"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Doobie Keebler wrote:

On Jan 31, 2:44 pm, " wrote:

John McCain .. wants to remain in iraq for 20 years...

This is why McCain is not electable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM&NR=1

"100 Years In Iraq" is not a good campaign slogan for 2008.
Nobody wants their grandkids to still be fighting this war.


Rudy's toast, Huckabee is a religious nut, Mitt is a douchebag,
so that leaves St. John of McCain and his Holy War.

There are no good choices on the GOP ticket: get ready for
Hillary/
Obama

I agree. McCain will get the Republican nomination, but he ****es
off a
lot of conservatives, and he won't be able to rely on the
religious
wing-nut base, which means a lot of Republicans will either sit
out this
election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.

Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

In article ,
"Bob" wrote:

election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.

Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Bob wrote:

Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

Four reasons to vote for McCain if he's the nominee:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony M. Kennedy
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Steven G. Breyer

wrote

mc cain a war monger who wants to keep a occupying force in iraq for a 100 years,

Its getting on for 60 years now with Germany, Japan, etc.

isnt electable unless terrorists attack before the next election.

Depends entirely on what unelectable fool the Democrats are stupid enough to have.

oddly enough if he gets elected and occupies forever,
that will almost guarantee more terrorist attacks here

How odd that there havent been any since 9/11.

nick hull wrote:
In article ,
"Bob" wrote:

election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.
Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...

Rod Speed wrote:

wrote


mc cain a war monger who wants to keep a occupying force in iraq for a 100 years,


Its getting on for 60 years now with Germany, Japan, etc.


isnt electable unless terrorists attack before the next election.


Depends entirely on what unelectable fool the Democrats are stupid enough to have.


oddly enough if he gets elected and occupies forever,
that will almost guarantee more terrorist attacks here


How odd that there havent been any since 9/11.


They don't need to attack when Bush is doing their work _for_ them.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:
Four reasons to vote for McCain if he's the nominee:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony M. Kennedy
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Steven G. Breyer

McCain would roll over and please the Democrat Congress with some liberal
nominations. Hell, when the Repubs had control, McCain managed to thwart
the party and the nation with his Gang of 14 crap.

--
God help us all,
The next President of the United States will be a liberal.

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:13:44 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

nick hull wrote:
In article ,
"Bob" wrote:

election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.
Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:13:44 GMT, aemeijers wrote:


nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"Bob" wrote:


election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.

Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...



I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

"none of the above" has never appeared on any ballot I've seen.

Unfortunately, I would be more likely to go to the polls in order to
vote *AGAINST* some candidate that scares/frightens/****es me off than
to actually vote *for* someone. I haven't seen a serious candidate for
POTUS yet since I was old enough to vote that I actually wanted to vote
for. (George W. Bush vs. John Kerry? Feh! Can I vote for the flaming
bag of dog crap instead?)

I have seen Bush ruin some good men's political careers, however -
although Colin Powell had already said he wasn't interested in the office.

Unfortunately, the Republican party still seems to be controlled by the
religious right and neocons, so good luck finding a reasonable
candidate. The current crop should be ample evidence of the kind of
idiot that most Republicans seem to think fit for office.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

Roughly runs just over 50% in presidential elections. It also isn't
all that unusual for a president to get elected with only a plurality.
Clinton did not get 50% of the vote either time he won, Nixon didn't in
'68 and JFK did not get it 60. Carter and Reagan 1 made it to 50% by
less than .75%.
Yet pretty much every president since Washington has talked about
their mandate (g).

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:

I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

I completely agree; however, nothing in the United States Constitution
requires that our president win by a mandate. We do not even select our
president by popular vote (despite what you may think). Our president is
selected by what is known as the Electoral College. Feel free to google
for it. The Electoral College takes its queues indirectly by the votes
we cast on election day, but it is entirely possible for someone to win
the presidency without getting a majority of the popular vote. This is
what happened with our current president's first term.

PaPaPeng wrote:


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

I'm sure you've heard of "Self-fulfilling prophecy:" If everyone thinks a
stock will go up, it does.

