OT (yeah, right!): Politics

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:03:15 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Hide wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> at times it is necessary to relinquish some civil rights to
>> ensure the security of the country.
>
>A sometimes seductive notion; but not true.
>
<snip>

Who was it, Ben Franklin, that said something along the line of: "He who gives
up essential liberties for security, deserves neither"?

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:25:18 +0000, Tom Veatch wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:03:15 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Hide wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> at times it is necessary to relinquish some civil rights to
>>> ensure the security of the country.
>>
>>A sometimes seductive notion; but not true.
>>
> <snip>
>
> Who was it, Ben Franklin, that said something along the line of: "He who gives
> up essential liberties for security, deserves neither"?
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

Any time that you give up liberties, freedom or anything else to
government control, you are saying that the government has the right to
control anything in your life. How long will it be until you will need a
government permit to travel from city to city? All in the name of ensuring
the security of the country. Of course, the favorite saying is, "its for
your safety". That is a statement that the public will always fall prey
to. A completely false sense of security.

Paul T.

On 22 Aug 2004 08:44:50 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:

>Someone is not exactly truthful, that's for certain. Given the lack of solid
>proof possible in either direction, I'd point the finger at the people who
>instigated this morass.

Charlie, Kerry have to the liar! I know it deep down in my heart, I can even
feel it in my bone. Bush will never lie cuz, he's is a born again Christian, a
Christian NEVER lie. Are you forgetting that he lead us to victory against the
Saddam Hussein and the beautiful sight of shock and awe destruction of Baghdad?

>Loved the cartoon in the Roanoke Times yesterday: showed a swift boat at speed,
>towing 2 water skiers. The header noted that the swift boat was one man's
>contribution to 'Nam, while the water skiers, Bush & Cheney, did nothing.

I love both faces of Michelle Malkin's twisted mouth angrily refuting Chris
Matthew's stunned face.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:52:05 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote:

Of course it's ok if your daddy is President getting your son a cozy Stateside
job. Wouldn't you do it for your own son?

>Remember the two psychiatrists on one show swearing adamantly George had an
>attention deficit disorder. I wondered how well he had mastered it when
>flying high performance fighter aircraft . Suppose his daddy got him pilots
>duty!!!!!!!!!!! mjh

"Mark & Juanita"

> Accusations of lying aside, don't you think that they might be just a
> little bit miffed with a person who served with them for less than 4
> months, then returned to the states and accused them of committing war
> atrocities, then 35 years later attempting to run on his war record as a
> war hero and involving them by using pictures of them in those ads?



It's the height of hypocrisy. I think they are trying to downplay his war
record now that it wasn't smooth sailing. He should be honored for his
service but it seems clear he at least embellished his performance and
his motives all along was to make a name for himself. I think the DNC
shot themselves in the foot on this one. Blaming Bush for the ads is
weak and pathetic, especially when he already denounced all such
ads. I'm enjoying the spectacle of watching them trying to put the genie
back in the bottle.

"Nate Perkins"
> All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
> fairly comical point.

> To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
> tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
> record to run on,


Have you been in a coma? Tax cuts, economy bouncing back,
terrorism averted at home since 9/11, for starters. Thats a pretty
good record. Gore would probably still be wringing his hands.


>the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
> mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
> believe it.


I'd say the ignorance comes from those who believe the administration
was behind it and yet, said had nothing to say about the mud slinging
from all the lefty hate books and films.

"Nate Perkins" <
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > "Nate Perkins"

> > > All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
> > > fairly comical point.

> > > To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
> > > tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
> > > record to run on,

> > Have you been in a coma? Tax cuts, economy bouncing back,
> > terrorism averted at home since 9/11, for starters. Thats a pretty
> > good record. Gore would probably still be wringing his hands.


> On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
> news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
> debt are not a tax cut.


That's false reasoning. If tax cuts help the economy the deficit is
reduced as well.


> They are a loan that you are taking out to
> help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.


Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?



>Shifting the
> tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,


That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
history proves. That's bad economics!



> because it lowers
> consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
> similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
> may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> that existed in the 90's.



You are overlooking the dot com hot air balloon for one thing...several
wars...911, etc.


>Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.


I have a news flash for you. The whole world has been in a recession.



> I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
> not after 9/11 happened on his watch?).


I guess he could ignore it like Clinton?


>I also give Clinton some
> credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
> administration).


Some guards got lucky and that's good enough for you?



>I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
> enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
> and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
> commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
> for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
> centerpiece in the war on terror.


Where's the homefield attacks since 911? Seems like it worked pretty
well. I agree there's room for improvement but the U.S. occupied Germany
and Japan with much heavier losses.


> > >the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
> > > mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
> > > believe it.


> > I'd say the ignorance comes from those who believe the administration
> > was behind it and yet, said had nothing to say about the mud slinging
> > from all the lefty hate books and films.


> I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "the adminstration was
> behind it", but I agree that their policies have been ineffective,
> their statements have been misleading, and their general performance
> has been poor. Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic you look at.



Only if your brain has been crippled by left wing hate propaganda.


> What do you define as lefty hate books and films?



There's been quite a few as of late, calling Bush a traitor, murderer, etc.
Moore's movie is filled with slander, doesn't seem to bother the lefties.
If Kerry's contemporaries come out 10 to 1 against Kerry's version
of events, it's Bush's fault. That's how propaganda works and it sounds
like you bought it hook, line and sinker.


>I watch CNN and Fox
> News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
> Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
> Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
> Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
> Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
> am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.


Show me where I said that. That will reveal the real problem here.

"Nate Perkins"
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
>
> > > On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
> > > news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
> > > debt are not a tax cut.
> >
> >
> > That's false reasoning. If tax cuts help the economy the deficit is
> > reduced as well.


> Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
> the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
> short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
> economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
> unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
> help it.


That alot of speculation on your part. It assumes that the money belongs
to the government in the first place.



> > > They are a loan that you are taking out to
> > > help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.
> >
> > Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?

> Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
> We can't afford it, though.


Says who?



> > >Shifting the
> > > tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> > > GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,


> > That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
> > distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
> > government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
> > recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
> > history proves. That's bad economics!


> Not liberal hysteria. Reports of the President's own economists.


They said Bush had a bad economic policy and shifted the tax burden?


> You are right that government is growing. Tax revenues are also
> decreasing. A sure recipe for deficit.


It's a sure recipe for spending less.



>The current deficit is
> upwards of 20% of all federal expenditures. Caused by growing
> government, growing entitlements, and cutting tax revenues.


And the only possible solution is to raise taxes?


> > > because it lowers
> > > consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
> > > similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> > > recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> > > increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
> > > may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> > > that existed in the 90's.


> > You are overlooking the dot com hot air balloon for one thing...several
> > wars...911, etc.


> 9/11 isn't the excuse for everything.


I just mentioned two others.



>It didn't cause the tax cuts.
> It didn't cause the retroactive refunds to AMT. It didn't cause the
> expansion of Medicare prescription drug benefits. It didn't cause the
> expansion of farm subsidies, etc. It maybe did arguably cause
> Homeland Security, but even most conservatives would agree that
> Homeland Security is a bloated bureaucracy.



Like most government agencies. But your solution seems to be to keep
feeding the increasing appetite of the hog.


> > >Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> > > inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> > > high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.

> > I have a news flash for you. The whole world has been in a recession.


> Yes, and as the leader of the world's economy we have a fair role in
> how that global recession goes.


Oh, I see. Bush screwed up the world's economys. I guess being Satan is
a demanding job.



> > > I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
> > > not after 9/11 happened on his watch?).


> > I guess he could ignore it like Clinton?


