PDA

View Full Version : Go ahead and Fantasize, When Bush Loses...


Calcountry
02-21-2004, 12:30 PM
This is what it is all about, Bush losing, not what is good for America.

What would the Democrats do to create jobs?

What would the Democrats do to stop terrorism?

What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?

What would the Democrats do to spur economic growth?

What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?

All I ever hear from you hateful Democrats is how evil Bush is, how stupid Bush is, how dumb Bush is. You can't stand Bush, that is a given. ENOUGH already. So fantacise a little, pretend you are in control. WTF would you do to improve the "so called" chitty mess that we are all supposedly in?

I am waiting.

KC Jones
02-21-2004, 12:37 PM
I wanted to post these answers before any conservatives here had the chance.

1) Job creation
hire everybody because we all know that dems just want a large bloated federal government

2) What would the Democrats do to stop terrorism?
Nothing. We all know the democrats are the real terrorists here.

3) What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?
taxes - more and more taxes.

4) What would the Democrats do to spur economic growth?
taxes, more and more taxes.

5) What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?
stop war, then taxes - more and more taxes.

:D

jAZ
02-21-2004, 12:51 PM
It's called "Addition By Subtraction". By removing Bush, you remove the horrible track record of decision making that he has established. It raises the possiblilty that we won't be distracted by poorly timed wars that don't increase our national security, but instead unnecessarily direct our tax dollars and limited military.

Going forward I would implement several things that Bush campaigned on, but failed to deliver.

- Don't rush to pull out of Iraq, it's too late, we must stay the course there.
- Begin Privitizing or Social Secruity
- Increase our Intelligence funding
- Re-establish the trust and support of the International Community
- Eliminate parts of the obscene tax cuts... err... vote buying "refunds".
- Increase targeted small business tax cuts
- Increase funding for the SBA Loan programs (which Bush cut)
- Expand financial aid programs to include (private/charter) high school funding
- Reduce the need for college quotas by increasing funding for college counceling and eductating poorer communities on how to afford college
- Further expand funding for human intelligence, eliminate the Defense Department's "Special Projects" group
- Roll back several portions of the Patriot Act (and rename the damn thing to salvage the term "Patriot").

BigMeatballDave
02-21-2004, 12:58 PM
Going forward I would implement several things that Bush campaigned on, but failed to deliver. I recall Clintons main platform was healthcare reform. 8 years, NOTHING!

jAZ
02-21-2004, 01:00 PM
I recall Clintons main platform was healthcare reform. 8 years, NOTHING!
Well, I'm pretty sure it wasn't due to lack of effort. It was shot down by Congress.

Bush hasn't even tried to do anything but Cut Taxes (and that wasn't until it was timed to help his re-election big... notice the refunds are coming during an election year?)

jAZ
02-21-2004, 01:02 PM
I recall Clintons main platform was healthcare reform. 8 years, NOTHING!
I love that I suggest like 10 different things, and your only comment is a failed attempt to attack Clinton.

Do Republican leaning voters really think that Democrats have no ideas what so ever? Eliminating Bush isn't a goal because he's a shitty person, but because we want a litany of ideas imlemented that won't ever happen with Bush. It's not personal, its just universal.

BigMeatballDave
02-21-2004, 01:03 PM
Bush hasn't even tried to do anything but Cut Taxes Good thing. I had some extra cash to compensate...

jAZ
02-21-2004, 01:07 PM
Good thing. I had some extra cash to compensate...
Thank you children, they just loaned you that money without interest.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 01:14 PM
Thank you children, they just loaned you that money without interest.
My Children are thanking me right now. I am able to put the money into their trust accounts to spend when they turn 18.

If you asked my children, they are happy that they have that money being set aside for them right now, rather than being absorbed by the government, leaving them pennyless when I launch them out into the world to fend for themselves. Perhaps they would turn to the government for some help getting started.

Perhaps, because they cannot afford to go to college now, they will suck up to the government more and not pay into it, because they will have a lesser job.

Gee thanks for balancing the budget by taxing away my discretionary money that I had ear marked for my children.

BigMeatballDave
02-21-2004, 01:17 PM
Thank you children, they just loaned you that money without interest.
:shake: Thats just stupid...Its my money, I earned it. People should work for a living instead of sponging off the gov't!

BigMeatballDave
02-21-2004, 01:19 PM
My Children are thanking me right now. I am able to put the money into their trust accounts to spend when they turn 18.

If you asked my children, they are happy that they have that money being set aside for them right now, rather than being absorbed by the government, leaving them pennyless when I launch them out into the world to fend for themselves. Perhaps they would turn to the government for some help getting started.

Perhaps, because they cannot afford to go to college now, they will suck up to the government more and not pay into it, because they will have a lesser job.

Gee thanks for balancing the budget by taxing away my discretionary money that I had ear marked for my children.
:clap:

KC Jones
02-21-2004, 01:22 PM
Here are my off the top of my head real comments.

What would the Democrats do to create jobs?
I think we all know that presidents are unfairly given credit/blame for the economy during their tenure. The executive branch can't create jobs. So really the question is what can they do to help the economy improve and stop the job losses. When looking at that stuff I think you have to take the long term into account. Besides some of the measures KK/Jaz pointed out regarding improving the environment for small businesses, I think it's important to stop encouraging monopolies and completely re-evaluate the patent/copyright system. I could fill a thread with posts on this subject, but I'll summarize it with this. Our current patent/copyright system discourages innovation and encourages monolithic monopolies. It might not be a bad idea to set some limits on outsourcing either. If we outsource too much we as a nation risk losing important business competencies and skillsets.

What would the Democrats do to stop terrorism?
Well for starters I would encourage not trumping up false allegations to start a war you wanted since before 9/11 against a country that wasn't involved. Really, you do what you can within reason to prevent attacks, and you hold nothing back when going after them on their turf.

What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?
I'd like to raise the age requirement, set some caps, and make it need based.


What would the Democrats do to spur economic growth?
see #1.

What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?
I don't think you can balance the budget while fighting a war. But you can suspend aid payments and not promise ridiculous amounts of money for a mission to Mars and for AIDs in Africa all while the war is on. There's a difference between being fiscally responsible and acting like you can fund your every whim all at the same time.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 01:27 PM
:shake: Thats just stupid...Its my money, I earned it. People should work for a living instead of sponging off the gov't!
One of these day's we'll pay back all of the money that is refunded this year. And it will come out of the taxes paid by a later generation.

You don't like the fact, but its true... Wish it weren't, but it is.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 01:31 PM
This is the dumbest argument I had in a while with anyone...

You post a thread calling out Democrats and suggesting that the only Republicans have any form of a plan what so ever, and I post a litany of legitimate suggestions.

Instead of disucssing the topic YOU raised, we are talking about the value of investing your child's trust fund on margin.

Ugly Duck
02-21-2004, 01:41 PM
I am waiting.Don't wait, just do a quick search. Kerry's plans for the stuff that you are curious about are outlined on his website. I'm sure that Edwards has a website as well. All ya gotta do is click on the links and read:

http://www.johnkerry.com/

headsnap
02-21-2004, 01:47 PM
One of these day's we'll pay back all of the money that is refunded this year. And it will come out of the taxes paid by a later generation.

You don't like the fact, but its true... Wish it weren't, but it is.
AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!


the economy isn't a zero sum game! :banghead:

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:01 PM
AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!


the economy isn't a zero sum game! :banghead:
No, but debt is debt. Unless it is somehow written off, it is required to be repayed.

Saggysack
02-21-2004, 02:07 PM
Can this country debt ever outweigh it's worth?

I just ask this because worldwide nobody is buying into the U.S. dollar, hence it's decline in value.

headsnap
02-21-2004, 02:12 PM
No, but debt is debt. Unless it is somehow written off, it is required to be repayed.
but a tax cut doesn't necessarily mean less $ to the govt.

Logical
02-21-2004, 02:14 PM
It's called "Addition By Subtraction". By removing Bush, you remove the horrible track record of decision making that he has established. It raises the possiblilty that we won't be distracted by poorly timed wars that don't increase our national security, but instead unnecessarily direct our tax dollars and limited military.

Going forward I would implement several things that Bush campaigned on, but failed to deliver.

