The tragedy of the last presidency was not Iraq, but the exploding of the deficit. Neither gang gives two ***** about spending. What they do give a **** about is what money is spent on. Obama is the reverse Reagan. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so liberals could not increase spending. Starving the beast is what it was called. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so conservatives cannot cut taxes. Meanwhile...... the majority of Americans who are not tied to the extremes pay and they pay handsomely. YOU CAN NOT ***** ON ONE HAND about Obama's spending and on the other hand stay quiet about Bush's spending. It's all about priorities. YOU care about what the money is being spent on.


and another thing.................. smn talked about bums and welfare..... I can't find it and I know I read it this morning. This is another fallacy. There are approximately 14 million women and children that get Aid to Families with Dependent Children. There are no bums getting welfare. So why do you guys on the right paint democrats that way. It's not happening so quit saying it. I just wish we could at least talk the truth to each other. You guys are so caught up with your talking points you miss the forest through the trees.

Pay as you go............ that's what I call for and you all know that. I've been saying I would be happy paying more taxes. 1st and foremost is we should balance the budget. I pray Obama taxes gasoline. Have you seen what has happened to hybrid sales lately? Do any of you wonder why Oil collapsed just when we were starting on the trek of weaning off of it? Tax oil for national security. Tax oil to build infrastructure. Tax oil for socialized medicine. GOP become proponents of this I sign up for the GOP the next day. I don't care about the gang affiliation. I just want results.

What, what a nice load of horses*** so early in the morning.

Reagan had a Dem congress, but his defeceits aren't that important. See that "Defeceits don't matter, Entreprenuers do" post I linked the other day.

He liberalized the economy(good for Entrepreneurs) which sparked unparalled growth that has lasted for over 2 decades now.

So our Liabilities increased under Reagan(much of it good: Defense Spending), However the Nations Assets Increased much more, I think its about a 10 to 1 ratio increase. This is how you analyze a Balance Sheet, Assets to Liabilities.

Obama is the reverse Reagan, he's seeing to it Business is paralyzed while increasing the Debt at unheard of rates and spending on ridiculous things. He is not making it easier for an Entrepreneuer to Start a business and survive, the exact opposite. When the Economy is reducing in size, while the Debt is increasing is a huge problem.

..and on top of that, Mach wants to add a 3 dollar per gallon tax to gasoline. BRILLIANT!

(03-18-2009 09:30 AM)Rebel Wrote:  What, what a nice load of horses*** so early in the morning.

Did you actually understand any of that?

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and another thing.................. smn talked about bums and welfare..... I can't find it and I know I read it this morning. This is another fallacy. There are approximately 14 million women and children that get Aid to Families with Dependent Children. There are no bums getting welfare. So why do you guys on the right paint democrats that way. It's not happening so quit saying it. I just wish we could at least talk the truth to each other. You guys are so caught up with your talking points you miss the forest through the trees.

Well Mach .... RobertN and RockyMtSpottedFeverTick don't share your world view ....

They honestly believe that ALL Southerners are married to their Sisters, Stoned Drunk on Illegal Moonshine from the Family Still out back, sittin' on the porch chawin some backy, a waitin' for the Food Stamp Card and the Welfare Checks to arrive, AND while getting their second wind to have a another go at their Sister/Wife again.

You see there are no Welfare recipients above the Mason/Dixon Line because these Two World Geniuses say so and others agreed with their assessment when it was posted. I mean even the Northern Sports Coaches are better .... right ???

Uh Huh .....

.

I don't actually know the percentage of Democrats actually receive welfare. From my observations, I think that the majority of welfare recipients are the people who choose not to vote for either side.

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The tragedy of the last presidency was not Iraq, but the exploding of the deficit.

So what does that say about the fObamaMessiah's first 50 days. It's like looking at a train wreck.

I was just tweakin Reb...... Northerners are OK..... It's the Ohio coaches that KICK ASS!!!!!!

(03-18-2009 11:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I was just tweakin Reb...... Northerners are OK..... It's the Ohio coaches that KICK ASS!!!!!!

I seem to remember our southern-born Arkansan coach Houston Nutt beating two of the three Northern coaches you mentioned last year, and came damn close to beating the 3rd.

For some reason I don't define Ohio as north. I mean geographically it is but culturally it has more of a blue collar feel.

(03-18-2009 12:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  For some reason I don't define Ohio as north. I mean geographically it is but culturally it has more of a blue collar feel.

The "City of New Orleans" ran the GM&O railroad for many a moon.

(GM&O = Gulf, Mobile, & Ohio) - (you sing it Arlo !!!)

.

(03-18-2009 12:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  For some reason I don't define Ohio as north. I mean geographically it is but culturally it has more of a blue collar feel.

North <> blue collar?

I don't understand this relationship. Manual labor, desk job not exclusive to N/S

I know that the blue collar jobs are everywhere. I meant blue collar as in casual and more slow-paced. I didn't have a better word at the time.

I take blue collar as the ass in the grass people who make this nation go.

