Tax Hikes or Fiscal Responsibility

Grizbacker1

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Hank Scorpio wrote:

There is a big difference between in those that don't want to and those who can't.

Please don't insult both of our intelligence by trying to claim that BO and HC along with the Dems are the only ones looking out for those that cannot help themselves. There are PLENTY of people who are very capable, but simply do not want to work and expect the Govt to take care of them.

I agree on the scrutinizing every aspect of government. But can you define plenty, and how big of a problem that really is?

I would submit that in a capitalistic system you will always have the bottom feeders. They are simply a reality and will always represent a certain percentage of our spending. But if we allow them to slip through the cracks too much, that too can become problematic. IE, we're only as good as our weakest link.

Define plenty? I think you can figure that out for yourself. You say there are bottom feeders, but we can't let them slip through the cracks?? How so? I got hit up 3 times this week for money by the same woman. I listened to her "story" each time. 3 times, 3 different stories. I give freely to places that help people in need, but I do not hand money to people on the streets anymore just to see them later drunk in public. The Govt certainly has some obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, but there are many who choose the life they lead. Maybe your definition of bottom feeder is different than mine. To me a bottom feeder is someone more than capable of being a productive member of society, yet chooses not to be. I don't label those truly in need as bottom feeders.

kalm

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Hank Scorpio wrote:

There is a big difference between in those that don't want to and those who can't.

Please don't insult both of our intelligence by trying to claim that BO and HC along with the Dems are the only ones looking out for those that cannot help themselves. There are PLENTY of people who are very capable, but simply do not want to work and expect the Govt to take care of them.

I agree on the scrutinizing every aspect of government. But can you define plenty, and how big of a problem that really is?

I would submit that in a capitalistic system you will always have the bottom feeders. They are simply a reality and will always represent a certain percentage of our spending. But if we allow them to slip through the cracks too much, that too can become problematic. IE, we're only as good as our weakest link.

Define plenty? I think you can figure that out for yourself. You say there are bottom feeders, but we can't let them slip through the cracks?? How so? I got hit up 3 times this week for money by the same woman. I listened to her "story" each time. 3 times, 3 different stories. I give freely to places that help people in need, but I do not hand money to people on the streets anymore just to see them later drunk in public. The Govt certainly has some obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, but there are many who choose the life they lead. Maybe your definition of bottom feeder is different than mine. To me a bottom feeder is someone more than capable of being a productive member of society, yet chooses not to be. I don't label those truly in need as bottom feeders.

I agree with your assesement of bottom feeders. That's why I used that term.

What I'm getting at is that we can all provide anecdotal evidence of lazy people who chose not to work and beg for money. I encounter them too. Hell, Ronbo suggested recently that there really is no sub-prime lending crisis because he personally didn't know anyone who had been foreclosed on.

What's intersting in light of this debate is how big of a chunk the bottom feeders truly represent. I'm not sure it's really all that substantial. Yet Republicans tend to point to their existence as proof positive that only democratic social welfare programs are worthy of spending cuts. Forget about bloated defense contracts and subsidies.

As you recently pointed out, both parties are good at spending money, the difference is what they choose to spend it on.

Grizbacker1

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Hank Scorpio wrote:

There is a big difference between in those that don't want to and those who can't.

Please don't insult both of our intelligence by trying to claim that BO and HC along with the Dems are the only ones looking out for those that cannot help themselves. There are PLENTY of people who are very capable, but simply do not want to work and expect the Govt to take care of them.

I agree on the scrutinizing every aspect of government. But can you define plenty, and how big of a problem that really is?

I would submit that in a capitalistic system you will always have the bottom feeders. They are simply a reality and will always represent a certain percentage of our spending. But if we allow them to slip through the cracks too much, that too can become problematic. IE, we're only as good as our weakest link.

Define plenty? I think you can figure that out for yourself. You say there are bottom feeders, but we can't let them slip through the cracks?? How so? I got hit up 3 times this week for money by the same woman. I listened to her "story" each time. 3 times, 3 different stories. I give freely to places that help people in need, but I do not hand money to people on the streets anymore just to see them later drunk in public. The Govt certainly has some obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, but there are many who choose the life they lead. Maybe your definition of bottom feeder is different than mine. To me a bottom feeder is someone more than capable of being a productive member of society, yet chooses not to be. I don't label those truly in need as bottom feeders.

I agree with your assesement of bottom feeders. That's why I used that term.

What I'm getting at is that we can all provide anecdotal evidence of lazy people who chose not to work and beg for money. I encounter them too. Hell, Ronbo suggested recently that there really is no sub-prime lending crisis because he personally didn't know anyone who had been foreclosed on.

What's intersting in light of this debate is how big of a chunk the bottom feeders truly represent. I'm not sure it's really all that substantial. Yet Republicans tend to point to their existence as proof positive that only democratic social welfare programs are worthy of spending cuts. Forget about bloated defense contracts and subsidies.

As you recently pointed out, both parties are good at spending money, the difference is what they choose to spend it on.