Anyway, you've just put forth one of the few examples of "Self-DEFEATING
prophecies."

The mantra of "Your vote is important" is self-defeating. The more people
that vote, the less important any individual vote becomes and the election
itself becomes sort of a random choice.

When everyone believes "your vote is a duty," then the act of voting becomes
more important than the merits of the candidates.

No, best leave the actual voting up to those who've studied the candidates,
poured over the issues, and made sound, logical, and intelligent decisions.

Nate Nagel wrote:



Unfortunately, the Republican party still seems to be controlled by
the religious right and neocons, so good luck finding a reasonable
candidate. The current crop should be ample evidence of the kind of
idiot that most Republicans seem to think fit for office.


You may be correct, but the religious right candidate would seem superior to
the athiest wrong. As to the current crop, I agree with you. My first choice
(me) isn't on any ballot. Still, I have hope for #2.

If the GOP convention degenerates into a morass, a white knight may emerge,
behind which all can rally. I'm rooting for JEB Bush. After eight years of
JEB, then we can have eight years of that good-looking Bush nephew.

By then the dynasty will be firmly established and it's only a small step to
a monarchy, which is what all us Republicans secretely wish for.

Psst! Keep that just between you and me.

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:13:44 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

nick hull wrote:
In article ,
"Bob" wrote:

election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.
Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

Paraphrasing Jim Hightower, "If God wanted us to vote, she would have
given us candidates.", CANDIDATES, not PACs and corporate bribes. As
long as the corporations control the campaign money and the media in the
US, there will be no elections based on merit. Obama has been in
politics the shortest time, so he probably has less mud on him but he
supports ethanol from corn (uses almost as much oil to produce as it
replaces and, reduces food supplies) and his wife makes $316,000 a year
as director of the University of Chicago Hospitals public outreach
program ($316,000 ? What's up with that?).

Not to take away from Ron Paul but Americans, basically, now have four
choices now for president. Our duty is to pick the "least bad" of these
four choices. The long and the short of it is that the corporation buy
the election and then they own the winner. Voting is just a formality.

As Will Rodgers used to say,"Politics is like baseball. It is very
complicated to understand but you have to remember, it doesn't mean
anything."
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:13:44 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

nick hull wrote:
In article ,
"Bob" wrote:

election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.
Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx
I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(
Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

Oh, I'll vote- just not for Hillary. I'll probably have to hold my nose,
but I'll vote. I'm hoping McCain gets nominated- I don't agree with a
lot of his positions, but at least he is a grownup, and not a socialist.

aem sends...

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

You may be correct, but the religious right candidate would seem superior to
the athiest wrong.

Might seem that way to the Knights of Columbus, not to anyone else,
though. Fewer and fewer believe in the "churches" of today, since they
all seem so driven by motives baser than religion or salvation. Their
concerns are the rigid control of others, profit, profit, profit, and
not everlasting life but rather everlasting political power. There may
be some pure churches left, but it is no longer worth the effort to
distinguish between them, since they are the laughingstock of the
American religious mainstream.

Politically active, contemporary American churches-cum-businesses make
legalized late term abortion on demand look appealingly nostalgic. I
believe anti-evolutionist Mike Huckabee's pending crushing campaign
defeats will make that crystal clear even to those blind of "faith".
That is MY prayer, anyway.

Billy wrote:

Paraphrasing Jim Hightower, "If God wanted us to vote, she would have
given us candidates.", CANDIDATES, not PACs and corporate bribes. As
long as the corporations control the campaign money and the media in
the US, there will be no elections based on merit.

A common misunderstanding, also known by the name of "special interests," or
"lobbyists."

"Special interests" act as a separation of power force against the ignorant,
unwashed masses. On the one side you have the "people" with a mob mentality.
They are, collectively, as dumb as a crate of anvils, but they can vote. On
the other side, you have the PACs, corporations, special interests, and
various influence peddlers. They can't vote, but do have money.

It averages out, unless one side or the other obtains an unfair advantage,
such as having dead people vote in Chicago or limiting the power of the
elite such as with McCain-Feingold.

clipped

It averages out, unless one side or the other obtains an unfair advantage,
such as having dead people vote in Chicago or limiting the power of the
elite such as with McCain-Feingold.