> You are suggesting that Clinton would have ignored terrorism after
> 9/11? That's preposterous. You are suggesting that Clinton ignored
> terrorism before 9/11?


I'm not suggesting anything. The facts are that he did ignore terrorism.
I doubt he would have after 911, one can escape responsibility for only so long.


>That's refuted by many sources, including the
> 9/11 commission.


What did they say he did about terrorism?


> > >I also give Clinton some
> > > credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
> > > administration).

> > Some guards got lucky and that's good enough for you?

> To fail to reasonably assign blame and credit is really just
> transparent partisanship.


What policy enacted by Clinton help prevent any millenium attack? I
don't blame Clinton for that as hindsight is 20/20 but he did nothing
of substance to thwart terrorism. Even after the first Trade Center
bombing.


> > >I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
> > > enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
> > > and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
> > > commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
> > > for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
> > > centerpiece in the war on terror.

> > Where's the homefield attacks since 911? Seems like it worked pretty
> > well. I agree there's room for improvement but the U.S. occupied Germany
> > and Japan with much heavier losses.


> Where were they before 9/11? Do you really think the country is
> prepared and do you think we have done all we can/should do? I don't.


Who said we were? What would Kerry do to improve things over Bush,
I wonder? Kissing French butt will only get us so far.


> > > What do you define as lefty hate books and films?


> > There's been quite a few as of late, calling Bush a traitor, murderer, etc.
> > Moore's movie is filled with slander, doesn't seem to bother the lefties.
> > If Kerry's contemporaries come out 10 to 1 against Kerry's version
> > of events, it's Bush's fault. That's how propaganda works and it sounds
> > like you bought it hook, line and sinker.


> Yeah, I do think some lefties go over the top. Some Bushies do, too.
> But there's a difference between propaganda and actually paying
> attention to current events.


The reporting often falls more into propaganda than illumination.



> > >I watch CNN and Fox
> > > News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
> > > Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
> > > Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
> > > Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
> > > Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
> > > am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.


> > Show me where I said that. That will reveal the real problem here.


> I think if you read the above you will see several references you made
> to only being able to draw these conclusions if you are paying
> attention to "lefty" hate books, films, and propaganda.


I didn't say it but your talking points do sound familiar.

"Tim Daneliuk"

> Then again, I more likely will stick to the principle of defending
> the Constitution and Freedom and vote for the Libertarian candidate ...

I can respect voting on principle but politics is often an imperfect
solution to an imperfect world. The outcome for voting Libertarian
is essentially a vote for Kerry. Of course a vote for Nader is a
vote for Bush so we'll see what happens.

"Nate Perkins"

> I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
> future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
> me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
> close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
> the contrary.


You don't suppose there's other factors involved? Like expenditures?
Why do you refuse to look at government spending?



> Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
> cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
> of deficit growth.Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
> GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
> his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.


Deficit growth sounds alot like spending too much money to me.
Reagan, like Bush, had to also spend heavily on the military.


> Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
> debt.


He's trying too hard to please too many people in my view. Nobody wants
their favorite program cut. Your challenge is to explain how Kerry will make
things better. So far I've heard zip from either you or him.

"Nate Perkins"
> If you want to see something else that might make you mad, check out
> what Falwell and Robertson had to say on the same topic:
> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
>
> As Falwell and Robertson show, stupidity can be a bipartisan trait.
>
> (snipped the rest)


That would only make someone mad if they were led by their emotions.
The media jumped on it because they love any kind of dirt they can get,
especially Christian dirt. As Christians they believe that God favors
morality and disfavors immorality. What they said wasn't politically correct
and by implying a call to morality it infuriated the secularists. Thay also
blamed immorality for hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, etc. and that did
get some press but didn't have quite the emotional appeal of 911.

I find it ironic that people respond so emotionally over these issues.
A Muslim, Hindu or Christian can say whatever they want but If I don't
believe in it I'm certainly not going to get worked up over it. I prefer to
get worked up over the ones who commit violent acts.

"Nate Perkins"
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > "Nate Perkins"
> >
> > > I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
> > > future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
> > > me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
> > > close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
> > > the contrary.
> >
> >
> > You don't suppose there's other factors involved? Like expenditures?
> > Why do you refuse to look at government spending?


> If you look at my other posts in this thread I think you will agree
> that I am very willing to look at government spending. It is way too
> high. I am a fiscal conservative and would love to see smaller
> government. What boggles me is that so many guys who claim to be
> fiscal conservatives are still willing to support George Bush,
> although he has increased government spending far worse than "Slick
> Willie." He's as bad as a "Liberal Democrat" on this.



As I mentioned before the military has absorbed much of the expense
while Bill reduced it so I would not go as far as to say he's as bad but
fiscal conservatives generally support Bush because the alternative is
the most liberal senator in the house with the track record to prove it.



> > > Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
> > > cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
> > > of deficit growth.Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
> > > GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
> > > his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.


> > Deficit growth sounds alot like spending too much money to me.
> > Reagan, like Bush, had to also spend heavily on the military.


> Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
> government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
> two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.


That's your opinion. We'll see what the next four years in office brings.
I still don't know what Kerry would do to make things better. Are we
supposed to believe he'll be different than he was his whole political life?


> > > Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
> > > debt.

> > He's trying too hard to please too many people in my view. Nobody wants
> > their favorite program cut. Your challenge is to explain how Kerry will make
> > things better. So far I've heard zip from either you or him.


> We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
> predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
> guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
> reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
> tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
> subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
> am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.


A true conservative isn't going to reject Bush and endorse Kerry. Kerry
isn't going to spend less no matter how much you dislike George W.



> Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
> Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
> more than about real issues.


It's all over every news source I've seen. If Kerry was so out front with
specifics, where are they. It isn't enough to say "I am for good things
and better economies and more peace blah blah blah."


> Still, Google is your friend. Or you
> can go to the source at
> http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html



The web site doesn't explain how cutting 98 percent of people's taxes
will balance the budget or pay for education. The website is politically optimistic
of Kerry and hostile of Bush but vague on details. Surely a reasonable mind
would be skeptical. Corporations are made up of shareholders. They pay taxes
like everyone else. Please explain how punishing corporations is going to create
jobs, decrease deficits or pay for anything? The point of view is typical of liberal
ideology where it sees monies as a finite source that needs to be distributed by
government, over achievers need to face increasingly difficult financial hurdles while
under achievers need to be compensated in the interests of "fairness". It doesn't work.
It's juvenile at best and deceptive at worst. It's all about class envy and thinking
the rich guy won life's lottery and cheated you out of your fair share. Democrats
that promote it are being highly irresponsible. Fiscally conservative Democrats
are watching their party march further and further away from them. Ask Zel Miller
or any number of Democrat office holders supporting Bush this year. Do you really
think John F. Kennnedy would have a home in todays Democratic party? You
are kidding yourself if you think so, no fiscally conservative Democrat was invited to
speak. To those who follow the liberal leaders of today they dislike Bush because
they think he's moved his party far right but in reality it's their leaders who have
been moving further and further left.

"Nate Perkins"
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
>
> > As I mentioned before the military has absorbed much of the expense
> > while Bill reduced it so I would not go as far as to say he's as bad but
> > fiscal conservatives generally support Bush because the alternative is
> > the most liberal senator in the house with the track record to prove it.


> Bah, liberal, conservative, libertarian -- who cares? It's a matter
> of judgement and track record. Bush has none. Introducing Clinton
> (as you guys are wont to do) doesn't change all of Bush's failures.


I mentioned Clinton to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Bush's
authorized early out in the Guard while overlooking Clinton's draft
dodging. Bush has a pretty good track record considering the circumstances.
You are welcome to believe what you want too.