I don't think social issues are a Dem or Rep issue. I seem to recall a certain Dem named Clinton who talked about " a hand up, not a hand out". Based on your last post Clinton must have been a Rep eh?

kalm

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

Hank Scorpio wrote:

There is a big difference between in those that don't want to and those who can't.

Please don't insult both of our intelligence by trying to claim that BO and HC along with the Dems are the only ones looking out for those that cannot help themselves. There are PLENTY of people who are very capable, but simply do not want to work and expect the Govt to take care of them.

I agree on the scrutinizing every aspect of government. But can you define plenty, and how big of a problem that really is?

I would submit that in a capitalistic system you will always have the bottom feeders. They are simply a reality and will always represent a certain percentage of our spending. But if we allow them to slip through the cracks too much, that too can become problematic. IE, we're only as good as our weakest link.

Define plenty? I think you can figure that out for yourself. You say there are bottom feeders, but we can't let them slip through the cracks?? How so? I got hit up 3 times this week for money by the same woman. I listened to her "story" each time. 3 times, 3 different stories. I give freely to places that help people in need, but I do not hand money to people on the streets anymore just to see them later drunk in public. The Govt certainly has some obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, but there are many who choose the life they lead. Maybe your definition of bottom feeder is different than mine. To me a bottom feeder is someone more than capable of being a productive member of society, yet chooses not to be. I don't label those truly in need as bottom feeders.

I agree with your assesement of bottom feeders. That's why I used that term.

What I'm getting at is that we can all provide anecdotal evidence of lazy people who chose not to work and beg for money. I encounter them too. Hell, Ronbo suggested recently that there really is no sub-prime lending crisis because he personally didn't know anyone who had been foreclosed on.

What's intersting in light of this debate is how big of a chunk the bottom feeders truly represent. I'm not sure it's really all that substantial. Yet Republicans tend to point to their existence as proof positive that only democratic social welfare programs are worthy of spending cuts. Forget about bloated defense contracts and subsidies.

As you recently pointed out, both parties are good at spending money, the difference is what they choose to spend it on.

I don't think social issues are a Dem or Rep issue. I seem to recall a certain Dem named Clinton who talked about " a hand up, not a hand out". Based on your last post Clinton must have been a Rep eh?

Well that wouldn't be the first time that accusation has been made.

Proud Griz Man

Grizbacker1 wrote:

I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.

I am in full agreement. Spending is out of control. Prime example was that $20 million bridge in Alaska to serve an island with 200 residents. Stupid!
The founding fathers granted the central government power to levy Federal taxation only to pay for the common good of all Americans. They shouldn't tax 50 states to rebuild New Orleans or bailout subprime homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages. Just my #twocents

GrizWhiz

Proud Griz Man wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.

I am in full agreement. Spending is out of control. Prime example was that $20 million bridge in Alaska to serve an island with 200 residents. Stupid!
The founding fathers granted the central government power to levy Federal taxation only to pay for the common good of all Americans. They shouldn't tax 50 states to rebuild New Orleans or bailout subprime homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages. Just my #twocents

Prime example is a needless trillion dollar war in Iraq! Backer is correct in his doubts that either side will "figure it out between them", especially in an election year. Now even McCain is advocating deficit spending. #beer

Downwiththefoe

Who are these founding fathers you speak of PGM?

#laugh

The constitution is a joke to the powers that run this country(deeper into the ground every day) as people hold their hand out, turn their head, and close their eyes, and ask for another helping of a Shit-e sandwhich.

#crybaby

kalm

Quote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Who are these founding fathers you speak of PGM?

#laugh

The constitution is a joke to the powers that run this country(deeper into the ground every day) as people hold their hand out, turn their head, and close their eyes, and ask for another helping of a Shit-e sandwhich.

#crybaby

Unless you don't drive on public roads, send your kids to public schools, smoke federally subsidized cigarettes etc. - your eating the same sandwhich my friend. It's just varying degrees.

Downwiththefoe

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Who are these founding fathers you speak of PGM?

#laugh

The constitution is a joke to the powers that run this country(deeper into the ground every day) as people hold their hand out, turn their head, and close their eyes, and ask for another helping of a Shit-e sandwhich.

#crybaby

Unless you don't drive on public roads, send your kids to public schools, smoke federally subsidized cigarettes etc. - your eating the same sandwhich my friend. It's just varying degrees.

I just choose to say poop you to the entire 2 party system and try and come about with some sort of change.

It's called cast a third party vote.

Never again will I have to sit back and listen to somebody say what can we do?

GrizWhiz

Downwiththefoe wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Who are these founding fathers you speak of PGM?

#laugh

The constitution is a joke to the powers that run this country(deeper into the ground every day) as people hold their hand out, turn their head, and close their eyes, and ask for another helping of a Shit-e sandwhich.

#crybaby

Unless you don't drive on public roads, send your kids to public schools, smoke federally subsidized cigarettes etc. - your eating the same sandwhich my friend. It's just varying degrees.

I just choose to say poop you to the entire 2 party system and try and come about with some sort of change.

It's called cast a third party vote.