At least da' dead people in Chicago are smart enough not to vote for a
loser like Bush.

In article
,
Keith wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.
Not only that, he proposes Americans pay a world tax for the
environment. If this happens, jobs will go to countries like China,
where the pollution will be far worse, and Americans will still be
footing the bill. Because I am from So Cal the issue of immigration
is huge. McCain is just not tough enough on this issue. He is too
liberal and I feel Romney is our best candidate.

Ah! These comments warm my heart. If McCain gets the nomination, he will
beacon for the downfall of the Republican party of many years to come.
Go get 'em McCain!

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:43:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

Eventually the bill will have to be paid, and that will mean taxing
More than spending.

Since Dubya and the Rs had no apparent need to cut spending when they
were in power for six full years, where should the responsibility to
do so reside?

The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:43:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts,
which were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as
President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The
only thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you
to meet effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

Eventually the bill will have to be paid, and that will mean taxing
More than spending.

Since Dubya and the Rs had no apparent need to cut spending when they
were in power for six full years, where should the responsibility to
do so reside?

The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

Iraq.

NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

While revenues also hit record levels. The problems are not in the
revenue, but in the spending side. Actually if you look at the Joint
Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts, the revenues that came in
after the cut were larger than the scoring said would have come in if
the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring system they have used for
taxes way before GW came about.


Eventually the bill will have to be paid, and that will mean taxing
More than spending.
Actually studies have shown consistently that if you merely hold
spending to inflation, deficits disappear within 5 years or so even if
you leave taxes alone. It is obvious from the last 40+ years that
spending is the key.

Since Dubya and the Rs had no apparent need to cut spending when they
were in power for six full years, where should the responsibility to
do so reside?

With the Congressional GOP. And with the Dems before them and since
them.


Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.
How about anything with an earmark to start. Those by definition are
projects that aren't good enough to be funded under the current
mechanisms. Then we have to define "cut".



NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

Keep the increases to inflation and should be good to go.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:05:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

Iraq.

You support the effort in Iraq, and would like to cut the funds for
it?

Now there's a new one!

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Which federal expenditures that You support would
you like to see cut or eliminated? Be specific.

Iraq.

You support the effort in Iraq,

No I dont. It should never have been invaded in the first
place, essentially because they are too stupid to get their
act into gear once Saddam got overthrown and just looted
everything they could, and then went for a full civil war.

and would like to cut the funds for it?

I wouldnt have invaded it in the first place for the reasons above.

Now there's a new one!

Fraid not, you've just got it wrong, as you usually do.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:10:59 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

While revenues also hit record levels. The problems are not in the
revenue, but in the spending side.

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase in
revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.

Actually if you look at the Joint
Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts, the revenues that came in
after the cut were larger than the scoring said would have come in if
the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring system they have used for
taxes way before GW came about.

Also based on an illusion. So-called tax "cuts" that are merely
deferrals merely postpone the day of reckoning, and create an illusion
of a thriving economy based on borrowed money. Rather like that
teevee commercial where the guy is bragging about his house, cars,
lawn, pool, etc -- and then says "I'm in debt up to my ears!"

All the rationalizing in the world won't change the economic
fundamental -- Costs are Real and Will and Must be paid. Public costs
will be paid by taxes -- no way around it. And nibbling around the
edges here and there, e.g. doing away with the National Endowment for
the Arts, won't accomplish anything important enough even to bother
with. People whine about such matters out of Personal Preference, not
because of Economic Principle.

There is a need to tax more than we spend. Otherwise we can't pay
down the accumulated Debt, the overwhelming majority of which the Rs
have managed to run up. It is the Combination of taxing and spending
cuts that will be required to get the job done.

So -- same question: What expenditures that You support are You
willing to have cut or done away with?

The answer to that question from everyone involved is where the
Solution -- if there really is one -- resides.

We can handle Some debt, clearly. The accumulated debt involved with
public investment in capital infrastructure ought to be bonded and
paid down over time. That way those who reap the benefit pay the
cost.