- Don't rush to pull out of Iraq, it's too late, we must stay the course there.
- Begin Privitizing Social Secruity
- Increase our Intelligence funding
- Re-establish the trust and support of the International Community
- Eliminate parts of the obscene tax cuts... err... vote buying "refunds".
- Increase targeted small business tax cuts
- Increase funding for the SBA Loan programs (which Bush cut)
- Expand financial aid programs to include (private/charter) high school funding
- Reduce the need for college quotas by increasing funding for college counceling and eductating poorer communities on how to afford college
- Further expand funding for human intelligence, eliminate the Defense Department's "Special Projects" group
- Roll back several portions of the Patriot Act (and rename the damn thing to salvage the term "Patriot").Somethings you call for I agree on but don't think the democrats would, do you really. Those are:

- Begin Privitizing Social Secruity
- Increase our Intelligence funding
- Increase targeted small business tax cuts
- Increase funding for the SBA Loan programs
- Expand financial aid programs to include (private/charter) high school funding
- Further expand funding for human intelligence


One thing I definitely disagree with is
eliminate the Defense Department's "Special Projects" group

This is one of the best capabilities our government utilizes whether we have a Democratic or Republican administration, some of our greatest advancenments have come through the funding of this group.

patteeu
02-21-2004, 02:25 PM
This is what it is all about, Bush losing, not what is good for America.

What would the Democrats do to create jobs?

What would the Democrats do to stop terrorism?

What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?

What would the Democrats do to spur economic growth?

What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?

All I ever hear from you hateful Democrats is how evil Bush is, how stupid Bush is, how dumb Bush is. You can't stand Bush, that is a given. ENOUGH already. So fantacise a little, pretend you are in control. WTF would you do to improve the "so called" chitty mess that we are all supposedly in?

I am waiting.

It's simple:

1) Raise taxes

2) Raise the minimum wage

3) Make it easier for the homeless and criminal populations to vote.

That should fix everything.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:26 PM
Somethings you call for I agree on but don't think the democrats would, do you really. Those are:

- Begin Privitizing Social Secruity
- Increase our Intelligence funding
- Increase targeted small business tax cuts
- Increase funding for the SBA Loan programs
- Expand financial aid programs to include (private/charter) high school funding
- Further expand funding for human intelligence


One thing I definitely disagree with is
eliminate the Defense Department's "Special Projects" group

This is one of the best capabilities our government utilizes whether we have a Democratic or Republican administration, some of our greatest advancenments have come through the funding of this group.
The one I am least confident about being implemented is Privatizing Social Security, though I think its safe to say that its just a matter of time (when, not if). I thought GWB would have been the fastest route, but that went no where. He didn't even TRY to implement it during his term.

I know that Edwards and Kerry both have pushed for small business tax cuts. I would be suprised if they didn't return funding to the SBA as well, but I don't know for sure.

The financial aid program for HS is something I haven't heard anyone raise, but I think it is a far better solution than vouchers. What's the difference between affording a quality college education and affording a quality pre-college education. Loans rather than grants helps the economy by opening up new opportunities for lending institutions, at the same time, it reduces both the up front costs needed to fund the program and reduces the total costs required. Pretty simple really, and I don't know why its never been considered before.

Logical
02-21-2004, 02:27 PM
It's simple:

1) Raise taxes

2) Raise the minimum wage

3) Make it easier for the homeless and criminal populations to vote.

That should fix everything.


OOOoh OOOOoh you forgot destroy the free enterprise system.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:27 PM
but a tax cut doesn't necessarily mean less $ to the govt.
No, but a budget deficit does.

Logical
02-21-2004, 02:29 PM
The one I am least confident about being implemented is Privatizing Social Security, though I think its safe to say that its just a matter of time (when, not if). I thought GWB would have been the fastest route, but that went no where. He didn't even TRY to implement it during his term.

I know that Edwards and Kerry both have pushed for small business tax cuts. I would be suprised if they didn't return funding to the SBA as well, but I don't know for sure.

The financial aid program for HS is something I haven't heard anyone raise, but I think it is a far better solution than vouchers. What's the difference between affording a quality college education and affording a quality pre-college education. Loans rather than grants helps the economy by opening up new opportunities for lending institutions, at the same time, it reduces both the up front costs needed to fund the program and reduces the total costs required. Pretty simple really, and I don't know why its never been considered before.

I said I supported those so you don't have to convince me, just the liberals. It goes against everything they push.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 02:29 PM
Don't wait, just do a quick search. Kerry's plans for the stuff that you are curious about are outlined on his website. I'm sure that Edwards has a website as well. All ya gotta do is click on the links and read:

http://www.johnkerry.com/
Is it too much to ask for you to articulate them from your heart? Oh yeah, I forgot, you are a Democrat. You want others to do the work so you don't have to.

Logical
02-21-2004, 02:30 PM
No, but a budget deficit does.
Which is exactly why I support deficits, less money for the government to spend is the best possible thing IMO!

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:32 PM
I said I supported those so you don't have to convince me, just the liberals. It goes against everything they push.
Well, not really... if you think that the stereo type democrat is all about big-goverment... each of those programs would result in expanding or creating new programs.

:D

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:33 PM
Which is exactly why I support deficits, less money for the government to spend is the best possible thing IMO!
Reducing waste is a much better way.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 02:37 PM
This is the dumbest argument I had in a while with anyone...

You post a thread calling out Democrats and suggesting that the only Republicans have any form of a plan what so ever, and I post a litany of legitimate suggestions.

Instead of disucssing the topic YOU raised, we are talking about the value of investing your child's trust fund on margin.
How is it that MY money is margin. You are fuggin stupid if you think that I am a subset of the government. I could give a dam if they ever pay back any of the debt with anybodys money. It is all an illusion anyway, obviously you buy into it. Ever hear of "fiat money". The money you hold in your pocket is a dollar because the government says so.

Your deposits are backed by the FDIC, which is backed by the "full faith and credit of the United states government." Which, by the way, has never been late on one interest payment in its entire history. Can you say that about yourself. Surely, you accidentally forgot to drop at least one bill in the mail on time. I know I have. I have also been short a couple of times and asked for a few more days.

Not the government. So what in the F are you so dam worried about?

I hold debt instruments that are issued by the government right now. IOW, I own a very small piece of that debt you are so worried about, as do countless others. When the government pays interest, it is a good thing for me, banks, and other investors that have helped to fund all of the social experiments that government engages in.

I will conclude with this. Do you think that my grandchildren will have to pay back the debt if there are a few WMD attacks in this country, killing millions, God forbid one of them?

KC Jones
02-21-2004, 02:37 PM
Which is exactly why I support deficits, less money for the government to spend is the best possible thing IMO!

:hmmm:

Deficits don't mean there is less money to spend, just that their spending more money than they have. Perhaps you were thinking of tax cuts.

Logical
02-21-2004, 02:39 PM
:hmmm:

Deficits don't mean there is less money to spend, just that their spending more money than they have. Perhaps you were thinking of tax cuts.

No in the long run deficits mean that less of the taxes collected will be available to spend and will have to go back into paying the debt ceiling. I meant what I said.

KC Jones
02-21-2004, 02:39 PM
It's simple:

1) Raise taxes

2) Raise the minimum wage

3) Make it easier for the homeless and criminal populations to vote.

That should fix everything.

Damn, I knew I forgot something in my pre-emptive stereotypical slackjawed republican dittohead response. Thanks patteeu, I'll try to do a better job next time.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 02:40 PM
It's simple:

1) Raise taxes

2) Raise the minimum wage

3) Make it easier for the homeless and criminal populations to vote.

That should fix everything.
You mean raise taxes on "the rich", who I haven't figured out who actually is rich yet, because I am concerned with me and not them.

3) We should deny the vote to whomever has sucked off the system rather than pays into it.

KC Jones
02-21-2004, 02:42 PM
No in the long run deficits mean that less of the taxes collected will be available to spend and will have to go back into paying the debt ceiling. I meant what I said.

So in this future of high taxes and no services, we're all going to be better off?

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 02:42 PM
No, but a budget deficit does.
NOOOOOOOOOO, if you spend more than you take in=a deficit.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:48 PM
How is it that MY money is margin. You are fuggin stupid if you think that I am a subset of the government. I could give a dam if they ever pay back any of the debt with anybodys money. It is all an illusion anyway, obviously you buy into it. Ever hear of "fiat money". The money you hold in your pocket is a dollar because the government says so.