Never again will I have to sit back and listen to somebody say what can we do?

Which 3rd party?

Proud Griz Man

GrizWhiz wrote:

Proud Griz Man wrote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.

I am in full agreement. Spending is out of control. Prime example was that $20 million bridge in Alaska to serve an island with 200 residents. Stupid!
The founding fathers granted the central government power to levy Federal taxation only to pay for the common good of all Americans. They shouldn't tax 50 states to rebuild New Orleans or bailout subprime homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages. Just my #twocents

Prime example is a needless trillion dollar war in Iraq! Backer is correct in his doubts that either side will "figure it out between them", especially in an election year. Now even McCain is advocating deficit spending. #beer

Needless? Many Demo's thought it was needed?

Quote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.
"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!

Downwiththefoe

GrizWhiz wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Who are these founding fathers you speak of PGM?

#laugh

The constitution is a joke to the powers that run this country(deeper into the ground every day) as people hold their hand out, turn their head, and close their eyes, and ask for another helping of a Shit-e sandwhich.

#crybaby

Unless you don't drive on public roads, send your kids to public schools, smoke federally subsidized cigarettes etc. - your eating the same sandwhich my friend. It's just varying degrees.

I just choose to say poop you to the entire 2 party system and try and come about with some sort of change.

It's called cast a third party vote.

Never again will I have to sit back and listen to somebody say what can we do?

Which 3rd party?

does it matter?

Bay Area Cat

Proud Griz Man: How does quoting Democrats who voted to give authority to Bush to decide whether or not to start a war make the war that Bush decided to start any less needless?

I've never quite understood that argument. Is it assumed that everyone merely spouts a party line without being able to determine for themselves whether a war was needless or not based on the facts of the situation?

The war was needless regardless of what anyone said long ago.

Proud Griz Man

Pppplease Tell me about needless wars 'O Wise One.

There are numerous things you don't understand, intentionally.

Go back to signing books and stuttering.

Bay Area Cat

Proud Griz Man wrote:

Pppplease Tell me about needless wars 'O Wise One.

There are numerous things you don't understand, intentionally.

Go back to signing books and stuttering.

I take it you didn't have an substantive reply to offer, and this was the best you could come up with? Kinda weak ... not scoring too well with that material.

Stutter? Where did you come up with that? Funny.

kalm

BAC's point is a fair one. Regardless of who was initially for it, what has this war gained us?

And in light of the financial focus of this thread, it was apparently a war that we couldn't afford to fight or that we were unwilling to pay for.

I wasn't in favor of invading Iraq, but I'm willing to admit that the verdict is still out as to whether or not it was pointless. But any honest appraisal would admit that it doesn't look good right now.

Grizbacker1

kalm wrote:

BAC's point is a fair one. Regardless of who was initially for it, what has this war gained us?

And in light of the financial focus of this thread, it was apparently a war that we couldn't afford to fight or that we were unwilling to pay for.

I wasn't in favor of invading Iraq, but I'm willing to admit that the verdict is still out as to whether or not it was pointless. But any honest appraisal would admit that it doesn't look good right now.

Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking. None of us would make bad decisions, all we would do is make the right choices each and every time. Ah, if only it were so simple. I wonder if any of you who think it is easy have ever really been a decision maker, or do you just play one on Egriz? #twocents

Hells bells

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Proud Griz Man: How does quoting Democrats who voted to give authority to Bush to decide whether or not to start a war make the war that Bush decided to start any less needless?

I've never quite understood that argument. Is it assumed that everyone merely spouts a party line without being able to determine for themselves whether a war was needless or not based on the facts of the situation?

The war was needless regardless of what anyone said long ago.

they gave bush authority to go to war #twocents

Bay Area Cat

Hells bells wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Proud Griz Man: How does quoting Democrats who voted to give authority to Bush to decide whether or not to start a war make the war that Bush decided to start any less needless?

I've never quite understood that argument. Is it assumed that everyone merely spouts a party line without being able to determine for themselves whether a war was needless or not based on the facts of the situation?

The war was needless regardless of what anyone said long ago.

they gave bush authority to go to war #twocents

Yes, that was already explicitly stated in my post above. It's not an answer to my question.

kalm

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

BAC's point is a fair one. Regardless of who was initially for it, what has this war gained us?

And in light of the financial focus of this thread, it was apparently a war that we couldn't afford to fight or that we were unwilling to pay for.

I wasn't in favor of invading Iraq, but I'm willing to admit that the verdict is still out as to whether or not it was pointless. But any honest appraisal would admit that it doesn't look good right now.

Kind of like Monday Morning Quarterbacking. None of us would make bad decisions, all we would do is make the right choices each and every time. Ah, if only it were so simple. I wonder if any of you who think it is easy have ever really been a decision maker, or do you just play one on Egriz? #twocents

Of course we're Monday Morning Quarterbacking. And if the US economy and foreign policy were college football, then George Bush would be Rob Phenicie.

Some people saw this mess coming. And it's not as if we had no other options with Iraq.

Is this what Bush meant when he said he was a decider? Notice he was careful not to use the preface "good".