But the current-year Operational debt -- and most of it is -- that
accrues, is rolled over endlessly, such that the roughly 15-20 per
cent of the total revenues go just to pay the interest on it, right
off the top -- ought to be for by Current Revenues.

It's not. It hasn't been for quite some time.

Somehow the Rs lost their way a couple of decades back on such
fundamental matters. For a while there, I thought perhaps the Ds
would pick up the concept, but of late it doesn't seem to be happening
as it ought.

Unfortunate, truly!

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

It wasn't tax cuts or tax deferrals. It was redistribution of wealth
from the poor to the rich.

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

The share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent grew, but only
slightly more than half the rate of their growth in incomes because of
the tax rate cuts.

In 1965, corporate taxes amounted to 4% of the GNP. By 2000, it was
2.5 %.

If you work, you probably pay 30% in taxes. If you invest your money,
you only pay 15%.

The lying, draft-dodging, dimwit who is now in the White House
accelerated the corporate domination of America which started under that
-good-Irish-joke-telling Ray-gun.

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1%
increased by 176%, compared to an increased of 69% for the top quintile
overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17%
for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.

We are already getting screwed and the Republicans, on orders from their
corporate sponsors, want to put more sand in the vaseline.

Wake up!
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:04:57 -0800, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

It wasn't tax cuts or tax deferrals.

Yeah really -- it was a tax deferral.

When you continue to spend at a higher rate than before, and you cut
revenues, then you defer the Cost of the Spending into the future.

But eventually someone has to pay those costs.

Which is why the "cuts" weren't really cuts at all -- they were
deferrals into the future.

Who got the money is another sort of question.

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:43:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

Eventually the bill will have to be paid, and that will mean taxing
More than spending.

Since Dubya and the Rs had no apparent need to cut spending when they
were in power for six full years, where should the responsibility to
do so reside?

The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

Defense department, i.e. military industrial complex. The US presently
spends 40% of the world's military expenditures.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase in
revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.
Exactly. Spend less


Actually if you look at the Joint
Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts, the revenues that came in
after the cut were larger than the scoring said would have come in if
the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring system they have used for
taxes way before GW came about.

Also based on an illusion. So-called tax "cuts" that are merely
deferrals merely postpone the day of reckoning, and create an illusion
of a thriving economy based on borrowed money. Rather like that
teevee commercial where the guy is bragging about his house, cars,
lawn, pool, etc -- and then says "I'm in debt up to my ears!"
Spending is the key. Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such. You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.



There is a need to tax more than we spend. Otherwise we can't pay
down the accumulated Debt, the overwhelming majority of which the Rs
have managed to run up. It is the Combination of taxing and spending
cuts that will be required to get the job done.
But no one is talking about a way to enforce spending cuts in the
same way a tax increase enforces an increase in revenue.


So -- same question: What expenditures that You support are You
willing to have cut or done away with?
Pretty much everything except law enforcement, defense and a couple
other small things. "Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke
So what would YOU be willing to give up or would you just up taxes
and up taxes.


Somehow the Rs lost their way a couple of decades back on such
fundamental matters. For a while there, I thought perhaps the Ds
would pick up the concept, but of late it doesn't seem to be happening
as it ought.

The Dems have pretty much always lead the charge on spending. There
was a small timeframe of about 5 years when the GOP first took over
where there was some slowing of the rate of increase in spending, but
then they got the addiction and it was all over

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:18:35 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase in
revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.
Exactly. Spend less

Or tax more. Or some combination of the two.

Spending is the key.

It is one of two keys -- not the Only one.

... Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.

The BBA would not necessarily result in a tax cut. Quite the opposite
is equally likely.

You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

Which federal expenditures that You approve of are You willing to cut
or eliminate?

Same question as before.

Pretty much everything except law enforcement, defense and a couple
other small things. "Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

Now we know what PJOR states, for the purposes of humor.

But that wouldn't come close to curing the problem.

What things that You support do You wish to give up.

So what would YOU be willing to give up or would you just up taxes
and up taxes.

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty much
completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

AND I would up taxes to cover the Real Costs of current year
operational spending. As a start.