Your deposits are backed by the FDIC, which is backed by the "full faith and credit of the United states government." Which, by the way, has never been late on one interest payment in its entire history. Can you say that about yourself. Surely, you accidentally forgot to drop at least one bill in the mail on time. I know I have. I have also been short a couple of times and asked for a few more days.

Not the government. So what in the F are you so dam worried about?

I hold debt instruments that are issued by the government right now. IOW, I own a very small piece of that debt you are so worried about, as do countless others. When the government pays interest, it is a good thing for me, banks, and other investors that have helped to fund all of the social experiments that government engages in.

I will conclude with this. Do you think that my grandchildren will have to pay back the debt if there are a few WMD attacks in this country, killing millions, God forbid one of them?
This post is a wonderful illustration of why I fear letting Bush run our country any longer than absolutely necessary. I think the confusion, scattered thoughts, contradictions and irrational appeals to fear that you demostrate here are a direct reflection of what Bush is putting out to the public.

Logical
02-21-2004, 02:52 PM
So in this future of high taxes and no services, we're all going to be better off?


The idea is to get to the point where the only thing the governement can afford is basic services such as the military, roads, and has to give up on welfare, Social Security, and other socialist elements. So yes we will all be better off. The best thing for this country is the retrenchment away from the socialism that started under FDR and had been increasing over the last 5 decades.

headsnap
02-21-2004, 02:53 PM
No, but a budget deficit does.

so which is better, a tax cut that gets a few less $ for the govt this year, but greases the economy for more $ in the coming years, or a tax increase that gets more $ for the govt today, but causes the economy to tank so the govt gets alot less $ in the coming years. :hmmm:

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:54 PM
NOOOOOOOOOO, if you spend more than you take in=a deficit.
You can't spend more than you take in without borrowing... and you can't borrow for free. Interest payments mean less money to the goverment.

Logical
02-21-2004, 02:56 PM
Reducing waste is a much better way.

As long as you have liberals that love social programs we will have the waste of money on welfare, social security and other socialistic programs.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:58 PM
so which is better, a tax cut that gets a few less $ for the govt this year, but greases the economy for more $ in the coming years, or a tax increase that gets more $ for the govt today, but causes the economy to tank so the govt gets alot less $ in the coming years. :hmmm:
Yeah, that's a fair question. Those are the only two options, and those are the guaranteed outcomes.

:rolleyes:

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 02:58 PM
No in the long run deficits mean that less of the taxes collected will be available to spend and will have to go back into paying the debt ceiling. I meant what I said.
What is the best way to control spending?

Pay less taxes.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 02:59 PM
As long as you have liberals that love social programs we will have the waste of money on welfare, social security and other socialistic programs.
Apparently it doesn't take liberal democrat... just a republic running for reelection.

patteeu
02-21-2004, 02:59 PM
Before I start, nice job on the serious proposals, jAZ

It's called "Addition By Subtraction". By removing Bush, you remove the horrible track record of decision making that he has established. It raises the possiblilty that we won't be distracted by poorly timed wars that don't increase our national security, but instead unnecessarily direct our tax dollars and limited military.

Going forward I would implement several things that Bush campaigned on, but failed to deliver.

- Don't rush to pull out of Iraq, it's too late, we must stay the course there.
- Begin Privitizing or Social Secruity
- Increase our Intelligence funding

agreed
agreed
agreed


- Re-establish the trust and support of the International Community

I'm happy with the state of our international relationships as they are compared to as they were prior to Bush.

I would like to have a better relationship with Russia but I think that should have been done (a) by NOT siding with the Kosovars and Bosnians against the Serbs and (b) by supporting Russia in its battle against the Chechnyans.

I'm happy with our relations with Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and most of the Eastern European countries. I think it is dandy that the rest of Europe is being given a choice to either go off on their own or work to repair their relationships with us. I certainly don't want to start kowtowing to France and begging them to like us again. In truth, they've been resentful of the US for a long time.


- Eliminate parts of the obscene tax cuts... err... vote buying "refunds".
- Increase targeted small business tax cuts

Targeted tax cuts (conceived by both Republicans and Democrats) are part of the problem. Targeted tax cuts are the same as welfare. The government isn't good at targeting (i.e. picking winners and losers). If the government really perceives a need to help one group over another, then let them create a spending program to do it rather than hiding it in the tax code and dressing it up as a "tax cut." There are always unintended consequences when the government tries to pick winners and losers and most of the time they aren't for the better IMO.

Having said that, I agree with you that some of the tax cuts that Bush pushed through were more politically useful than they were economically useful. Ironically, we might not agree on which types of cuts were political and which were economic, but that's another argument.


- Increase funding for the SBA Loan programs (which Bush cut)
- Expand financial aid programs to include (private/charter) high school funding

Federal expenditures for these types of things are so minimal (and were minimal prior to Bush) that they are hardly worth mentioning. I recognize that you want to expand them, but I can't say much other than I disagree with you because I'm opposed to the federal government getting involved in stuff like this. In my view, the more government money that gets put into these things, the more expensive they get and the less likely someone will be to afford them without government assistance.


- Reduce the need for college quotas by increasing funding for college counceling and eductating poorer communities on how to afford college

disagree simply because i'm opposed to the federal government getting involved in stuff like this


- eliminate the Defense Department's "Special Projects" group

Just curious, why? Al Gore didn't really invent the internet, DARPA did. ;)


- Roll back several portions of the Patriot Act (and rename the damn thing to salvage the term "Patriot").

I'm probably in your camp on this one but at the same time, I think we would need to increase our border security. My philosophy would be to fight terrorism aggressively abroad and at the border and preserve the rights of our citizens to the greatest degree possible (while recognizing that with an open society we will always have threats within).

Logical
02-21-2004, 03:03 PM
Apparently it doesn't take liberal democrat... just a republic running for reelection.

Yes I am not too please with some of that either, but it is still far less than we would get with a Democrat. That is why I chose not to characterize the rush to socialism as solely a Democrat only issue.

Logical
02-21-2004, 03:04 PM
What is the best way to control spending?

Pay less taxes.

Well actually collect less taxes would be my answer, paying less taxes likely will put you or I in jail. :D

Logical
02-21-2004, 03:06 PM
Yeah, that's a fair question. Those are the only two options, and those are the guaranteed outcomes.

:rolleyes:

Actually history shows those are the historically accurate answers. Of course fantasy exists but is that really an answer?:shake:

patteeu
02-21-2004, 03:08 PM
Actually history shows those are the historically accurate answers. Of course fantasy exists but is that really an answer?:shake:

Speaking of that, is it really conservative to argue for tax cuts because in the long run increased revenues will result? We need to get beyond the knee in the laffer curve so that tax cuts can really squeeze some socialistic tendancies out of our government. :)

headsnap
02-21-2004, 03:10 PM
Yeah, that's a fair question. Those are the only two options, and those are the guaranteed outcomes.

:rolleyes:
hey, love the rolleyes jIZ!

I happen to believe that tax cuts are good for the overall economy. A good economy means more people making $ and more people making $ means the govt gets more $.

Yes, I enjoyed my tax cut, but do you know what I did with it? I SPENT IT!!! That's money that's spent doller for dollar, not the govt waste dollar that is worth pennies on the dollar.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 03:11 PM
Actually history shows those are the historically accurate answers. Of course fantasy exists but is that really an answer?:shake:
History also shows that not all democrats are tax and spend liberals. History doesn't have anything to do with the game of T-Ball that headsnap is trying to play.

I'd rather stick to the quality posts like patteeu's.

Logical
02-21-2004, 03:15 PM
Speaking of that, is it really conservative to argue for tax cuts because in the long run increased revenues will result? We need to get beyond the knee in the laffer curve so that tax cuts can really squeeze some socialistic tendancies out of our government. :)


LOL yes.

headsnap
02-21-2004, 03:15 PM
Just curious, why? Al Gore didn't really invent the internet, DARPA did. ;).
that ROCKS!!!! :thumb:

rep

tk13
02-21-2004, 03:18 PM
The thought process of this thread might be the most ridiculous political thread ever. Politics isn't about what your guy can do, it's about what the other guy can't do. The Democrats sit there and try to drill Bush on Iraq, the economy, etc... Bush attacks Kerry for being a sucker for special interests, for instance. Since when have a candidate's stance on the issues actually taken a front seat to the attacks on the enemy?....

headsnap
02-21-2004, 03:19 PM
History also shows that not all democrats are tax and spend liberals. History doesn't have anything to do with the game of T-Ball that headsnap is trying to play.
my turn...