> Of course you guys don't think the economy,


Sure do. It's been discussed at length here.



>Abu Ghraib,


The hand full of soldiers are being prosecuted. But I fail to understand
how it was worse than Saddam's prisons. Please explain.


> Iraq,


We've been over that too. Apparently if you disagree with something said
it never happened.


> alienation of our allies,


Sure. We should have been more like Germany, France and Russia, selling
arms against UN sanctions to Iraq. No hypocrisy there either.



>etc etc are really a failure so you may not
> understand this subtle point.


I disagree with your political polemics. Do you understand that?



> > > Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
> > > government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
> > > two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.


> > That's your opinion. We'll see what the next four years in office brings.
> > I still don't know what Kerry would do to make things better. Are we
> > supposed to believe he'll be different than he was his whole political life?


> Opinion? You don't think Reagan raised taxes? Or Bush I? What were
> their reasons?


Kerry is promising many TRILLIONS in new spending. Please explain
how that is a good alternative if you think Bush spends too much.



> You don't know what Kerry might do to make things better unless you
> bother to listen to anything the other side says or face the reality
> that Bush has made some real screwups. I doubt you are prepared to do
> either.



I understand quite well when he's specific. Which ain't often.


> > > We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
> > > predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
> > > guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
> > > reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
> > > tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
> > > subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
> > > am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.


> > A true conservative isn't going to reject Bush and endorse Kerry. Kerry
> > isn't going to spend less no matter how much you dislike George W.


> If your definition of a conservative is someone who gives knee-jerk
> support to Bush, then you are right. Most people have a different
> opinion of what a conservative is, though.


Must be why they have a majority in the House and Senate as well as the
White House. I wonder why so many liberals are voting them in office then.


> > > Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
> > > Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
> > > more than about real issues.


> > It's all over every news source I've seen. If Kerry was so out front with
> > specifics, where are they? It isn't enough to say "I am for good things
> > and better economies and more peace blah blah blah."


> Google is your friend. I would post another link but someone else
> here would add a snide comment about how it is so obvious.


I need to Google to find out what Kerry stands for?



> > > Still, Google is your friend. Or you
> > > can go to the source at
> > > http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html


> > The web site doesn't explain how cutting 98 percent of people's taxes
> > will balance the budget or pay for education.


> You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
> poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
> costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.


The poor don't pay income taxes do they? I don't think you really give a flip
about the deficit, you just want to dip your hands into the evil rich pocketbook.

"Nate Perkins"

> > > Bah, liberal, conservative, libertarian -- who cares? It's a matter
> > > of judgement and track record. Bush has none. Introducing Clinton
> > > (as you guys are wont to do) doesn't change all of Bush's failures.


> > I mentioned Clinton to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Bush's
> > authorized early out in the Guard while overlooking Clinton's draft
> > dodging. Bush has a pretty good track record considering the circumstances.
> > You are welcome to believe what you want too.


> Ah, Clinton again! Okay, now that *Clinton* has been raised as an
> issue, I am definitely convinced.


No, you definitely avoided the issue.



> > > Of course you guys don't think the economy,

> > Sure do. It's been discussed at length here.


> Sure do what? Think Bush is doing a great job with the economy?
> Think we're just cooking right along?


I don't know how much more you expect. I'd say you aren't realistic.



> > >Abu Ghraib,


> > The hand full of soldiers are being prosecuted. But I fail to understand
> > how it was worse than Saddam's prisons. Please explain.


> Well, as long as Bush's prisons are better than *Saddam's* then I will
> vote for him! Wow ... you sure do have high standards.


Wow back. I'd rather be jailed during the Bush presidency than in Saddam's
hands, you bet.



> > > Iraq,


> > We've been over that too. Apparently if you disagree with something said
> > it never happened.


> What part never happened? Nearly 1000 casualties and $150 billion, to
> wage a war to contain WMDs that still can't be found?


No, that was only one reason. As I pointed out your brain cannot
accept information that rubs up against it's mindset. Again, everyone
thought he had them, he sure wanted them to. I wouldn't want to wait
for him to have them for certain, then send the troops in.


> Nearly 1000
> casualties and $150 billion, because Saddam backed the 9/11 terrorists
> (uh, although he didn't)?


No one said he did. That's another example of a mental malfunction.


> > > alienation of our allies,


> > Sure. We should have been more like Germany, France and Russia, selling
> > arms against UN sanctions to Iraq. No hypocrisy there either.


> Those alliances worked for Reagan. They worked for Bush I. They
> worked ever since Truman. So why couldn't Dubya make it work?


That also was discussed but didn't make it past your filters.


>Could
> it be that Dubya stinks at diplomacy?


He tried it for 8 or 9 months with Saddam. Could it be that Saddam stinks?



> Could it be that Dubya was
> wrong about the WMDs and other countries didn't believe? No no -- it
> must have been French backstabbing! Bring on the Freedom Fries.



Well, Saddam did use them on his own citizens. Perhaps you could tell us
where they went. No? I didn't think so.


> > >etc etc are really a failure so you may not
> > > understand this subtle point.

> > I disagree with your political polemics. Do you understand that?

> I understand that your post proves my point.


My post proves your hysteria, propaganda and misinformation is true?
Another brain fart!


> > > Opinion? You don't think Reagan raised taxes? Or Bush I? What were
> > > their reasons?


> > Kerry is promising many TRILLIONS in new spending. Please explain
> > how that is a good alternative if you think Bush spends too much.


> Now you are changing the subject. As previously stated, the idea that
> deficit=revenue-expenditure is not opinion, it's fact. The fact that
> Reagan and Bush I raised taxes is not opinion, it's also fact.


You are avoiding the point because of your mindblock. You want to oust
Bush because of spending and hire a man that promises to do more.
That's illogical.



> On your new topic,


: )


>you want to say that Kerry will be less fiscally
> responsible than Bush, and you are shouting about "TRILLIONS" although
> trillions are what Bush's tax cuts have cost to the deficit, and his
> spending increases have also cost trillions. The truth is that this
> "conservative" Bush has increased federal spending more than any
> modern president Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or even Clinton.


...and Kerry wants to do more.



> You want to say that Kerry will be worse, but based on Bush's actual
> performance it seems unlikely that anyone is likely to do much worse.



It seems that way to you because of your political bias, not fact.



> Bush is in a league of his own when it comes to miserably failed
> fiscal performance. He's worse than a Liberal!


I want less spending but Kerry and the ambulance chaser isn't the answer.


> > > You don't know what Kerry might do to make things better unless you
> > > bother to listen to anything the other side says or face the reality
> > > that Bush has made some real screwups. I doubt you are prepared to do
> > > either.

> > I understand quite well when he's specific. Which ain't often.


> You haven't looked for it, then. Both the campaigns of course have
> policy briefs on their web sites. Why don't you take a look at both
> and see which you think is most specific?


Kerry says he'll spend us into prosperity. When has that happened?



> > > > A true conservative isn't going to reject Bush and endorse Kerry. Kerry
> > > > isn't going to spend less no matter how much you dislike George W.


> > > If your definition of a conservative is someone who gives knee-jerk
> > > support to Bush, then you are right. Most people have a different
> > > opinion of what a conservative is, though.


> > Must be why they have a majority in the House and Senate as well as the
> > White House. I wonder why so many liberals are voting them in office then.


> Heh, by your definition any "true" conservative must endorse Bush and
> vote an all Republican ticket for Congress. And any Republican must
> of course be a "true" conservative. What a novel idea. Someone ought
> to tell Zell Miller and John McCain about this.


Yes, they generally take the conservative side. Your point was...?



> > I need to Google to find out what Kerry stands for?


