democrats.......

2

Comments

  • Truthmonger
    Truthmonger Posts: 559
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    But if you must know, all the major intelligence agencies worldwide which agreed in whole in reguards with Saddam Hussien having WMDs, still stand by that assessment. That information was not fabricated by Bush or his administration. The intelligence community may have let this administration down, in a variety of ways, but no one lied to you.

    This is pure unadulterated bullshit. The truth is that, on the contrary, intelligence agencies from many wetsern countries had warned Bush et al about the dubious nature of their claims. The German intel org'ns warned the U.S. repeatedly, only to have those warnings brushed aside. It was the Germans who first ran into Curveball, and from where all those claims about Iraq originated. In fact, a call was placed to Colin Powell the very night before his infamous presentation to the UN (Feb. '03) telling him that the information he was about to present was bullshit. He went with it anyways, and now we see the result. There are numerous examples of the administartion knowing that their intel was questionable or downright wrong, but where they proceeded anyway. To me that's misleading and wrong. They fucking knew but spread the lies anyway b/c it helped their cause.
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    aNiMaL wrote:
    No, that will be to pay off the outrageous spending that has happened over the last 6 years. Have you seen how much our deficit has increased in recent years? You should check it out. Our country is in debt beyond our wildest dreams. How did you propose we pay it off if not by taxes?

    Exactimundo.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,952
    aNiMaL wrote:
    How did you propose we pay it off if not by taxes?


    Cut spending.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ThumbingMyWay32
    ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    aNiMaL wrote:
    No, that will be to pay off the outrageous spending that has happened over the last 6 years. Have you seen how much our deficit has increased in recent years? You should check it out. Our country is in debt beyond our wildest dreams. How did you propose we pay it off if not by taxes?

    On January 1st, 1790 the national debt was $52 million dollars. That, my friend, is a debt beyond my wildest dreams. Spending has never slowed. The debt has never stopped growing. This administration is not unique in any way. I know more than enough about our government spending.

    (Please no Clinton comments. "Balancing the Budget" is not reducing the debt.)

    Eliminating pork barrel spending is an issue I would begin to dissect as a means to begin paying off the national debt.

    Taxpayers should be allowed to check a box on their tax returns so that up to 10 percent of their payments can go for one purpose; reducing the national debt. Eliminating a dollar for spending for each dollar 'donated' would also help as Bush presented in his inauguration speech is another idea. Emphasis on presented.

    Telling Congress to stop borrowing money is another. Unfortunately I'm not their mother.

    Trying to convince a politician to stop wasteful spending is also unfortunately a battle the people may never win. Thank your local lobbyist for that.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Cut spending.

    I say start with the US Department of Education, then the IRS, privatize NASA.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,952
    mammasan wrote:
    I say start with the US Department of Education, then the IRS, privatize NASA.


    That is a tremendous shortlist. Well done. Why doesn't anyone do this?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    If you ran your personal finances the way Bush has run the government's fiances, you'd be sitting in prison right now and all of your assets would be seized.

    How do you pay off an 8 trillion dollar deficit?

    Raise taxes. That's about all you can do. Sorry, there's no free lunch for what the Bush administration did to this country. The dollar is practically Monopoly money at this point. We need a financial recovery plan, and pronto. That tax cut to the ultra rich didn't fix the deficit. In fact, it has grown exponentially.
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    On January 1st, 1790 the national debt was $52 million dollars. That, my friend, is a debt beyond my wildest dreams. Spending has never slowed. The debt has never stopped growing. This administration is not unique in any way. I know more than enough about our government spending...

    Iraq is costing $10,000 a minute.

    The 215-year-old national debt has doubled under six years of Bush. It was 4 trillion when he took office and now it’s 8 trillion.

    Doesn’t somebody have to pay for this? It's not who's raising taxes, but when.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,952
    If you spend too much...if gas prices go up, and heating oil prices rise...etc...etc....etc...

    How do you make ends meet????? Can you giv eyourself a pay raise to get more income???? No? You can't? You sure? Then what do you do?????

    Oh yeah, you cut your spending. You prioritize where your dollars are going. Why don;t we expect the same from our government? Why are you ok with them just taking more of your money?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ThumbingMyWay32
    ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    JD Sal wrote:
    Iraq is costing $10,000 a minute.

    The 215-year-old national debt has doubled under six years of Bush. It was 4 trillion when he took office and now it’s 8 trillion.

    Doesn’t somebody have to pay for this? It's not who's raising taxes, but when.


    I just gave you some reasons why the debt is increasing and some ways to help begin paying it off. Please, stop questioning me and think for yourself for a few moments. i'm not an answer machine.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    Yes, spending has to be cut, especially on the war.