T-Ball?

:rolleyes:


You want to go the 'but your kids will have to pay it back' route, and you then stick your fingers in your ears when someone tries to refute that.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 03:21 PM
I'm happy with the state of our international relationships as they are compared to as they were prior to Bush.
I think most European leaders are tollerating us, but only because they are economically forced to.

The thing that bothers me more than anything about where we are internationally, is that we have almost NO popular support in Europe. The leaders continue to work with us to some extent, but the people of Europe (those that elect the people who are tollerating us) are both pissed and resentful of us. That's a natural reaction given our king of the mountain status, but we don't have to act like it, and reinforce that mentality. IMO, Bush's unilateral and hawkish actions after 9-11 before Iraq were the polar opposite of what we needed at the time.

Friendly, supportive leaders like Tony Blair won't be in office very long as we continue to alienate the European people like we are.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 03:22 PM
This post is a wonderful illustration of why I fear letting Bush run our country any longer than absolutely necessary. I think the confusion, scattered thoughts, contradictions and irrational appeals to fear that you demostrate here are a direct reflection of what Bush is putting out to the public.

Your response to my heartfelt well thought out response is why I don't want one of your leaders to "run our country".

You are arrogant and condescending. You think I am a stupid, ingorant, misinformed hick.

Well let me tell you something Mr. High and mighty. I have a BA in Economics, I run my own business at a profit in the face of massive competition. Please, don't look down your fuggin nose at me.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 03:23 PM
You want to go the 'but your kids will have to pay it back' route, and you then stick your fingers in your ears when someone tries to refute that.
No, I refuse to engage this kind of discussion.
hey, love the rolleyes jIZ!

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 03:25 PM
Well actually collect less taxes would be my answer, paying less taxes likely will put you or I in jail. :D
ROFL Of course you must pay all that you are legally responsible for, but why pay a dime more than you have to. That is why you get a good accountant.

Logical
02-21-2004, 03:26 PM
ROFL Of course you must pay all that you are legally responsible for, but why pay a dime more than you have to. That is why you get a good accountant.;)

headsnap
02-21-2004, 03:29 PM
No, I refuse to engage this kind of discussion.
then why did you reply to a reasonable post by using the rolleyes.



yes, this is the 'you started it' arguement...

Logical
02-21-2004, 03:30 PM
The thought process of this thread might be the most ridiculous political thread ever. Politics isn't about what your guy can do, it's about what the other guy can't do. The Democrats sit there and try to drill Bush on Iraq, the economy, etc... Bush attacks Kerry for being a sucker for special interests, for instance. Since when have a candidate's stance on the issues actually taken a front seat to the attacks on the enemy?....
I think the point of the thread is not so much the candidates positions but to get the liberals supporting those candidates to express what they would do themselves.

I thought UD was just not paying attention, but now that you have done the same thing I think I should point it out.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 03:32 PM
I wish Logical and I were the only ones to vote in California, thats 55 electoral votes for Bush. You are going to vote for Bush, right Logical? lol

Lets be some of those undecided fence sitters. Like it will matter in the peoples republic of California.

Actually, I was studying the electoral math, and it will come down to Missouri, Ohio. Bush cannot lose either with any hopes of winning.

tk13
02-21-2004, 03:33 PM
I think the point of the thread is not so much the candidates positions but to get the liberals supporting those candidates to express what they would do themselves.

I thought UD was just not paying attention, but now that you have done the same thing I think I should point it out.
Oh I get the point, I just don't think it's very relevant in today's politics. The first thing you hear when Republicans talk about Clinton is what an idiot he was. It's the same thing.....

Logical
02-21-2004, 03:36 PM
Oh I get the point, I just don't think it's very relevant in today's politics. The first thing you hear when Republicans talk about Clinton is what an idiot he was. It's the same thing.....

I think if more of us would express our own opinions on what we would like to see happen instead of picking fights over how stupid what the candidates want to do this place would be more interesting and less polarized. JMHO.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 03:39 PM
Oh I get the point, I just don't think it's very relevant in today's politics. The first thing you hear when Republicans talk about what an idiot Clinton was. It's the same thing.....
For me, it is because my life experience tells me that the way I see things is a far more realistic way of getting things done. In other words, my way works. It fits into a real world model that assumes human avarice in the face of scarcity. Scarcity assumes that their are limited resources in a world that has unlimited wants and needs.

Before you can start carving up the economic pie, you have to understand what set of premises you are going to base your assumptions on.

Liberals operate from a "feel good" premise that assumes that man can always fix whatever is wrong or bad.

Conservatives understand and accept, that their are certain human tendencies that exist and can only be controlled or mitigated, never done away with.

Our paradigm with which we view the world only intersects at a few places, and even then, we agree becuase we believe that it will get to where we want things to go inspite of what the other thinks.

Are you confused yet??? :hmmm:

Ugly Duck
02-21-2004, 03:40 PM
Is it too much to ask for you to articulate them from your heart? Oh yeah, I forgot, you are a Democrat. You want others to do the work so you don't have to.Sometimes I misunderstand things.... I thought that you were asking if the Dem candidates had plans or if they just don't like Bush. My bad.

But since you accuse me of not wanting to work (a personal insult in my book), I will do no more than apologize for misunderstanding your request.

jAZ
02-21-2004, 03:41 PM
Your response to my heartfelt well thought out response is why I don't want one of your leaders to "run our country".

You are arrogant and condescending. You think I am a stupid, ingorant, misinformed hick.

Well let me tell you something Mr. High and mighty. I have a BA in Economics, I run my own business at a profit in the face of massive competition. Please, don't look down your fuggin nose at me.
No, I don't think you are an ignorant hick nor do I look down my nose at you... I don't know a thing about you, and I'm far from that guy.

Maybe you intended your post to be heartfelt and well thought out, but it was everything I described, maybe heartfelt, but not well thought out.

You started by saying that you "could give a dam if they ever pay back any of the debt with anybodys money" and then you go on to tell me that you "hold debt instruments that are issued by the government right now". If that's well thought out, I'd hate to see what irrational is. You could care less if you ever get your investments back? Wha?

And you wrapped up this discussion of you hating to pay taxes by suggesting that your tax refund is somehow tied to WMD. Wha? Wha?

I appologize if I offended you with my post, but there are times on this board, where the time it takes to explain how ridiculous a post is, isn't worth it.

I thought yours was one of them. But since I seemed to genuinely hurt you, I wanted to take the time to clarify.

Calcountry
02-21-2004, 03:53 PM
No, I don't think you are an ignorant hick nor do I look down my nose at you... I don't know a thing about you, and I'm far from that guy.

Maybe you intended your post to be heartfelt and well thought out, but it was everything I described, maybe heartfelt, but not well thought out.

You started by saying that you "could give a dam if they ever pay back any of the debt with anybodys money" and then you go on to tell me that you "hold debt instruments that are issued by the government right now". If that's well thought out, I'd hate to see what irrational is. You could care less if you ever get your investments back? Wha?

And you end wrapped this discussion of you hating to pay taxes by suggesting that your tax refund is somehow tied to WMD. Wha? Wha?

I appologize if I offended you with my post, but there are times on this board, where the time it takes to explain how ridiculous a post is, isn't worth it.

I thought yours was one of them. But since I seemed to genuinely hurt you, I wanted to take the time to clarify.

Dam it, thats what happens on a two beer lunch. sorry I got so heated.
Your above explanation sobered me just a little, ROFL, I got to "tie half my brain behind my back just to make it fair." ROFL.

To explain my irrationality a little.

I have full faith, that if the US government doesn't pay back my investment, then there won't be an America left anymore. Will I really give a dam at that point? I think not. I will be playing a game of survivor for real at that point.

The government owes me money that it SAYS is money. They could print more of it to pay me with, then it would be worth LESS than it was when they borrowed it. But, If the US government fails, then we have bigger problems than me getting my money back. I believe that I also said, that the government has never been late with a payment.
The reason I did, is to illustrate the absurdity of trying to say my kids will be paying back the deficit. After all, If they do not become rich, the Democrats will not make them pay any taxes. How then will they be paying back the deficit?