> No, you already have your perceptions fully formed, and I seriously
> doubt you would bother to verify them. You just want to go on with
> circular one-line responses without providing data to support any of
> your claims.


Your concept of providing data is telling someone to go google on Kerry.
Obviously you are bluffing so how can I change my opinion?



> > > > > Still, Google is your friend. Or you
> > > > > can go to the source at
> > > > > http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html


> > > > The web site doesn't explain how cutting 98 percent of people's taxes
> > > > will balance the budget or pay for education.


> > > You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
> > > poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
> > > costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.


> > The poor don't pay income taxes do they? I don't think you really give a flip
> > about the deficit, you just want to dip your hands into the evil rich pocketbook.


> Oh, yeah, you found me out! ROFL. How do you know what my tax
> bracket is???


You are endorsinng a man that wants to increase spending so deficits
are not your true interests.


> What about Warren Buffett, who's endorsed John Kerry? D'ya suppose
> he's just looking for a welfare handout, too?


Yes. For us, the dumb helpless children of the state.

"Nate Perkins"
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > "Nate Perkins"
> >
> > > > > Bah, liberal, conservative, libertarian -- who cares? It's a matter
> > > > > of judgement and track record. Bush has none. Introducing Clinton
> > > > > (as you guys are wont to do) doesn't change all of Bush's failures.
> >
> > > > I mentioned Clinton to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Bush's
> > > > authorized early out in the Guard while overlooking Clinton's draft
> > > > dodging. Bush has a pretty good track record considering the circumstances.
> > > > You are welcome to believe what you want too.
> >
> > > Ah, Clinton again! Okay, now that *Clinton* has been raised as an
> > > issue, I am definitely convinced.

> > No, you definitely avoided the issue.



> Since you insist that Iraq, the economy, Abu Ghraib, the deficit, etc
> etc are not really problems or that Bush has no responsiblity for any
> of these issues, then there seems to be little purpose in continuing
> this dull circular discussion.


They are problems that are being handled, as we have discussed.
You are trying to make the most of them to get rid of Bush for
whatever your personal reasons are, without offering an alternative
based on anything but that you want to get rid of Bush. That's the circular
argument and it isn't mine.


> If anyone else is interested in why moderates and conservatives can be
> thoroughly disgusted with Bush, check out this article by a
> conservative writer in Slate:
>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2106025/#ContinueArticle


Anyone can write an article. How effective or accurate it is is a different matter.
Let's look at this analysis as an example :


"Instead, Schwarzenegger resorts to the very unconservative tactic of inventing
excuses. "America's economy is moving ahead in spite of the recession [Bush]
inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland," he says. Actually, the pace
of growth has slowed again in recent months. And if every president can blame a
bad economy on his predecessor, even three years after he has reversed the
predecessor's policies, then no president is accountable."


First of all, his economic facts are suspect. What his source? Why wasn't it
mentioned since his opinion piece rests so heavily on it? A little over a month
ago Greenspan said:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040720-024304-1832r.htm
"Not only has economic activity quickened, but the expansion has
become more broad-based and has produced notable gains in
employment," Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in
his carefully worded semiannual address to Congress following
the Fed's review of monetary policy."

Secondly, did he blame Clinton or say he stepped into office during a recession?
There's a big difference. This author plays fast and loose with facts and
conclusions. Thirdly, there were many more factors involved in the post 911
economy. The author seems to be unaware although it's been talked about at length,
including by Bush.

He goes on to claim the war in Iraq is counter to conservatism. The fact that
most conservatives support it again escaped the author's notice. I could go
on an on but what for? You believe in propaganda and misinformation.
When you see something that feeds your prejudice you assume it's fact without
so much as a brief investigation or analysis of your own.

WD babbles:

>> One simple question. 1. How does one obtain 3 purple hearts in 4 months
>>of combat service, yet not lose a single duty day nor spend any time in the
>>hospital?
>
>http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php
>
>....or on Friday night night Michelle Malkin claimed that Kerry shoot himself
>during the Vietnam war..... and William Rood, a Tribune editor who served in
>Vietnam alongside John Kerry (left), stepped forward today to dispute attacks
>challenging Kerry's war record.
>
>Kerry must be a damn liar?
>

Someone is not exactly truthful, that's for certain. Given the lack of solid
proof possible in either direction, I'd point the finger at the people who
instigated this morass.

Loved the cartoon in the Roanoke Times yesterday: showed a swift boat at speed,
towing 2 water skiers. The header noted that the swift boat was one man's
contribution to 'Nam, while the water skiers, Bush & Cheney, did nothing.

Think about it. Cheney had either five or seven exemptions from the draft yet
has temerity to sneer at Kerry's contribution.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> None of this would matter one whit if Kerry and his campaign hadn't
> started using his three purple hearts and silver star as a centerpiece of
> his campaign

BINGO!

On 25 Aug 2004 12:29:52 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> For
> similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> increases while not providing spending stimulation.

I don't know about you, Nate, but I cashed that check and spent it.
Sounds pretty much like it provided at least some "spending
stimulation". I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that regard either.

> Yeah, the economy
> may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.

I do too, and I don't see what you're seeing.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
>
>> delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
>> by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
>> income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
>> result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .
>
>The whole business of free lunches is a relative issue. Nobody likes
>the idea of a lazy welfare recipient. On the other hand, I've seen a
>proud bricklayer crushed because he had to accept food stamp
>assistance. It didn't look like he was getting a free lunch to me.
>YMMV.

Nothing "relative" about it -- when someone is given something that he has not
earned, it's a free lunch. And there is *nothing* in the Constitution that
authorizes the government to take money from the pocket of one American, and
give it to another American. Nothing.
>
>> >My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
>> >that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
>> >for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
>> >long run.
>>
>> Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
>> Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
>> on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
>> the President.
>
>No, on the contrary ... the President is responsible to submit the
>budget, and his budget proposal begins the Congressional budget
>process. In addition, he must either approve it or veto it. There's
>a good summary of the responsibilities for the budget process at
>http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20175.pdf

Again -- check the Constitution. It does *not* require the President to submit
a budget

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On 24 Aug 2004 18:14:40 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

... snip
>>
>> ... said vet was greatly suprised about the content of
>> the citation. He thought he had received the citation for his jumping in
>> the water and working to save the boat hit by the mine. He did not see the
>> citation as it was written and disputes the contents of the citation that
>> says there was intense enemy fire.
>
>But this makes clear the fact that whether or not there was enemy
>fire is not relevant. Thus the criticism that there was no enemy
>fire is not relevant and therefor dishonest.
>

You are confusing awards here. The purple heart requires injuries
inflicted in the presence of enemy fire (the exception you mention noted).
The boat *was* hit by a mine, that counts as enemy fire; the second vet's
actions were a result of that enemy action and were certainly valourous.
What surprised him was that the citation indicated that they were under
"intense enemy fire from both banks", this is what he indicates was untrue.


>It is clear that there was much confusion in that incident. Those
>who concluded there was no enemy fire and those who concluded there
>was, may be equally honest. But those who attribute to Kerry,
>statements made in reports by others, are plainly dishonest.
>

Where is your evidence that others made those statements in the reports?
It is possible that the report for the second vet's citation was taken
verbatim from the report for Kerry's citation -- that doesn't provide any
citation of original authorship.

>In particular, the man Kerry pulled from the water says he was thrown
>into the water by a second explosion, after the mine explosion, and
>shots were fired at him while he was in the water.
>

The man had been thrown in the water and was potentially disoriented.
The swift boats indicated that they did fire into the banks to suppress any
potential fire that they were afraid might take place. It is highly likely
the guy in the water mistook the fire from the boats for incoming fire
while he was trying to get himself oriented.