They are also more down to earth than those wall street guys. Like I said I could've picked a better word.

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The tragedy of the last presidency was not Iraq, but the exploding of the deficit. Neither gang gives two ***** about spending. What they do give a **** about is what money is spent on. Obama is the reverse Reagan. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so liberals could not increase spending. Starving the beast is what it was called. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so conservatives cannot cut taxes. Meanwhile...... the majority of Americans who are not tied to the extremes pay and they pay handsomely. YOU CAN NOT ***** ON ONE HAND about Obama's spending and on the other hand stay quiet about Bush's spending. It's all about priorities. YOU care about what the money is being spent on.
and another thing.................. smn talked about bums and welfare..... I can't find it and I know I read it this morning. This is another fallacy. There are approximately 14 million women and children that get Aid to Families with Dependent Children. There are no bums getting welfare. So why do you guys on the right paint democrats that way. It's not happening so quit saying it. I just wish we could at least talk the truth to each other. You guys are so caught up with your talking points you miss the forest through the trees.
Pay as you go............ that's what I call for and you all know that. I've been saying I would be happy paying more taxes. 1st and foremost is we should balance the budget. I pray Obama taxes gasoline. Have you seen what has happened to hybrid sales lately? Do any of you wonder why Oil collapsed just when we were starting on the trek of weaning off of it? Tax oil for national security. Tax oil to build infrastructure. Tax oil for socialized medicine. GOP become proponents of this I sign up for the GOP the next day. I don't care about the gang affiliation. I just want results.

Agree totally about the pay as you go part. The republicans lost their moral foundation when they began spending like drunken sailors.

Don't agree totally with the contention that there are no bums on welfare. There are some, and always will be. There's really not much can be done to prevent that. What can be prevented is the situation where we tell a pregnant 18-year old that we will pay her $1000/month to support her and the child as long as she doesn't (a) get a job or (b) get married, and then can't understand why so many families are breaking down. That's where we need to redesign the welfare system, and I think Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept is the best way to go. The Fair Tax prefund is another version of the negative income tax.

As for oil, I agree that we need to tax the price up to a level that makes alternatives cost-competitive and discourages consumption, while minimizing the impact on poor people. Charles Krauthammer's revenue-neutral carbon tax is one possible approach. He gives the money back through social security, while I would include it in the Fair Tax prefund. Also, I wouldn't make it totally revenue-neutral, I'd make it a net positive to generate some revenues. I would use those revenues for infrastructure projects designed to cut fuel consumption--solar farms, wind farms, power grid improvements, etc.--but not to subsidize alternatives. With the increased tax on oil, those alternatives will become price competitive, and that's all the "subsidy" the free market needs.

I'm not for taxing oil to support socialized medicine. But that's because I don't favor socialized medicine, at least not the kind of single-payor, single-provider system that exists in UK or Canada. The people there love their systems, but only up until they reach the point that they actually need something big done. Those systems deliver routine care well and non-routine care (everything else) poorly. Our system delivers the latter better, which is why Canadians come here for elective surgery. Brits go to France for elective surgery. The French have a mixed system that is neither single-payor nor single-provider. They also spend less per capita to provide universal coverage than we spend not to; to be clear, by that I mean their government spends less per capita.

Owl-

Your a gentleman and a scholar.

(03-18-2009 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for oil, I agree that we need to tax the price up to a level that makes alternatives cost-competitive and discourages consumption, while minimizing the impact on poor people. Charles Krauthammer's revenue-neutral carbon tax is one possible approach. He gives the money back through social security, while I would include it in the Fair Tax prefund. Also, I wouldn't make it totally revenue-neutral, I'd make it a net positive to generate some revenues. I would use those revenues for infrastructure projects designed to cut fuel consumption--solar farms, wind farms, power grid improvements, etc.--but not to subsidize alternatives. With the increased tax on oil, those alternatives will become price competitive, and that's all the "subsidy" the free market needs.

Can we at least GET some of these "Alternative Energy Sources" into real working status before we go TAXING the begeezus out of ALL WE HAVE NOW ??

I mean, if you tax the only standard we have to survive on out of basic affordability, then how is that going to steam up the windows at the Think Tanks of Alternative Energy ??

That is simply punishing and even will kill people who are not guilty of anything but living and breathing.

And yeah, I know this is pure "Catch 22", but taking away a babies food will not make him get up and walk to the Fridge for a snack if he can not walk in the first place.

There are NO Justifications for TAXES period and if you allow one tax, then you give loopholes and excuses for all sorts of taxes - - we went from a simple Corporate Income Tax to at least 1000 different kinds of taxes in under a Century and for what ... to grow bigger Government and that is all.

Hell, in some cases, these fools have actually enacted law that freggin Taxes Taxes !!!!!

Quid Pro Quo onto those with the Quid ....

.

When the left pushes for an end to the Welfare State...and ...The right pushes for reduction in military spending...then they both address entitlements.....Then come and talk to me about more damn taxation. Until then..I gave at the office.