Its about getting through the game in one piece man.

Gracie Dean
02-21-2004, 05:07 PM
I recall Clintons main platform was healthcare reform. 8 years, NOTHING!


squashed by newt and the repuks for fear of losing their money tree

patteeu
02-21-2004, 05:37 PM
I think most European leaders are tollerating us, but only because they are economically forced to.

The thing that bothers me more than anything about where we are internationally, is that we have almost NO popular support in Europe. The leaders continue to work with us to some extent, but the people of Europe (those that elect the people who are tollerating us) are both pissed and resentful of us. That's a natural reaction given our king of the mountain status, but we don't have to act like it, and reinforce that mentality. IMO, Bush's unilateral and hawkish actions after 9-11 before Iraq were the polar opposite of what we needed at the time.

Friendly, supportive leaders like Tony Blair won't be in office very long as we continue to alienate the European people like we are.

I agree that this is a challenge. I also agree with your point that some of this comes from the natural reaction to our role as "king of the mountain" and to that extent it probably can't be avoided. Beyond that, I think our leaders must be diligent in their efforts to articulate why we think our actions are required to protect our interests and reassure those who doubt us that we aren't interested in an expanding empire. We should be clear that we won't bow to international pressure when we believe our national interests are at stake but we should also avoid unnecessary provocations.

To be sure, the WMD issue has been egg on our face even though I personally believe our leaders acted in good faith.

It is definitely a tricky issue.

BigMeatballDave
02-22-2004, 12:55 PM
squashed by newt and the repuks for fear of losing their money treeJust like a Democrat/Liberal, blame someone else for their problems!
:shake:

He still failed! 8 years to persuade Congress. It was his platform, he should've done something .

Simplex3
02-22-2004, 01:10 PM
What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?
I'd like to raise the age requirement, set some caps, and make it need based.How about letting people opt out of the damn thing? There's no chance I will EVER get back out what I put in, much less with the interest that I would have earned had I had my own money. People use the "it supports your grandparents" argument, but I can assure you that I could personnally pay both of their bills for less than I pay for my own supposeded "security". Socialist Insecurity sucks.
What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?
I don't think you can balance the budget while fighting a war. But you can suspend aid payments and not promise ridiculous amounts of money for a mission to Mars and for AIDs in Africa all while the war is on. There's a difference between being fiscally responsible and acting like you can fund your every whim all at the same time.Let's suspend aid to all of the foreign countries that owe us money from the first two World Wars. Let's cut the IMF off. As for not fighting AIDS in Africa, isn't that going to make "the world" angry? And God knows we don't want to be unpopular right now, we have a real shot at being elected King of the UN Prom this year.

Simplex3
02-22-2004, 01:16 PM
Don't wait, just do a quick search. Kerry's plans for the stuff that you are curious about are outlined on his website. I'm sure that Edwards has a website as well. All ya gotta do is click on the links and read:John Kerry's plans, by Simplex3:

1. Pretend to throw away my medals in disgust, then never address the fact that I still have them hanging in my office.

2. Testify in front of Congress to things I never saw.

3. Pretend to be "one of the guys" when I have more money than God and have never had to balance a budget in my own house.

4. Call GWB an elitist while ignoring the fact that I also come from a rich family, went to an Ivy League school, and vacation in places my constituents aren't allowed to go.

5. Call other people dishonest, since 1 - 4 above prove how genuine I am.

Hel'n
02-22-2004, 01:17 PM
Well, as a pseudoliberalmoderateconservativelibertarian here's my 2 cents:

- Don't care about what the Europeans think
- Quit subsidizing corporations
- Quit raiding Social Security to pay for general spending
- Continue "war on terror" using black ops and special ops - don't wanna know how, when, where, or why... just do it...
- No more fake wars and lies about fake wars
- Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depends on having a job... the role of gov't is to provide for the common defence, and you can't do that if you don't have a job... to pay taxes... to help provide for the security of your family... Free trade isn't free if families are destroyed and people are without jobs...

Simplex3
02-22-2004, 01:27 PM
This post is a wonderful illustration of why I fear letting Bush run our country any longer than absolutely necessary. I think the confusion, scattered thoughts, contradictions and irrational appeals to fear that you demostrate here are a direct reflection of what Bush is putting out to the public.I'm pretty sure most of New York was afflicted with confusion, scattered thoughts, contradictions, and irrationality on 9/11.

Terrorism is real. The people that commit terrorist acts are still out there. Those people want nothing more than to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. Even if I give you that Iraq wound up not being a threat (I still believe they were) those people are still trying to acquire weapons to destory more Americans, Brits, Isrealis...

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to pull of the rosy colored glasses and grow up. Evil does exist (not in the Biblical sense). If you're so convinced then you should travel over to the Middle East wearing a shirt that says "I'm and American Who Hates Bush". Walk around for a couple of weeks. Oh, and good luck surviving.

Simplex3
02-22-2004, 01:38 PM
- Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depends on having a job... the role of gov't is to provide for the common defense, and you can't do that if you don't have a job... to pay taxes... to help provide for the security of your family... Free trade isn't free if families are destroyed and people are without jobs...Are you serious? You really believe in creeping scope like that? If my job is to sweep floors it COULD be construed that I should also dust and clean the ceiling, after all that would help keep the floor clean. Then I could also sweep the lawn and the parking lot, dirt come in from there, too. Or, I could just charge a shoe tarriff, that might get people to take them off before coming in...

All because I was supposed to sweep the floor.

Hel'n
02-22-2004, 02:12 PM
Are you serious? You really believe in creeping scope like that? If my job is to sweep floors it COULD be construed that I should also dust and clean the ceiling, after all that would help keep the floor clean. Then I could also sweep the lawn and the parking lot, dirt come in from there, too. Or, I could just charge a shoe tarriff, that might get people to take them off before coming in...

All because I was supposed to sweep the floor.


I don't believe in the creeping scope either... but... there is an argument to made that a society with civil unrest due to loss of jobs, reduction of manufacturing jobs for lower skilled labor and the like lead to big problems that can create issues of safety and stability and security for the gov't and society at large...

So yes, in the long view, jobs are absolutely essential to the security and safety and wellbeing of a country...

Otherwise, why are all these third world nations in such a hurry to lure companies to their countries?

KC Jones
02-22-2004, 04:21 PM
I had to get away from this one yesterday, but here are a couple of thoughts.

Social programs do not equate to socialism. I think the die hard extreme libertarians are just as nuts as the die hard extreme socialists. Personally, I like that some of my tax money goes to the FDA. That way I don't have to have a degree in bio-chemistry to figure out what products are likely to kill me or my family members. I can go into a store and have some faith that the FDA had to approve the use of the items in the store for human consumption or medicinal purposes. I like that there are federally mandated security and safety rules for industry. I do not want government to own and operate businesses (now that actually is socialism), but I do want it to play a role in making sure competition is fair and that certain industries are regulated. Not all markets are equal, I want some insurance that medical care isn't purely profit driven but that there is value ascribed to all human life. When people say laissez faire economics I think of the mining companies and their treatment of employees. I also think of the sweatshops and locking employees in the factories. In the past when it was left to markets to police themselves the suffering was beyond what a human being should be forced to endure.

I guess I take a fairly pragmatic stance towards government. I don't want to throw everything away because someones theory predicts some sort of utopian paradise. I prefer to argue the merits of particular policies and programs on a case by case basis. I think that's something closer to what the founders had in mind too than the puritanical visions of the far right and far left.

Bah - I'm rambling. I hope it makes some sense to someone.

P.S. Not all democrats are liberals and not all liberals are democrats.

jAZ
02-22-2004, 04:32 PM
Just like a Democrat/Liberal, blame someone else for their problems!
:shake:

He still failed! 8 years to persuade Congress. It was his platform, he should've done something .
This is a MAJOR planet pet peeve of mine...

People who ask a question, and right away get a honest, accurate and reasonable answer in return. But drop the conversation until someone else reponds with a less strong (more easliy rediculed) response.

Then they jump all over that one. Guns-a-blazin'.

It just tells me that you aren't here to discuss issues, but rather to partake in the equivilant of politican rock throwing.