>I rather hope that was NOT freindly fire.
>
>>
>> >> Those vets have nothing to gain from the stand they are taking, many of
>> >> them have served highly distinguished careers and are risking reputations
>> >> by coming forward publicly to what is a heavily Kerry favoring media (as
>> >> evidence of this, these people approached the media months ago with this
>> >> information but couldn't even get an interview.
>> >
>> >I think they are retaliating for Kerry's anti-war activity.
>
>And I'll add that the present administration, protestations aside,
>undoubtbly appreciates their efforts. Having this on their resume
>might prove highly advantageous in the future. Of course that swings
>both ways.
>
>>
>>
>> Accusations of lying aside, don't you think that they might be just a
>> little bit miffed with a person who served with them for less than 4
>> months, then returned to the states and accused them of committing war
>> atrocities, then 35 years later attempting to run on his war record as a
>> war hero and involving them by using pictures of them in those ads?
>
>As I said above, I think that is their point of view. I don't know
>how many would or have gone as far as lying though.

Again, the accusation that all of those men are lying.

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
> news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
> debt are not a tax cut. They are a loan that you are taking out to
> help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts. Shifting the
> tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy, because it lowers
> consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
> similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
> may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.
>
Tax cuts are only a loan if you assume the government had a right to my
money in the first place. That makes you a socialist, or, at the least, a
liberal Democrat.

I would think that a $600 tax rebate is much more influential to the
spending of a "middle-class" earner than to someone like Dick Cheney. I'd
be surprised if he even noticed that his butler deposited the check in (one
of) his (many) account(s).

If you've noticed, interest rates are as low as they've ever been, so your
assessment crumbles. The "economy" that existed in the '90s was based on
the dot-com revolution, which proved to be about as real as paper money and
as substantial as the Social Security Trust Fund. Would you like to go back
to that situation? Unemployment is lower, by all accounts. I thought you
said you pay attention?

> I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
> not after 9/11 happened on his watch?). I also give Clinton some
> credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
> administration). I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
> enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
> and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
> commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
> for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
> centerpiece in the war on terror.
>

I don't see Iraq as a bungling mess, at all. We've deposed a tyrant, and we
are cautiously installing a democratically-elected government in a region in
which it is historically unwanted. It's happening much faster than it did
in the US, over 200 years ago, and I don't hear you complaining about that
bungling mess. How would you go about democratizing the Middle East? Or,
would you just let it continue to fester, the way Clinton did?

> I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "the adminstration was
> behind it", but I agree that their policies have been ineffective,
> their statements have been misleading, and their general performance
> has been poor. Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic you look at.
>
How about we look at the statistic that records the frequency and severity
of terrorist attacks in the US since September 11, 2001? Batting a
thousand, ain't we? Maybe we should look at the statistic that indicates
the number of Middle Eastern countries still governed by tyrants? It's
declining, isn't it? Which statistics _are_ you looking at?

> What do you define as lefty hate books and films? I watch CNN and Fox
> News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
> Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
> Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
> Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
> Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
> am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.

Left hate books and films would be anything from Al Franken or Michael
Moore. I thought you said you pay attention?

--
Kevin
-=#=-

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>
>>You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
>>kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
>>security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
>>To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.
>
>
> I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
> delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
> by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
> income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
> result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .
>
> [snip]
>
>>My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
>>that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
>>for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
>>long run.
>
>
> Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
> Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
> on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
> the President.


It makes no difference. Bush signed those bills. Unless Congress
used its veto override in these matters Bush is just as culpable for the
irresponsible spending as the Congress Critters.

He's the latests of the Big Time Spenders and has Socialist spending
instincts that mirror FDRs...

> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Nate Perkins wrote:

<SNIP>

> You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
> kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
> security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
> To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.
>
> I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
> (if you could find one).

Again - you need help with the math. Approximately 50% of
the Federal Budget has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "national
security and a stable government". Simply by phasing out
Social Security (privatizing it) and by eliminating all the other
entitlements with the stroke of a pen, you could reduce federal
taxation a corresponding 50%. The objection is not to
taxation per se - it is to taxation as a vehicle for wealth
redistribution far beyond any congressional mandate.

>
>
>>>conservative group would you trust for verification of this idea?
>>>Check out the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, both are
>>
>>Cato is NOT a "Conservative" group by any definition. They just don't
>>lay down for the Idiot Left (Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al)
>
>
> Wow, you don't think Cato is a conservative thinktank? I wonder what
> you think is conservative then?


The are a _Libertarian_ think tank - considerably different than
Conservatives on many, many issues. So, no, I don't "think" they
are Conservative.

<SNIP>

> I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
> I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
> Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
> times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
> class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or

I LOVE that idea. I am middle class, and the total Federal tax burden
I carry (income + sin taxes + gasoline taxes + excise taxes + ???) is
likely well north of 40%.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>
>You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
>poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
>costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.

A tax cut applied to those who pay little or no tax, obviously has little or
no impact of any kind, on the deficit or on anything else.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
fairly comical point.

To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
record to run on, the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
believe it.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate Perkins"
> > All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
> > fairly comical point.
>
> > To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
> > tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
> > record to run on,
>
> Have you been in a coma? Tax cuts, economy bouncing back,
> terrorism averted at home since 9/11, for starters. Thats a pretty
> good record. Gore would probably still be wringing his hands.

On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
debt are not a tax cut. They are a loan that you are taking out to
help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts. Shifting the
tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy, because it lowers
consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.

I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
not after 9/11 happened on his watch?). I also give Clinton some
credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
administration). I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
centerpiece in the war on terror.

> >the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
> > mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
> > believe it.
>
> I'd say the ignorance comes from those who believe the administration
> was behind it and yet, said had nothing to say about the mud slinging
> from all the lefty hate books and films.

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "the adminstration was
behind it", but I agree that their policies have been ineffective,
their statements have been misleading, and their general performance
has been poor. Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic you look at.

What do you define as lefty hate books and films? I watch CNN and Fox
News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 25 Aug 2004 12:29:52 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For
> > similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> > recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> > increases while not providing spending stimulation.
>
> I don't know about you, Nate, but I cashed that check and spent it.
> Sounds pretty much like it provided at least some "spending
> stimulation". I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that regard either.

Yes, I agree that the child tax credit refund checks were stimulative.
No question. But let's put this in context: the child tax credits
benefited about 26 million tax filers with an average check of $615.
Total cost was $16 billion. Taxpayers earning over $1M (0.1percent of
households, or 184,000 beneficiaries) received at total of $17billion
in cuts, an average check of $93,500. This comes from
http://www.cbpp.org/7-31-03tax.htm ... which I admit is left-leaning.
However, a similar report by the President's own supposedly neutral
Congressional Budget Office shows that the tax burden is
preferentially benefiting the very wealthy, and the relative tax
burden is shifting to the middle class:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut/

Philosophy aside on whether or not the middle class or the rich
deserve a bigger cut, it's still worth noting that all of these cuts
are coming directly out of the national debt. These are a tax cut
fully borrowed against the debt, and most of it does go to the
wealthy.

> > Yeah, the economy
> > may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> > that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> > inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> > high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.
>
> I do too, and I don't see what you're seeing.

Glad you are prospering. Many others are not. Neutral statistics
clearly show that this recovery is tepid at best.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:

> > On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
> > news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
> > debt are not a tax cut.
>
>
> That's false reasoning. If tax cuts help the economy the deficit is
> reduced as well.

Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
help it.

> > They are a loan that you are taking out to
> > help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.
>
> Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?

Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
We can't afford it, though.

