $100,000 as a VP of a modest sized company. Person A needs a new TV.

 

Person B makes $28,000 as a custodian at a local school. Person B needs a new TV.

 

In the current system, Person A gets a nice little tax break that could easily pay for a new tv. Person B's tax break is a lot less and Person B would have to make some sacrafices for that TV. In the end, Person B just can't afford that TV. While Person A got a new TV.

 

Enter Hypothetical situation. Person A gets Peron B's previous tax break. Person B gets person A's tax break. Person A still makes $100,000 a year and a lesser tax break isn't going to stop him from buying a new TV, it isn't a problem at all with his salary. Person B is looking at a hefty tax break, and now he can afford a TV. Just like that, 2 TV's have been bought instead of one. The economy now improves because there are more buyers than there previously were.

 

That is a very unscientific way of showing you my view on why the less fortunate should get more advantages than the more fortunate. I am not going to pretend to be an expert on this subject, my knowledge is rather elementary, but giving money to people who otherwise can't spend money seems logical to me.

[Texsox]

Governments should be in the business of providing services that are best, or most effeciently done on a large scale. Buying a hook and ladder truck to protect your home is probably a mistake, unless you own the most successful White Sox fan site. A town buying one makes sense.

 

Setting policies and laws that protect or benefit the majority is probably a good idea. Pollution laws come to mind, mandatory innoculations and immunizations are examples.

 

We have done some amazing things in this past century as a nation, through our government. We have the safest interstate highway system, the safest food and water, the safest work places, we treat the less fortunate in our society better than anyone, we have wiped out a couple diseases from the planet, and many more things. All through our collective efforts, funneled through our government.

 

If we privatize then you and I lose control over what happens, we give control over to some business owner who may or may not have public service in his heart. The roads don't get plowed, fire the mayor. The private contractor doesn't plow the roads, keep giving him contracts if he's low bidder.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Regarding the 1993 WTC bombing:

 

It should have been enough. Did you join hands with your neighbors and sign God Bless America? Did you rush out to buy an American flag? Did you adorn your car with I love America bumper stickers? Did you head to your house of worship to pray for our country?

 

Most of us did not, including our government. We were about the last major country on the planet to feel terrorism at our front door.

So then that begs the question... How many have to die before the government takes things seriously? Evidently the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building weren't enough. Clinton went right on blissfully slashing funding for the CIA, military and other defense and intelligence organs. If that wasn't enough, how about all the rules and restrictions slapped on them during those years? Like the way the CIA was not allowed to recruit foregin agents. This effectively destroyed the humint capability they had and forced them to rely on elint ( electronic intelligence ) to get it done. What have we we been desperately lacking these days in the middle east and elsewhere? Yep, people on the ground passing info on to us that just doesn't get transmitted by electronic means.

[Texsox]

So then that begs the question...  How many have to die before the government takes things seriously?  Evidently the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building weren't enough.  Clinton went right on blissfully slashing funding for the CIA, military and other defense and intelligence organs.  If that wasn't enough, how about all the rules and restrictions slapped on them during those years?  Like the way the CIA was not allowed to recruit foregin agents.  This effectively destroyed the humint capability they had and forced them to rely on elint ( electronic intelligence ) to get it done.  What have we we been desperately lacking these days in the middle east and elsewhere?  Yep, people on the ground passing info on to us that just doesn't get transmitted by electronic means.

The foreign agent thing is an interesting quandry. When we recruit bad guys, they turn on us. Remember Hussain, Bin Laden, Norega? All former US agents. On one end how can we hire someone who is breaking US law and human rights then fight a war against a country for human rights violations? There is no easy answer, without these bad guys, we cannot infiltrate these organizations.

 

Nuke, check your civics notes. The President approves or vetos budgets. He does not have carte blanche to cut any budgets. Being fair, I also do not blame Bush for the spending spree we are on. It worked for Reagan. Come on, spend, spend, spend deficits are good according to the GOP. It fosters growth.

 

What happened to the "Peace Dividend" that the GOP promised us in the 1980s after the fall of the Soviet Union? I thought the long range goal was to spend on increased military, weapons, intelligence and after the Soviet Union fell we could decrease the spending. At least that's what the GOP was peddling back in the Reagan/Bush era.

[Texsox]

So then that begs the question...  How many have to die before the government takes things seriously?

Sorry, I missed answering this.

 

Nuke, I believe we have a representative government and as such WE are the government. Did we elect anyone who was touting this war on terrorism? The few times Clinton mentioned it, it was denounced as the tail wagging the dog. The GOP certainly didn't want to mention it, they had too much on their hands with Whitewater, Monica, Jones, etc. The Dems couldn't, because they were too busy defending Clinton and his escapades. While we were spending our time and energy on impeachment proceedings we got a little distracted.

 

Perhaps if both parties were keeping their eye on our interests, this wouldn't have happened.

[Queen Prawn]

Example:  My dad is out of work.  He can't find a job ANYWHERE, but part of that is the LOCAL government is so friggin' stupid in the town I grew up in, that they can't land a major employer to save their city/county.  Oh... so how about they pick up stakes and move to where there is a job?

A friend of mine is in the same boat - almost 2 years now without a steady job (picked up a few contract jobs along the way). Brian and I are lucky that our unemployment lasted only about 2-3 months each (and I was blessed enough to have actually still been employed while searching my job - debriefing time, so to speak).

[kapkomet]

The situation with your dad is very unfortunate and I wish your father all the best. In fact, an uncle of mine was unemployed for a very long time and it was great to see him get back on his feet again, the stress of the previous year and a half was erased.

 

I believe the government must get involved in helping people find jobs and redistributing wealth.

 

Person A makes $100,000 as a VP of a modest sized company.  Person A needs a new TV.

 

Person B makes $28,000 as a custodian at a local school.  Person B needs a new TV.

 

In the current system, Person A gets a nice little tax break that could easily pay for a new tv.  Person B's tax break is a lot less and Person B would have to make some sacrafices for that TV.  In the end, Person B just can't afford that TV.  While Person A got a new TV.

 

Enter Hypothetical situation.  Person A gets Peron B's previous tax break.  Person B gets person A's tax break.  Person A still makes $100,000 a year and a lesser tax break isn't going to stop him from buying a new TV, it isn't a problem at all with his salary.  Person B is looking at a hefty tax break, and now he can afford a TV.  Just like that, 2 TV's have been bought instead of one.  The economy now improves because there are more buyers than there previously were.

 

That is a very unscientific way of showing you my view on why the less fortunate should get more advantages than the more fortunate.  I am not going to pretend to be an expert on this subject, my knowledge is rather elementary, but giving money to people who otherwise can't spend money seems logical to me.

I hear what you're saying.

 

But consider, person A making $28,000 a year pays FIT of $2200 in taxes roughly.

 

Person B, making $100,000 pays FIT of $31,320 in taxes roughly.

 

So, person A pays 7.8% in FIT, person B pays 31.3% in FIT.

 

(Above are rough estimates, and FIT based on gross wages and SSI, etc not figured in).

 

So how is this so unfair again? And how is it that person B gets a "nice little tax break"?

 

Yea, they get more opportunities to use deductions, etc. but overall, the richest 5% pays about 50% of the taxes in this country, while lower income people pay very little.

 

It's a screwed up system, but for those that cry for a flat tax, I say, really watch what you're doing because it can really jack with the lower income folks who currently pay NOTHING.