:rolleyes:

jAZ
02-22-2004, 04:34 PM
I had to get away from this one yesterday, but here are a couple of thoughts.

Social programs do not equate to socialism. I think the die hard extreme libertarians are just as nuts as the die hard extreme socialists. Personally, I like that some of my tax money goes to the FDA. That way I don't have to have a degree in bio-chemistry to figure out what products are likely to kill me or my family members. I can go into a store and have some faith that the FDA had to approve the use of the items in the store for human consumption or medicinal purposes. I like that there are federally mandated security and safety rules for industry. I do not want government to own and operate businesses (now that actually is socialism), but I do want it to play a role in making sure competition is fair and that certain industries are regulated. Not all markets are equal, I want some insurance that medical care isn't purely profit driven but that there is value ascribed to all human life. When people say laissez faire economics I think of the mining companies and their treatment of employees. I also think of the sweatshops and locking employees in the factories. In the past when it was left to markets to police themselves the suffering was beyond what a human being should be forced to endure.

I guess I take a fairly pragmatic stance towards government. I don't want to throw everything away because someones theory predicts some sort of utopian paradise. I prefer to argue the merits of particular policies and programs on a case by case basis. I think that's something closer to what the founders had in mind too than the puritanical visions of the far right and far left.

Bah - I'm rambling. I hope it makes some sense to someone.

P.S. Not all democrats are liberals and not all liberals are democrats.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

FringeNC
02-22-2004, 04:47 PM
I had to get away from this one yesterday, but here are a couple of thoughts.

Social programs do not equate to socialism. I think the die hard extreme libertarians are just as nuts as the die hard extreme socialists. Personally, I like that some of my tax money goes to the FDA. That way I don't have to have a degree in bio-chemistry to figure out what products are likely to kill me or my family members. I can go into a store and have some faith that the FDA had to approve the use of the items in the store for human consumption or medicinal purposes. I like that there are federally mandated security and safety rules for industry. I do not want government to own and operate businesses (now that actually is socialism), but I do want it to play a role in making sure competition is fair and that certain industries are regulated. Not all markets are equal, I want some insurance that medical care isn't purely profit driven but that there is value ascribed to all human life. When people say laissez faire economics I think of the mining companies and their treatment of employees. I also think of the sweatshops and locking employees in the factories. In the past when it was left to markets to police themselves the suffering was beyond what a human being should be forced to endure.

I guess I take a fairly pragmatic stance towards government. I don't want to throw everything away because someones theory predicts some sort of utopian paradise. I prefer to argue the merits of particular policies and programs on a case by case basis. I think that's something closer to what the founders had in mind too than the puritanical visions of the far right and far left.

Bah - I'm rambling. I hope it makes some sense to someone.

P.S. Not all democrats are liberals and not all liberals are democrats.


Regarding the FDA, studies have indicated that they kill far more people than they save. Believe it or not, drug firms have an incentive not to kill you -- it's bad publicity, and stock prices plummet.

The FDA has a built-in bias for preventing Type I errors (dangerous drugs being sold) at the expense of making more Type II errors (helpful drugs not being allowed to be sold.) You don't lose your job if thousands of people could have been saved by this new drug because no one will know about it.

The FAA kills people, too. Too high of safety standards cause high airline prices, which causes people to drive instead of fly, and driving is riskier than flying.

Regarding mining companies, life used to suck. All our ancestors worked in some type of sweat shop, and it was do-gooder liberals that ended that. It was technology that made people more productive. Miners would have been worse off had the mines not existed.

Safety standards don't make sense. If both parties are fully informed, why should the government prevent a transaction from being made at the level price/safety level citizens are firms jointly choose?

jAZ
02-22-2004, 05:09 PM
If both parties are fully informed
That's a HUGE if.

In any negotiation, information hiding is key to gaining an advantage. Business transactions are negotiations. Its in the gov'ts best interest to facilitate trade (which generates tax revenue). The FDA and other agencies allow the buying public to trust the products that they are buying.

That's not to say that FDA policies don't need to be improved, to open up access to drugs and reduce the time/costs associated with the approval process. But it plays a valuable role in our economy, and doing away with the FDA would be a bad idea.

KC Jones
02-22-2004, 05:16 PM
Regarding the FDA, studies have indicated that they kill far more people than they save. Believe it or not, drug firms have an incentive not to kill you -- it's bad publicity, and stock prices plummet.

The FDA has a built-in bias for preventing Type I errors (dangerous drugs being sold) at the expense of making more Type II errors (helpful drugs not being allowed to be sold.) You don't lose your job if thousands of people could have been saved by this new drug because no one will know about it.

The FAA kills people, too. Too high of safety standards cause high airline prices, which causes people to drive instead of fly, and driving is riskier than flying.

Regarding mining companies, life used to suck. All our ancestors worked in some type of sweat shop, and it was do-gooder liberals that ended that. It was technology that made people more productive. Miners would have been worse off had the mines not existed.

Safety standards don't make sense. If both parties are fully informed, why should the government prevent a transaction from being made at the level price/safety level citizens are firms jointly choose?

Actually it was also do-gooder liberals forming unions that had something to do with some of the improvement in working conditions. How convenient to sweep that under the rug. Time and again the greed of individuals has proven more powerful than an altruistic streak to be honest and forthcoming in business practices or the market reaction. You claim that market forces will be adequate to keep businesses from not crossing the line when it comes to safety and reliability, but history has proven otherwise. Greed knows no boundaries, and unchecked greed can cost great suffering and has many many times in the past - even in the recent past. Regulations are not full proof and never can be, and certainly there can be over-regulation and stiflingly ridiculous rules and policies. However, I find the all or none arguments ridiculous. Moderation is key, and the swing from right to left and back again is important for keeping the nation moving forward and adjusting to its needs. Extremists would prefer to tie the rudder in one place and send us onto the rocks in order to follow their utopian dream.

EDIT:

I just wanted to add that I would whole-heartedly agree about some of our social programs being a hindrance. Welfare created a whole segment of society that expected to be cared for with no contribution made on their part and no consequences. It absolutely had to be reformed and heck, I might even be on board with abolishing it altogether. I'm not opposed to all aspects of conservative agendas. Some of them are great ideas - that's why I consider myself a moderate. Again, for me it all depends upon the issue or policy in question, not some dogmatic roadmap for utopia.

Gracie Dean
02-22-2004, 05:22 PM
Just like a Democrat/Liberal, blame someone else for their problems!
:shake:

He still failed! 8 years to persuade Congress. It was his platform, he should've done something .


so shrub blaming clinton for the recession is okay???

Logical
02-22-2004, 05:32 PM
so shrub blaming clinton for the recession is okay???


There is no recession. The economy is growing nicely.:D

KC Jones
02-22-2004, 05:59 PM
How about letting people opt out of the damn thing? There's no chance I will EVER get back out what I put in, much less with the interest that I would have earned had I had my own money. People use the "it supports your grandparents" argument, but I can assure you that I could personnally pay both of their bills for less than I pay for my own supposeded "security". Socialist Insecurity sucks.


I hear you, but this one is a real pickle. It's a pay as you go program, the money you put in today goes out to recipients (at least some of it does). So, if you opt out there is no money to pay the old codger who put money in all his working life and planned on it being there for him. I realize there is something of a reserve built up now so that's not entirely accurate, but it's the basic problem. Opting out isn't enough, we need to pay out less but not totally screw the people that put in and are collecting now. For that reason rasing the bar for receiving benefits is important IMO. Raise the age limits and possibly cap what someone can receive or restrict payments based upon their financial situation.

Calcountry
03-24-2004, 01:42 PM
This is what it is all about, Bush losing, not what is good for America.

What would the Democrats do to create jobs?

What would the Democrats do to stop terrorism?

What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?

What would the Democrats do to spur economic growth?

What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?

All I ever hear from you hateful Democrats is how evil Bush is, how stupid Bush is, how dumb Bush is. You can't stand Bush, that is a given. ENOUGH already. So fantacise a little, pretend you are in control. WTF would you do to improve the "so called" chitty mess that we are all supposedly in?

I am waiting.

A month has gone by, and I am still waiting. Honestly, I just haven't seen a position put forward by Kerry. All he has said, is that we need to help the Children, get affordable health care, wage the war more effectively. My question is HOW? HOW ? Enough with the platitudes man. You are asking us to change captains in the middle of a storm, why should we?