> >Shifting the
> > tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> > GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,
>
> That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
> distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
> government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
> recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
> history proves. That's bad economics!

Not liberal hysteria. Reports of the President's own economists.

You are right that government is growing. Tax revenues are also
decreasing. A sure recipe for deficit. The current deficit is
upwards of 20% of all federal expenditures. Caused by growing
government, growing entitlements, and cutting tax revenues.

> > because it lowers
> > consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
> > similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> > recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> > increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
> > may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> > that existed in the 90's.
>
> You are overlooking the dot com hot air balloon for one thing...several
> wars...911, etc.

9/11 isn't the excuse for everything. It didn't cause the tax cuts.
It didn't cause the retroactive refunds to AMT. It didn't cause the
expansion of Medicare prescription drug benefits. It didn't cause the
expansion of farm subsidies, etc. It maybe did arguably cause
Homeland Security, but even most conservatives would agree that
Homeland Security is a bloated bureaucracy.

> >Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> > inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> > high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.
>
> I have a news flash for you. The whole world has been in a recession.

Yes, and as the leader of the world's economy we have a fair role in
how that global recession goes.

> > I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
> > not after 9/11 happened on his watch?).
>
> I guess he could ignore it like Clinton?

You are suggesting that Clinton would have ignored terrorism after
9/11? That's preposterous. You are suggesting that Clinton ignored
terrorism before 9/11? That's refuted by many sources, including the
9/11 commission.

> >I also give Clinton some
> > credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
> > administration).
>
> Some guards got lucky and that's good enough for you?

To fail to reasonably assign blame and credit is really just
transparent partisanship.

> >I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
> > enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
> > and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
> > commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
> > for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
> > centerpiece in the war on terror.
>
>
> Where's the homefield attacks since 911? Seems like it worked pretty
> well. I agree there's room for improvement but the U.S. occupied Germany
> and Japan with much heavier losses.

Where were they before 9/11? Do you really think the country is
prepared and do you think we have done all we can/should do? I don't.

> > > >the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
> > > > mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
> > > > believe it.
>
>
> > > I'd say the ignorance comes from those who believe the administration
> > > was behind it and yet, said had nothing to say about the mud slinging
> > > from all the lefty hate books and films.
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "the adminstration was
> > behind it", but I agree that their policies have been ineffective,
> > their statements have been misleading, and their general performance
> > has been poor. Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic you look at.
>
> Only if your brain has been crippled by left wing hate propaganda.

Wow, your impeccable reasoning has got me there.

> > What do you define as lefty hate books and films?
>
> There's been quite a few as of late, calling Bush a traitor, murderer, etc.
> Moore's movie is filled with slander, doesn't seem to bother the lefties.
> If Kerry's contemporaries come out 10 to 1 against Kerry's version
> of events, it's Bush's fault. That's how propaganda works and it sounds
> like you bought it hook, line and sinker.

Yeah, I do think some lefties go over the top. Some Bushies do, too.
But there's a difference between propaganda and actually paying
attention to current events.

> >I watch CNN and Fox
> > News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
> > Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
> > Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
> > Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
> > Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
> > am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.
>
> Show me where I said that. That will reveal the real problem here.

I think if you read the above you will see several references you made
to only being able to draw these conclusions if you are paying
attention to "lefty" hate books, films, and propaganda.

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
> > news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
> > debt are not a tax cut. They are a loan that you are taking out to
> > help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts. Shifting the
> > tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> > GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy, because it lowers
> > consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
> > similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> > recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> > increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
> > may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> > that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> > inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> > high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.
> >
> Tax cuts are only a loan if you assume the government had a right to my
> money in the first place. That makes you a socialist, or, at the least, a
> liberal Democrat.

Understanding that you have to pay for government makes you a
socialist? Wow. Which part of government should come for free --
national defense, service on the national debt, fire and police
protection, trial by jury, federal currency?

> I would think that a $600 tax rebate is much more influential to the
> spending of a "middle-class" earner than to someone like Dick Cheney. I'd
> be surprised if he even noticed that his butler deposited the check in (one
> of) his (many) account(s).

Yes, tax cuts to the middle and lower class tend to be immediately
spent, and therefore they are more immediately stimulative to the
economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not spent as quickly, and may
be stimulative in the long run depending on which economic theory you
believe in. Recently it does not seem to be working very well.

> If you've noticed, interest rates are as low as they've ever been, so your
> assessment crumbles. The "economy" that existed in the '90s was based on
> the dot-com revolution, which proved to be about as real as paper money and
> as substantial as the Social Security Trust Fund. Would you like to go back
> to that situation? Unemployment is lower, by all accounts. I thought you
> said you pay attention?

Look, there are two primary economic levers: fiscal policy and
monetary policy. The government controls the first with spending and
taxation. The Fed controls the second by trying to manipulate the
short term interest rate. Both are influencing the same variable, the
monetary supply. Deficit spending increases the debt, which increases
long term interest rates. Most economists (from both sides) estimate
the current level of debt as adding a couple of points to the
effective long term rate of interest. The Fed rate is now at, what,
1.5%? Surely you have noticed that you can't take out a long term
loan at 1.5%?

The economy in the 90's was (for the most part) a fairly solid
economy. It was achieved by moderate economic growth coupled with
overall growth in worker productivity and modest gains in wages. Yes,
the dot-com bubble which came later was in large part artificial, but
it would be misleading to attribute all of the prosperity of the 90's
to the dot com bubble. A lot of it was real gains in worker
productivity, consumption, and corporate profits.

Do you really think unemployment is lower now than it was during most
of the 90's?

> > I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
> > not after 9/11 happened on his watch?). I also give Clinton some
> > credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
> > administration). I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
> > enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
> > and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
> > commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
> > for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
> > centerpiece in the war on terror.
> >
>
> I don't see Iraq as a bungling mess, at all. We've deposed a tyrant, and we
> are cautiously installing a democratically-elected government in a region in
> which it is historically unwanted. It's happening much faster than it did
> in the US, over 200 years ago, and I don't hear you complaining about that
> bungling mess. How would you go about democratizing the Middle East? Or,
> would you just let it continue to fester, the way Clinton did?

Opinions will differ as to whether Iraq has become a bungling mess.
All polls show that the majority of Americans now think it was a
mistake. No WMDs. No 9/11 links. Personally, I think it was a huge
mistake. Even Pat Buchanan, who is quite conservative, calls it a
worse mistake than Vietnam.

> > I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "the adminstration was
> > behind it", but I agree that their policies have been ineffective,
> > their statements have been misleading, and their general performance
> > has been poor. Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic you look at.
> >
> How about we look at the statistic that records the frequency and severity
> of terrorist attacks in the US since September 11, 2001? Batting a
> thousand, ain't we? Maybe we should look at the statistic that indicates
> the number of Middle Eastern countries still governed by tyrants? It's
> declining, isn't it? Which statistics _are_ you looking at?

Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic for economic growth, crime
rate, size of government, deficit spending, education, etc.

Your slogan for reelection seems to be "Vote for Bush, at least he
didn't let 9/11 happen twice." I don't think it would do very well in
the general election, though.

> > What do you define as lefty hate books and films? I watch CNN and Fox
> > News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
> > Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
> > Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
> > Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
> > Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
> > am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.
>
> Left hate books and films would be anything from Al Franken or Michael
> Moore. I thought you said you pay attention?

Uh, ok ... whatever.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
> "Nate Perkins"
> > "Fletis Humplebacker"
...
> > Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
> > the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
> > short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
> > economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
> > unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
> > help it.
>
> That alot of speculation on your part. It assumes that the money belongs
> to the government in the first place.

