Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Funny, you weren't so sanguine about people Palin had only been in the company of one time. In fact, you tried to portray her as subscribing to beliefs she had no record of supporting, simply from being in the same building. Or McCain getting an endorsement from Hagee. Again no association, but grounds for damnation.

That's ok though, I knew what your response would be, because you can't let anything interfere with your adoration of The One. Anything that reflects negatively on his character has to be dismissed as irrelevant, lest one have to examine their support of him.

Of course, when it comes to judgement, a quailification Obama claims to have, one has to wonder how this superior judgement led him to be associated with such people, that they are there to be brought up ... so irrelevantly.

And of course, having a 20 year association with a man called a friend, a mentor, a teacher, and then claiming not to know a thing about what that man believes, certainly shows both intelligence and judgement that we can have faith in.

But then, that's all you've really put forth as a reason .... faith. You have no counter to any question raised. No defense for the inexcuseable. Save the mantra of irrelevant. One has to wonder what is relevant. It appears that all that matters is the D after his name.

[chucklesR]

Let's examine the deficit why don't we:

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Seems a small increase each year from 2000 to 2006, then suddenly, once the pay-go dem's take charge of the both houses and the budget - a little bit of a leap, like ONE TRILLION at year.

Yeah Rick, keep doing math. You are as Constitutionally, um, stupid as you logically challenged and non-accountability oriented.
That 53 trillion in shortfalls you spoke of(in the next dozen or so years I assume) can't be made up in taxes, even using your math - it has to be made up in cuts - and you and yours can't make the cuts, instead they add new entitlements. That, my friend from the sunshine state, should put a little light where the sun don't shine for you, but we intrepid readers of your insipidly vacuous post know it won't mean diddly to you because I used words othe than 'change' and spoke of real life, not your messiah's dream reality he found while sitting with the taliban in pakistan in 1983.

Sorry moderators, ban me, there was just no other way to say it clearly.

[scottyt]

well if i where the pres i would veto every bill with pork, i would freeze military spending at 2007 levels and i would freeze welfare etc at 2007 levels. i would try for the fair tax. i would cut oil going in the the reserve at 50 % of current, i would do away with the irs with the fair tax, and relocate as many of those in to open jobs in the .gov. i would tell military suppliers that they no longer get money to develop new tech they can pay for, then when we buy it, they make their money. i would expand .gov student loans with automatic repayment taken from pay when they get a job. i would put cash awards for real tech jumps in alt energy, but no pre payment, prove it works then get the award.

i would shake the hell out the .gov

[sck5]

Sorry to burst your bubble folks but the projected deficit is bigger than all non-defense discretionary spending combined. It is arithmetically impossible to balance the budget with spending cuts alone. See the Concord Coalition (bipartisan budget hawks) if you doubt it.

Not that we should be trying to balance the budget right now. That would be taking a page from herbert hoover's playbook - not a good plan.

[scottyt]

actually sck5 budget cuts can balance the budget, cut the expansion of everything. if you dont spend it, it cant add on the the budget. freeze spending and the budget wont go up. take all extra revenue and put it to the deficit.

and i mean freeze it all, no raises, no increase in social security, welfare... anything

to balance our budget will hurt, but it has to. if we did this in 5 years the dollar would be at an all time high

[PBzeer]

sck - you really ought to do some research:

Hoover and others such as Henry Ford believed that the preservation of purchasing power was critical. The participants pledged to maintain employment and wages; Ford actually raised the wages of his automobile workers despite declining sales and profits. In January Hoover instituted a vigorous public works program which authorized $60 million to begin construction of the Hoover Dam, $75 million for road construction, and $500 million for public buildings.

The deepening farm crisis merited more direct intervention. In February Hoover established the Grain Stabilization Corporation which began federal wheat purchases in March. By June it had purchased 65 million bushels for $90 million. Never before had the federal government intervened so directly in the private sector.

The scale of federal action in Hoover’s response to the stock market crash was unprecedented in U. S. history. This prompted historian Robert Sobel’s assertion that “no peacetime president since Jefferson had done more to expand the powers of the presidency than Hoover had in that one year.” It drew attacks by those who felt it gave the government too large of a role. Ultimately these efforts did not prevent the country from sliding into the Great Depression, although they represent a significant departure from the laissez faire attitudes of previous presidents and in many ways laid the groundwork for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. Full article here: The Presidential Timeline of the Twentieth Century


Reality has a way of upsetting the most fervent delusions. Hardly sounds like budget balancing to me. Sounds a lot more like what we're getting now, and the promise of more of from Obama. Despite the outcome from before.

[TropicCat]

This just in. Karl Rove just published his prediction of the election by state.

http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/004...3_08_FINAL.pdf

I had thought I didn't agree with anything this man said or did. Apparently, I'm mistaken, as he sees the election exactly the same way I do.

[bubb2]

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’
‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.’
‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.’
‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.’
‘During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage.

So WHERE are we, citizens of the United States in the historically proven Life Cycle of Nations?
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

• Number of States won by Democrats: 19, Republicans: 29
• Square miles of land won by Democrats: 580,000, Republicans: 2,427,000
• Population of counties won by Democrats: 127 million, Republicans: 143 million
• Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Democrats: 13.2, Republicans: 2.1

In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the complacency and apathy phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the ‘governmental dependency’ phase.
The Life Cycle of Nations is proven over thousands of years. The only way we can avoid the inevitable fall of the USA is to recognize the historic path we are following and make the difficult, but needed, decisions to turn our country around by once again placing our emphasis on individual responsibility and liberty rather than government bailouts and entitlements for the masses.

[PBzeer]

Sorry bubb, as the polls show, most have become too apathetic about their complacency to do anything about it. As Peggy in Florida put it so aptly, she's for Obama because he's going to put gas in her car and pay her mortgage if she votes for him.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by TropicCat

This just in. Karl Rove just published his prediction of the election by state.

http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/004...3_08_FINAL.pdf

I had thought I didn't agree with anything this man said or did. Apparently, I'm mistaken, as he sees the election exactly the same way I do.

I just veiwed the polls on the battle ground states, all are within the margin of error and a couple are tied

Are you sure those are predictions or just what the map shows now pre 11/03/08