Calcountry
12-03-2004, 06:52 PM
This is what it is all about, Bush losing, not what is good for America.

What would the Democrats do to create jobs?

What would the Democrats do to stop terrorism?

What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?

What would the Democrats do to spur economic growth?

What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?

All I ever hear from you hateful Democrats is how evil Bush is, how stupid Bush is, how dumb Bush is. You can't stand Bush, that is a given. ENOUGH already. So fantacise a little, pretend you are in control. WTF would you do to improve the "so called" chitty mess that we are all supposedly in?

I am waiting.

To bad you all couldn't come up with a clear, consise message to some of these salient questions. If Kerry would have, and got on message and stayed on message, he would have won. I tried to help you libs. I really did.

Sorry. ;)

Calcountry
08-08-2006, 05:48 PM
I am sorry, but I have to bump this nice memory lane thread.

Has anything really changed?

Nightwish
08-08-2006, 06:27 PM
This is what it is all about, Bush losing, not what is good for America.

What would the Democrats do to create jobs?

What would the Democrats do to stop terrorism?

What would the Democrats do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?

What would the Democrats do to spur economic growth?

What would the Democrats do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?

All I ever hear from you hateful Democrats is how evil Bush is, how stupid Bush is, how dumb Bush is. You can't stand Bush, that is a given. ENOUGH already. So fantacise a little, pretend you are in control. WTF would you do to improve the "so called" chitty mess that we are all supposedly in?

I am waiting.Do you feel that if the Dems around here don't have a psychic insight into all those questions, it would somehow make Bush seem less evil, stupid, dumb (your words), or that it would make his presidency seem less of a train wreck? I'm not an auto mechanic, so if my car breaks down, I probably won't know how to fix it, but if I see smoke roiling out from under the hood, I can damn sure tell you something's wrong with it.

mlyonsd
08-08-2006, 06:34 PM
Do you feel that if the Dems around here don't have a psychic insight into all those questions, it would somehow make Bush seem less evil, stupid, dumb (your words), or that it would make his presidency seem less of a train wreck? I'm not an auto mechanic, so if my car breaks down, I probably won't know how to fix it, but if I see smoke roiling out from under the hood, I can damn sure tell you something's wrong with it.

As opposed to a Gore or Kerry presidency where you'd die in the insuing fire.

Don't worry, you only have a little more than two years until you can once again make a difference at the ballot box.

Nightwish
08-08-2006, 06:39 PM
As opposed to a Gore or Kerry presidency where you'd die in the insuing fire.
That's the fire that you're sure, with your Madame Cleo-like farsight, would be raging, right?

Don't worry, you only have a little more than two years until you can once again make a difference at the ballot box.
Au contraire, we have a chance to make a difference at the ballot box this very year. Bush isn't the sole root of all the country's problems. A big part of it is the lack of checks and balances that has resulted from having one party control both houses of Congress and the White House. If the Dems take back one or both houses of Congress this fall, then we may see some very significant changes before monkey boy leaves his Residency.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2006, 07:36 PM
Not a Democrat but not a Bush supporter...so I'd:

Quickly and off the top of my head

What would the I do to create jobs?
What would the I do to spur economic growth?
Govt doesn't create jobs the people/private sector does.
• Reduce spending, across the board, dramatically so I could take less money out of the private sector except for only what is needed for WoT security and that does not include constant warfare.
• Reduce regulation and revamp how we handle pollution w/o big govt
• Abolish the Dept of Education
• Stop borrowing and inflating via the Fed
• Abolish the Fed
• Restore us back to sound money
• Abolish the Income Tax and implement the Fair Tax only as an in between measure until we can wean the public off the teat of Big Govt.
• End mandates on the states that can't be funded
• Get out of NAFTA, GATT and WTO but I would not implement protectionist tariffs either to prevent trade. This would be to protect our sovereignty.
• Stop subsidizing the oil industry and govt funded research unless it is defense related. This would include anything the pharmaceutical industry gets.
• I'd bust-up the Medical-Pharmaceutical Cartel in this country and look into patent reforms on pharmaceuticals if they benefit from govt funded university research.

What would the I do to stop terrorism?
• First I'd stop needlessly antagonizing hostile nations, creating monsters to destroy so that we can spread democracy or make over the world along the lines of PNAC or New World Order fantasy-globalist-utopia.
• I'd have a foreign policy that is less interventionist in the ME along the lines of what Reagan said and did after the Marine Barracks bombing.
• I'd attempt a more balanced role for the US in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I would not let the Israeli lobby pressure me. I'd do what is best and right for America and really try to work out a mediated settlement ( if at all possible which may never be..if so keep it contained)
• I'd increase human intel massively, grant Letters of Marques and Reprisal on alQaeda and other terrorists of global reach. I'd keep military in Afghanistan for now.
• I'd abolish the Dept of Homeland Security as a massive bureaucracy that is NOT necessary. It was cumbersome BIG govt that lead to 9/11 so more of the same is the opposite of what we need. I'd get rid of those laws or regs that made if more difficult for intel sharing.
• I'd clean house of any enemies in our midsts, including spies etc.
• I'd really do something about the border
• I'd racial profile regarding immigration until the WoT is over
• I'd also be less interventionist overall as well.
• Maybe just pull out of the entire ME altogehter
• Missile defense would be a must
• Expose the NeoCon agenda, and cabal and maybe even put them on trial for war crimes and violations of international law.

What would the I do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?
• I'd give everybody their money back that they put into it over time and NO more. Then I'd abolish it.

What would the I do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?
End it.
• I'd get out of Iraq NOW and I'd get out of Iran too.
• I'd pressure Israel to stop bombing Lebanon since they are doing it due to our resident NeoCons
• I'd stop building this New World Order Bush says he's doing all the time.
I'd return to American principals of limited govt and military restraint overseas as the best gaurantee against terrorism or "blow-back!"

...and that's just for starters! :D
Figure only part will be implemented due to opposition and checks and balances.

Earthling
08-09-2006, 01:18 AM
So, if you opt out there is no money to pay the old codger who put money in all his working life and planned on it being there for him. .

Now this is serious..!! Whos azz do I need to kick?

Velvet_Jones
08-09-2006, 08:02 AM
First of all, it tells me a lot when you misspell educating……

It’s also funny that you think that people will believe that you what these things.


- Don't rush to pull out of Iraq, it's too late, we must stay the course there.

Yyyeeehhh. jIZ finally found his testicles.

- Begin Privitizing (-10 sp) or Social Secruity (-10 sp)
This is only a good and acceptable idea when a Dem proposes it.

- Increase our Intelligence funding.

Which your savior Bill Clinton cut BTW

- Re-establish the trust and support of the International Community.

This is a two way street. And exactly what International community are we talking about here?

- Eliminate parts of the obscene tax cuts... err... vote buying "refunds".

Nothing obscene about a tax cut that all but the free-loaders benefited from. Look at France. They are losing a large number of wealthy people to places like Morocco because they are tired of being taxed out the azz.

- Increase targeted small business tax cuts (Which was done with the current tax cuts.

Why do you dumbazz Dems always want to target things such as tax cuts? Class warfare at it's finest.

- Increase funding for the SBA Loan programs (which Bush cut)
There is plenty of funding if you look hard enough. I know. I just helped my nephew find $14,700 for the next 2 years. Thanks for your concern though.

- Expand financial aid programs to include (private/charter) high school funding.

Again, this is only acceptable when a Dem proposes it. What about personal vouchers?

- Reduce the need for college quotas by increasing funding for college counceling (-10 sp) and eductating (-10 sp) poorer communities on how to afford college.

What ever. The funding is already there. The problem is that you have to look and work for it.

- Further expand funding for human intelligence, eliminate the Defense Department's "Special Projects" group. [QUOTE=jAZ]
Again, your savior Bill Clinton cut
[QUOTE=jAZ]
- Roll back several portions of the Patriot Act (and rename the damn thing to salvage the term "Patriot").

This is nothing more that a talking point. The patriot act has merit at a time when terrorism is targeting the US. What, do you want to ignore this issue with hopes that it will go away?