The key to dealing with the accrued debt is to get what accountants
would call the Current Account back into some semblance of balance.

Then we can discuss lowering the accrued deficit.

Over to you.

The Dems have pretty much always lead the charge on spending.

Save for when the Rs had control incongruous. They then led their own
charge -- just on different things.

... There was a small timeframe of about 5 years when the GOP first took over
where there was some slowing of the rate of increase in spending, but
then they got the addiction and it was all over

Lowering the rate of increase still leaves it increasing withal.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:17:33 -0800, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

Defense department, i.e. military industrial complex. The US presently
spends 40% of the world's military expenditures.

Nope - that's playing fast and loose. You already don't support DoD
spending at its current level.

Re-read the question: What federal expenditures that You Support
would you like to cut or eliminate?

I't's a tad Too facile to suggest cutting or eliminating things that
Other Folks support.

Try it again.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase
in revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.

Exactly. Spend less

Actually if you look at the Joint Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts,
the revenues that came in after the cut were larger than the scoring said
would have come in if the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring
system they have used for taxes way before GW came about.

Also based on an illusion. So-called tax "cuts" that are merely
deferrals merely postpone the day of reckoning, and create an
illusion of a thriving economy based on borrowed money. Rather like
that teevee commercial where the guy is bragging about his house,
cars, lawn, pool, etc -- and then says "I'm in debt up to my ears!"

Spending is the key. Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.
You can't trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

There is a need to tax more than we spend. Otherwise we can't pay
down the accumulated Debt, the overwhelming majority of which the Rs
have managed to run up. It is the Combination of taxing and spending
cuts that will be required to get the job done.

But no one is talking about a way to enforce spending cuts in
the same way a tax increase enforces an increase in revenue.

So -- same question: What expenditures that You
support are You willing to have cut or done away with?

Pretty much everything except law enforcement, defense and
a couple other small things. "Politics should be limited in its
scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

The world's moved on just a tad since that dinosaur's day.

So what would YOU be willing to give up
or would you just up taxes and up taxes.

Somehow the Rs lost their way a couple of decades back on such fundamental
matters. For a while there, I thought perhaps the Ds would pick up the concept,
but of late it doesn't seem to be happening as it ought.

The Dems have pretty much always lead the charge on spending.
There was a small timeframe of about 5 years when the GOP first
took over where there was some slowing of the rate of increase in
spending, but then they got the addiction and it was all over

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:17:33 -0800, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see
cut or eliminated? Be specific.

NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they
can't cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make
suggestions for spending cuts.

So, have at it.

Defense department, i.e. military industrial complex. The US
presently spends 40% of the world's military expenditures.

Nope - that's playing fast and loose.

Nope. The US could return to isolationism militarily if it
wanted to specially now that the cold war has ended.

You already don't support DoD spending at its current level.

And thats a perfectly reasonable position on spending cuts.

Re-read the question:

No need.

What federal expenditures that You Support would you like to cut or eliminate?

He doesnt have to restrict it to stuff he does support just because you demand that.

I't's a tad Too facile to suggest cutting or eliminating things that Other Folks support.

No it isnt. Its perfectly reasonable to decide that the military industrial complex
isnt worth paying for anymore now that there is no real threat to the US militarily.

Try it again.

He doesnt need to do that, that cut alone would fix the national debt eventually.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:48:57 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:17:33 -0800, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see
cut or eliminated? Be specific.


You already don't support DoD spending at its current level.

And thats a perfectly reasonable position on spending cuts.

It is, however, no the question I asked.

Re-read the question:

No need.

In which case, Politics being what it is and where the decision will
be taken, No One will ever back off from spending what they want on
things they support.

Which is what it's going to take.

What federal expenditures that You Support would you like to cut or eliminate?

He doesnt have to restrict it to stuff he does support just because you demand that.

It is, however, the more Honest answer that will be required. It will
Not be the case that one sector will take the entire hit. Everyone
gets to have a piece of this one. That means some sort of compromise.

So, what's on the table for cuts and elimination that You (or he)
support? What will You give up willingly to bring some sense of
fiscal sanity?