The concept that long term deficits and sustained increasing debt is
harmful to the health of the economy is well established. What
conservative group would you trust for verification of this idea?
Check out the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, both are
fairly conservative and are vocal on this issue.

> > > > They are a loan that you are taking out to
> > > > help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.
> > >
> > > Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?
>
> > Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
> > We can't afford it, though.
>
> Says who?

You think we can afford another tax cut with the deficit currently
running at over 20% of all expenditures? With the debt going up the
way it is? I dunno, maybe all that balanced budget stuff is just
fuzzy math.

> > > >Shifting the
> > > > tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> > > > GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,
>
>
> > > That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
> > > distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
> > > government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
> > > recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
> > > history proves. That's bad economics!
>
> > Not liberal hysteria. Reports of the President's own economists.
>
> They said Bush had a bad economic policy and shifted the tax burden?

They said that Bush's policies have shifted more of the tax burden to
the middle class, and away from the upper class:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/ Whether or not you think this
is bad economic policy probably depends on whether or not you are
rich.

> > You are right that government is growing. Tax revenues are also
> > decreasing. A sure recipe for deficit.
>
> It's a sure recipe for spending less.

Oh, if only that were true! Shucks, if that were true then I might
even support more tax cuts. Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true
and Bush has been spending more on all fronts. Check out
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm398.cfm ... of course if you
think the Heritage Foundation is a liberal thinktank you might not be
convinced.

> >The current deficit is
> > upwards of 20% of all federal expenditures. Caused by growing
> > government, growing entitlements, and cutting tax revenues.
>
> And the only possible solution is to raise taxes?

Personally I think it would require a combination of tax "cut"
rollbacks coupled with pretty deep spending cuts. With the kind of
deficits we currently have, you would be hard pressed to get there
with spending cuts alone.

I do agree it would be encouraging to see a spending cut instead of a
spending increase, though. Haven't seen it in the last 3-1/2 years,
though.

> > > > because it lowers
> > > > consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
> > > > similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
> > > > recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
> > > > increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
> > > > may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
> > > > that existed in the 90's.
>
> > > You are overlooking the dot com hot air balloon for one thing...several
> > > wars...911, etc.
>
> > 9/11 isn't the excuse for everything.
>
> I just mentioned two others.

Well, in my opinion Iraq sure isn't an excuse either. I agree that
Afghanistan was necessary (even if we've done a dangerously incomplete
job there). The dot com bubble is contributory.

> >It didn't cause the tax cuts.
> > It didn't cause the retroactive refunds to AMT. It didn't cause the
> > expansion of Medicare prescription drug benefits. It didn't cause the
> > expansion of farm subsidies, etc. It maybe did arguably cause
> > Homeland Security, but even most conservatives would agree that
> > Homeland Security is a bloated bureaucracy.
>
> Like most government agencies. But your solution seems to be to keep
> feeding the increasing appetite of the hog.

How do you figure? I am a fiscal conservative. I'm disgusted by the
bloat in these government agencies and new departments. I'm disgusted
that Bush personally proposed or sponsored every single one of these
spending increases mentioned.

> > > >Unemployment is higher, real wages after
> > > > inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
> > > > high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.
>
> > > I have a news flash for you. The whole world has been in a recession.
>
> > Yes, and as the leader of the world's economy we have a fair role in
> > how that global recession goes.
>
> Oh, I see. Bush screwed up the world's economys. I guess being Satan is
> a demanding job.

Whatever. If you don't think that the US is the largest and most
influential economy in the world, then I doubt I can convince you.

> > > > I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
> > > > not after 9/11 happened on his watch?).
>
> > > I guess he could ignore it like Clinton?
>
> > You are suggesting that Clinton would have ignored terrorism after
> > 9/11? That's preposterous. You are suggesting that Clinton ignored
> > terrorism before 9/11?
>
> I'm not suggesting anything. The facts are that he did ignore terrorism.
> I doubt he would have after 911, one can escape responsibility for only so long.

You may want to go back and read the 9/11 commission's report on what
was done about terrorism by which administrations prior to 9/11.

> >That's refuted by many sources, including the
> > 9/11 commission.
>
> What did they say he did about terrorism?

Maybe you should go check it out for yourself. Might influence your
vote (naw, probably not).

> > > >I also give Clinton some
> > > > credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
> > > > administration).
>
> > > Some guards got lucky and that's good enough for you?
>
> > To fail to reasonably assign blame and credit is really just
> > transparent partisanship.
>
> What policy enacted by Clinton help prevent any millenium attack? I
> don't blame Clinton for that as hindsight is 20/20 but he did nothing
> of substance to thwart terrorism. Even after the first Trade Center
> bombing.

Ibid.

> > > >I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
> > > > enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
> > > > and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
> > > > commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
> > > > for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
> > > > centerpiece in the war on terror.
>
> > > Where's the homefield attacks since 911? Seems like it worked pretty
> > > well. I agree there's room for improvement but the U.S. occupied Germany
> > > and Japan with much heavier losses.
>
> > Where were they before 9/11? Do you really think the country is
> > prepared and do you think we have done all we can/should do? I don't.
>
> Who said we were? What would Kerry do to improve things over Bush,
> I wonder? Kissing French butt will only get us so far.

How about implement the 9/11 commission's recommendations? How about
make Homeland Security actually effective? How about finally fixing
fundamental communication problems between the CIA and FBI? How about
exercising a little judgement?

> > > > What do you define as lefty hate books and films?
>
> > > There's been quite a few as of late, calling Bush a traitor, murderer, etc.
> > > Moore's movie is filled with slander, doesn't seem to bother the lefties.
> > > If Kerry's contemporaries come out 10 to 1 against Kerry's version
> > > of events, it's Bush's fault. That's how propaganda works and it sounds
> > > like you bought it hook, line and sinker.
>
> > Yeah, I do think some lefties go over the top. Some Bushies do, too.
> > But there's a difference between propaganda and actually paying
> > attention to current events.
>
> The reporting often falls more into propaganda than illumination.

I guess you have to watch enough of it to make up your mind which is
credible or not.

> > > >I watch CNN and Fox
> > > > News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
> > > > Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
> > > > Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
> > > > Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
> > > > Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
> > > > am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.
>
> > > Show me where I said that. That will reveal the real problem here.
>
> > I think if you read the above you will see several references you made
> > to only being able to draw these conclusions if you are paying
> > attention to "lefty" hate books, films, and propaganda.
>
> I didn't say it but your talking points do sound familiar.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3022577679d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=10in37j383pla25%40corp.supernews.com

Last paragraph of your original post, in which you said "I'd say the
ignorance comes from those who believe the administration was behind
it and yet, said had nothing to say about the mud slinging from all
the lefty hate books and films." I see you edited that out of the
latest reply.

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Nate Perkins wrote:
>
> > "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
> >
> >>"Nate Perkins"
> >>
> >>>"Fletis Humplebacker"
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
> >>>the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
> >>>short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
> >>>economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
> >>>unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
> >>>help it.
> >>
> >>That alot of speculation on your part. It assumes that the money belongs
> >>to the government in the first place.
> >
> >
> > The concept that long term deficits and sustained increasing debt is
> > harmful to the health of the economy is well established. What
>
> 'Ol Fletis is right about one thing here. It *ain't* the government's
> money. The deficits are not primarily caused by tax reduction, they
> are primarily caused by the government spending money on the
> mooching-cause-of-the-moment with absolutely no self control, especially
> in an election cycle.

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.

I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
(if you could find one).

> > conservative group would you trust for verification of this idea?
> > Check out the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, both are
>
> Cato is NOT a "Conservative" group by any definition. They just don't
> lay down for the Idiot Left (Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al)

Wow, you don't think Cato is a conservative thinktank? I wonder what
you think is conservative then?