Calcountry
08-09-2006, 03:28 PM
Not a Democrat but not a Bush supporter...so I'd:

Quickly and off the top of my head

What would the I do to create jobs?
What would the I do to spur economic growth?
Govt doesn't create jobs the people/private sector does.
• Reduce spending, across the board, dramatically so I could take less money out of the private sector except for only what is needed for WoT security and that does not include constant warfare.
• Reduce regulation and revamp how we handle pollution w/o big govt
• Abolish the Dept of Education
• Stop borrowing and inflating via the Fed
• Abolish the Fed
• Restore us back to sound money
• Abolish the Income Tax and implement the Fair Tax only as an in between measure until we can wean the public off the teat of Big Govt.
• End mandates on the states that can't be funded
• Get out of NAFTA, GATT and WTO but I would not implement protectionist tariffs either to prevent trade. This would be to protect our sovereignty.
• Stop subsidizing the oil industry and govt funded research unless it is defense related. This would include anything the pharmaceutical industry gets.
• I'd bust-up the Medical-Pharmaceutical Cartel in this country and look into patent reforms on pharmaceuticals if they benefit from govt funded university research.

What would the I do to stop terrorism?
• First I'd stop needlessly antagonizing hostile nations, creating monsters to destroy so that we can spread democracy or make over the world along the lines of PNAC or New World Order fantasy-globalist-utopia.
• I'd have a foreign policy that is less interventionist in the ME along the lines of what Reagan said and did after the Marine Barracks bombing.
• I'd attempt a more balanced role for the US in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I would not let the Israeli lobby pressure me. I'd do what is best and right for America and really try to work out a mediated settlement ( if at all possible which may never be..if so keep it contained)
• I'd increase human intel massively, grant Letters of Marques and Reprisal on alQaeda and other terrorists of global reach. I'd keep military in Afghanistan for now.
• I'd abolish the Dept of Homeland Security as a massive bureaucracy that is NOT necessary. It was cumbersome BIG govt that lead to 9/11 so more of the same is the opposite of what we need. I'd get rid of those laws or regs that made if more difficult for intel sharing.
• I'd clean house of any enemies in our midsts, including spies etc.
• I'd really do something about the border
• I'd racial profile regarding immigration until the WoT is over
• I'd also be less interventionist overall as well.
• Maybe just pull out of the entire ME altogehter
• Missile defense would be a must
• Expose the NeoCon agenda, and cabal and maybe even put them on trial for war crimes and violations of international law.

What would the I do to fund Social Security for the Baby Boom generation?
• I'd give everybody their money back that they put into it over time and NO more. Then I'd abolish it.

What would the I do to "balance the budget while fighting a war?
End it.
• I'd get out of Iraq NOW and I'd get out of Iran too.
• I'd pressure Israel to stop bombing Lebanon since they are doing it due to our resident NeoCons
• I'd stop building this New World Order Bush says he's doing all the time.
I'd return to American principals of limited govt and military restraint overseas as the best gaurantee against terrorism or "blow-back!"

...and that's just for starters! :D
Figure only part will be implemented due to opposition and checks and balances.What would you do, if Iran nuked Israel?

What would you do, if Syria rolls into Lebanon, and Iran starts attacking the U.S. in Iraq And or Afghanistan?

Pull out?

Do you really think that they are going to respond to such a bold move by JUST killing off Israel and then patting themselves on the back and say, "O.K. Akbar, we killed all the pig Jews, now we can go home and herd goats and live in peace."

ROFLMAO.

They, the Islamic nation, are at WAR WITH US. Have been for decades now. The Islamic nation transcends nation states, it is an idea, a fundamental, "convert or die pig infidel". It simply does not matter what we want to do, they are at war with us. They call it a Jihad, and we are "the great Satan", perhaps you have heard of those terms.

For years, the response in this country was to marginalize these people, but they are serious. Deadly serious. So serious, that they want the Nuke so that they can end the world. Sorry libs, but M.A.D. won't work in this arms race.

So I ask you a serious question libs, who would you rather live with? Us bible thumping conservatives with religious freedom to do, or not to do religion? Or would you rather convert or die?

Perhaps this may not come to fruition in our lifetime, but then again, perhaps Saddam had WMD all along, and he smuggled them to Syria and they have sold some to Iran and Hezbollah. Why else would they be so bold as they are now?

Perhaps, they will be smart and back down now, and allow all you tree hugging peaceniks out there to throw Bush out and impeach him, and embrace your delusions, let down your guard, then another big boom will blow in about 10 or so years.

Who knows, but one thing I do know, is that Islamobob nation WILL NOT STOP, like the Terminator, unless somebody stops them.

It cracks me up to listen to that tool in Connecticut to say how we need to get out. Go ahead, get out. Its way over there anyway, it doesn't affect us, why should our soldiers pay the price for them Iraqi's anyway? They aren't protecting the U.S. when they get killed over there for Bush's failed policy, they don't deserve it, and should be brought home immediately, right?

Some nut is going to reply to me, that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, and I say right, but remember, Islamobob nation did, and Iraq was a part of that nation, as is Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas, etc., et. al. ad naseum.

They are at war with us, whether or not we are at war with them, to the death.

I just don't think we in this country will get that fact, before it is too late for us to save this country.

I am done for now, go ahead and whack on me now.

BIG_DADDY
08-09-2006, 03:40 PM
Wow what a great thread. Great take by BucEyedPea. Hell even jaz sounded alright for once. Love the Patriot Act line.

Adept Havelock
08-09-2006, 03:45 PM
I am done for now, go ahead and whack on me now.

I'd say you've done a fine job of whacking all by yourself.

BTW- If Iran nukes Isreal? Then both nations likely cease to exist, and the average radiation level between the Med. and the Indian subcontinent skyrockets. You have heard of a little town in the Negev called Dimona, haven't you?

Calcountry
08-09-2006, 05:00 PM
I wish Logical and I were the only ones to vote in California, thats 55 electoral votes for Bush. You are going to vote for Bush, right Logical? lol

Lets be some of those undecided fence sitters. Like it will matter in the peoples republic of California.

Actually, I was studying the electoral math, and it will come down to Missouri, Ohio. Bush cannot lose either with any hopes of winning.I was right on with that, wasn't I? Bush carried both.

Calcountry
08-09-2006, 05:06 PM
I'd say you've done a fine job of whacking all by yourself.

BTW- If Iran nukes Isreal? Then both nations likely cease to exist, and the average radiation level between the Med. and the Indian subcontinent skyrockets. You have heard of a little town in the Negev called Dimona, haven't you?:whackit: next time I will use a smiley, sorry.

Calcountry
08-09-2006, 05:09 PM
Wow what a great thread. Great take by BucEyedPea. Hell even jaz sounded alright for once. Love the Patriot Act line.This was back in the good old days, when they thought they could win.

I thought I would refresh them, to give them new anticipatory fervor heading into the 06 midterms.

Frankly, I think the Republicans are going to get their asses handed to them. That is what they get for trying to out Liberal the Liberals.

Nightwish
08-09-2006, 05:13 PM
Frankly, I think the Republicans are going to get their asses handed to them. That is what they get for trying to out Liberal the Liberals.
We can only hope the Dems take back one or both houses of Congress. Having one party in control of Congress and the White House is never a good thing, it gives them too much leeway to take too many liberties. Republican Presidents with a Democratic Congress usually do pretty good, and Democratic Presidents with a Republican Congress usually do pretty good. When one party monopolizes it all, you get the kind of crap we've been seeing over the last couple years.

Calcountry
08-09-2006, 05:21 PM
We can only hope the Dems take back one or both houses of Congress. Having one party in control of Congress and the White House is never a good thing, it gives them too much leeway to take too many liberties. Republican Presidents with a Democratic Congress usually do pretty good, and Democratic Presidents with a Republican Congress usually do pretty good. When one party monopolizes it all, you get the kind of crap we've been seeing over the last couple years.I believe, that the real powers that be, set this whole cherade up as a sort of "shell game" to keep the masses pacified as if their participatory voting actually mattered.

I believe, that you get the same government regardless of who is in power now, and have become dissafected with the whole process.

Would you watch football if you thought it was fixed?

The fix is in, the big bosses, never seen by you or I, call the shots and run everything.

We have wars when the big bosses can't agree on how to carve up the booty, OR when peoples get out of their pre ordained "matrix" of tasks that they are running in like mice in a maze.