Nothing? At all?

Then it predictably won't happen, will it?

Cutting (though not eliminating) all or even Most military
expenditures won't solve the problem, and predictably will create some
new ones.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:
Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple question:

Pity its the wrong question.

Which federal expenditures that You support would
you like to see cut or eliminated? Be specific.

You already don't support DoD spending at its current level.

And thats a perfectly reasonable position on spending cuts.

It is, however, no the question I asked.

Pity it was the wrong question.

Re-read the question:

No need.

In which case, Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken,
No One will ever back off from spending what they want on things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

Which is what it's going to take.

Nope. The national debt could certainly be eliminated over time with
the military industrial complex tossed in the bin now that there is no
longer any military threat to the US and there isnt going to be either.

Yes, that could be a problem for the likes of Kuwait
and Taiwan, but it would be feasible to go that route.

What federal expenditures that You Support would you like to cut or eliminate?

He doesnt have to restrict it to stuff he does support just because you demand that.

It is, however, the more Honest answer that will be required.

Nope. Your qualification is completely irrelevant to what is
necessary to do something useful about the national debt.

Even just getting out of Iraq would stop the national debt growing
dramatically and moderate increase in taxation added to that
approach would see the national debt start to be reduced over time.

Corse it would also make sense to wait until after the
current economic downturn has been survived first.

It will Not be the case that one sector will take the entire hit.

Thats just plain wrong with the military industrial complex.

It would work if that was the one that took the entire hit.

Everyone gets to have a piece of this one.

You dont get to proclaim that any time soon.

That means some sort of compromise.

Nope, not if the military industrial complex gets the chop instead.

So, what's on the table for cuts and elimination that You (or he) support?

Like I said, get out of Iraq.

What will You give up willingly to bring some sense of fiscal sanity?

I dont have to give up a damned thing, just getting out of Iraq
would be enough to have a useful effect on the national debt.

Nothing? At all?

I've already told you a lot more than nothing.

Then it predictably won't happen, will it?

Corse getting out of Iraq can happen if thats what the voters want.

Cutting (though not eliminating) all or even Most
military expenditures won't solve the problem,

Getting out of Iraq would certainly stop the national debt increasing dramatically.

and predictably will create some new ones.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:06:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken,
No One will ever back off from spending what they want on things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at
all. There is No authority within the nation that can force it.

And if it's to happen politically, it will involve some Compromise.

Failing that, it won't happen at all. We'll just end up with the same
sorts of ranting noise, but no actual progress.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken, No One
will ever back off from spending what they want on things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may well be feasible to start cutting back on the national debt if
it wasnt for Iraq, but its never going to be possible to do that while
ever Iraq is a rat hole for an immense amount of money, and the
voters just aint gunna buy the level of taxes that it would take to
both do Iraq and start cutting back on the national debt.

It might well be politically possible to drastically cut back on
the military industrial complex as well now that no one with
a clue thinks that there is any real military threat to the US
anymore and most of the voters couldnt care less about
places like Kuwait, Taiwan, Korea, SE Asia etc etc etc.

There is No authority within the nation that can force it.

There doesnt need to be with something like Iraq.

And if it's to happen politically, it will involve some Compromise.

Nope, not with getting out of Iraq. That will happen sometime.
The only real question is how long it will take before Iraq stops
being such an immense rat hole for money and thats eliminated and
it will be quite politically feasible to start paying down the national debt.

It appears very unlikely that anyone will ever get a mandate to say invade Iran now.

Failing that, it won't happen at all.

Corse Iraq will fix itself eventually, even if that takes another 10 years.

We'll just end up with the same sorts of ranting noise, but no actual progress.

There wont even be much ranting, the national debt isnt
something that many of the voters give a damn about.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:41:42 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken, No One
will ever back off from spending what they want on things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Eventually Someone is going to have to pay the bill.

When, not If, that comes to pass, it will necessarily involve
compromise. No one section of the national budget is going to take
the entire hit. Everyone will have to place something that They
support on the table, else it won't ever get done.

You're a good reason why, for the moment, it's unlikely to happen.