    I don't welcome tax increases, but I realize the goal in doing so will be to balance the debt in this country.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,952
    JD Sal wrote:
    Yes, spending has to be cut, especially on the war.

    I don't welcome tax increases, but I realize the goal in doing so will be to balance the debt in this country.

    Wow...are you sure...you sure they won't just spend more? Have you seen their track record?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    icarus wrote:
    clinton was impeached. he just wasnt removed from office.

    Hair splitting at best. He was not successfully impeached. Another trophy of Republican incompetence. Had they allowed Clinton to focus on his Presidency, and not spent the last half of his second term trying to lynch him, 9/11 probably could have been prevented.

    I was a Republican until they stooped that low. They weren't doing the work of the people, and America paid for it.
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Wow...are you sure...you sure they won't just spend more? Have you seen their track record?

    I favor the Democrats trying to balance the budget versus the current tax cuts that help the rich and shift the debt burden to my kids.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,952
    JD Sal wrote:
    I favor the Democrats trying to balance the budget versus the current tax cuts that help the rich and shift the debt burden to my kids.


    Sorry, by their I meant 'US government'...as a whole.

    Why would you favor the Dems to balance the budget? When they had cntrol they didn;t do it? It was a republican congress lead by true conservatives and a democrat pres....so maybe with the opposite we have a chance I guess...but I doubt it. I really think a conserv. repub congress and a dem pres is the best combo for balancing the budget.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ThumbingMyWay32
    ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    enharmonic wrote:
    Hair splitting at best. He was not successfully impeached. Another trophy of Republican incompetence. Had they allowed Clinton to focus on his Presidency, and not spent the last half of his second term trying to lynch him, 9/11 probably could have been prevented.

    I was a Republican until they stooped that low. They weren't doing the work of the people, and America paid for it.

    Acually, a successful impeachment doesn't have to involve being removed from office. It's people like you who believe Lindra Tripp should apologize to the nation, and suggest Bill Clinton was but a hapless victim that continue to amaze me. And if you're unaware of the countless opportunites Clinton had to act against terrorism then you do not need to argue this any further. But if a continual apology for someone who was time after time credibly accused of rape suits you right, then hey, don't let me get in your way. After all, I'm sure none of this interfered with his running the country in the first place. Unless you're suggesting he had no conscience as well.

    It was just BJ! Come on!
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • WindNoSail
    WindNoSail Posts: 580
    JD Sal wrote:
    Yes, spending has to be cut, especially on the war.

    I don't welcome tax increases, but I realize the goal in doing so will be to balance the debt in this country.

    Please let me educate everyone who believes this logic, which has always been taught by the dems.....and if false

    You cannot tax yourself out of debt! We can discuss GDP, money supply, etc, but to simplify there is historical proof that raising tax levels does have a negative impact on economical growth, while lowering tax rates improves economic growth

    Would you rather have 28% of a million dollars or
    22% of 1.5 million??

    That is the point, the govt can only get revenues from taxes dollars we pay, the rates matter less than the dollars...

    The economy does shrink when tax rates increase and that lowers revenue, but when tax rates are lowered, the economy grows because you have more to spend/invest, and that means someone is making more money. Therefore, the tax revenue increases.

    Simplification, but true. If you want to increase tax dollars to the govt you should be FOR lower tax rates for everyone including the rich.
    HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
  • WindNoSail
    WindNoSail Posts: 580
    JD Sal wrote:
    I favor the Democrats trying to balance the budget versus the current tax cuts that help the rich and shift the debt burden to my kids.

    Balancing the budget is a conservative idea and was promoted by cons for decades, but the dems hated it and always shot it down. I wish someone would do it, but I don't have any faith in dems or repubs.
    HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Sorry, by their I meant 'US government'...as a whole.

    Why would you favor the Dems to balance the budget? When they had cntrol they didn;t do it? It was a republican congress lead by true conservatives and a democrat pres....so maybe with the opposite we have a chance I guess...but I doubt it. I really think a conserv. repub congress and a dem pres is the best combo for balancing the budget.

    There were problems in '94 because we had a Democratic president and the Democrats had been in Congress for a while. People don't police each other well when they've been in power for too long. Inherently, it's not Republican or Democrat, but it's Republican now because of they've been in power for way too long.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    icarus wrote:
    clinton was impeached. he just wasnt removed from office.
    Yeah, what you said doesn't counter what I said. Clinton was Impeached, he was found not guilty and acquitted on all charges, and because of that, of course he didn't have to leave office or suffer any kind of restriction of government.

Categories