> > fairly conservative and are vocal on this issue.
>
> And the *Republicans* have sadly become the party of big spenders:
>
> http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/bush/factsfigs.html
>
> By any measure (absolute, incremental, per capita, inflation adjusted)
> the Bush administration has overseen more spending than any
> government in our history ... AND ... the military portion of it
> is rather minor. These so-called "right wing conservatives" has
> spend bagsfull of money on entitlement programs (drugs, farmers, etc.).
>
> The moochers have spoken...

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.

> >>>>>They are a loan that you are taking out to
> >>>>>help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.
> >>>>
> >>>>Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
> >>>We can't afford it, though.
> >>
> >>Says who?
> >
> >
> > You think we can afford another tax cut with the deficit currently
> > running at over 20% of all expenditures? With the debt going up the
> > way it is? I dunno, maybe all that balanced budget stuff is just
> > fuzzy math.
>
> You must have gone to a school with a lot of Outcome-Based Learning
> goals because the math isn't that hard here. We should all get a HUGE
> tax reduction by cutting the Federal Government back to it
> Constitutionally mandated tasks. That's right - you CAN reduce taxation
> and eliminate deficit simultaneously. The problem is not what the
> government takes in, it is what it SPENDS...

I'm not sure what Outcome-Based Learning is. You don't know me, so I
doubt you have any idea what my math background is. But like the
average person, I know red ink when I see it.

If you want to cut government first to pay for a tax cut, you'll get
no argument from me on that score. I just think that borrowed tax
cuts against the debt are dishonest.

> >>>>>Shifting the
> >>>>>tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> >>>>>GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,
> >>
> >>
> >>>>That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
> >>>>distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
> >>>>government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
> >>>>recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
> >>>>history proves. That's bad economics!
>
> >>>Not liberal hysteria. Reports of the President's own economists.
> >>
> >>They said Bush had a bad economic policy and shifted the tax burden?
> >
> >
> > They said that Bush's policies have shifted more of the tax burden to
> > the middle class, and away from the upper class:
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/ Whether or not you think this
> > is bad economic policy probably depends on whether or not you are
> > rich.
>
> This is a crock because the definition of "rich" is so fluid in these
> discussions. More to the point, why should a fractional proportion
> of the federal taxpayers (the so-called "rich") pick up a disproportionate
> amount of the taxes that everone ELSE get the benefit from. You want
> a "fair" system? Then support a flat VAT tax. Everyone pays the
> same _percentage_, but bigger spenders pay more in absolute terms.
> 'Course, if we had a flat federal sales tax and nothing else, the
> Congress Critters couldn't tinker with the Order Of Things to encourage
> young poor girls to have more out of wedlock children (future Idiot
> Liberals) or conversely to jam the morality-of-the-moment down
> the throats of the school children (future Self-Important Conservatives).

I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or
if you are very rich and want to see the middle class carrying more of
your tax load.

I know you will argue it will be less if you cut the size of
government (an idea I support entirely). But I don't think you should
confuse the separate issue of smaller government with other notions of
radical tax reform.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 26 Aug 2004 10:22:39 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
> wrote:
>
> >"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
> >
> >> > On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
> >> > news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
> >> > debt are not a tax cut.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's false reasoning. If tax cuts help the economy the deficit is
> >> reduced as well.
> >
> >Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
> >the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
> >short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
> >economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
> >unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
> >help it.
>
> You assume this is a zero-sum game. i.e. if less money is taken from the
> taxpayers, then less is available in the future for the government. The
> tax cuts enacted in the early '80s show the fallacy of this argument. The
> top tax rate was cut from 50% to 28% which should have resulted in a
> devastating loss of revenue for the tax coffers. What happened in reality
> was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
> in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
> ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
> by the tax cuts.

I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
the contrary.

Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
of deficit growth. Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.

Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
debt.

> >> > They are a loan that you are taking out to
> >> > help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.
> >>
> >> Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?
> >
> >Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
> >We can't afford it, though.
> >
>
> When WE can afford it? i.e. you believe that somehow you have a claim
> upon the fruits of the labors of someone else who happens to make more
> money than yourself?

You believe that somehow you have a claim upon only a *portion* of
government services? Which aircraft carrier is the one you bought?
Which section of road is the one that's yours? "We" is our nation.
"We" are all using these things, and "we" are all obligated to pay for
them.

> >> >Shifting the
> >> > tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
> >> > GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,
> >>
> >> That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
> >> distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
> >> government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
> >> recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
> >> history proves. That's bad economics!
> >
>
> As a percentage, the tax cuts benefited all taxpayers equally. The fact
> of the matter is that in 2001 (the latest data for which IRS figures are
> available):
> The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes yet
> only earns 86% of all income
> The top 10% of wage earners pay 65% of all federal income taxes yet
> only earns 43% of all income
> the top 5% of wage earners pay 53% of all federal income taxes yet
> only earns 32% of all income
>
> Now, regarding the argument that an increasing burden is being placed on
> middle class taxpayers from 2000:
> The top 50% of wage earners paid 96% of all federal income taxes
> yet only earned 87% of all income
> The top 10% of wage earners paid 67% of all federal income taxes
> yet earned 46% of all income
> the top 5% of wage earners paid 56% of all federal income taxes yet
> earned 35% of all income
>
> So, although the total burden to the top wage earners did go down, so did
> overall share of income. How can this be? I thought the rich kept getting
> richer under the Bush regime?

Data is available from 2003 that shows a different result. Otherwise
wouldn't you blame the 2000/2001 data on Clinton? I mean don't most
of your numbers precede most of Bush's tax "cuts"? Several links have
already been cited in other messages on this thread, but here it is
again: http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut/

... (remainder mercifully snipped) ...

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 24 Aug 2004 10:46:56 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
> wrote:
>
> >All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
> >fairly comical point.
> >
> >To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
> >tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
> >record to run on, the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
> >mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
> >believe it.
>
>
> What? I agree that this has come to a pretty comical point, but your
> post falls into the comedy of the absurd. Kerry is the guy who brought up
> his war record as a primary qualification for his ascension to the
> presidency. Kerry, since the beginning of the year was touting the fact
> that "he volunteerd for Vietnam", was "highly decorated", then returned
> home to "fight against the war he thought was unjust.
(snipped all the rest)

I don't have the time to answer all of the same essays from half a
dozen Bush supporters who still want to cling to the idea that the
stories of the Swift Boat guys hold water. I don't have time to
answer all of the same essays from guys who still believe in trickle
down economics and who think the size of government or the deficit has
shrunk under the Republicans. II don't have time to answer all the
same essays from guys who think we are better off having alienated all
of our allies with unilateral actions and who still believe WMDs might
really be out there.

You guys are part of the 30% core that will vote for Bush no matter
what he does, and no matter how things go. It might be a consolation
to know that even Herbert Hoover received 38.6% of the vote in 1932.

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am not a Republican - I can only recall voting that way once in my
> life. I am not fond of GWB II's actions as president, especially as
> regards to domestic policy and spending. Yet, I may actually vote for
> him this coming election. Why? Because the political Left in this
> country needs a severe spanking. It has become a craven, weak, immoral,
> and generally reprehensible political movement and I want nothing
> further to do with it.

Not everyone who opposes Bush is a Leftie. I have been a Republican
most of my life. There are millions of us.

> Within weeks of 9/11, we heard the Idiot Left talking about how it was
> "our fault" and that we needed to "understand Islamic pain" and so
> forth.

If you want to see something else that might make you mad, check out
what Falwell and Robertson had to say on the same topic:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm

As Falwell and Robertson show, stupidity can be a bipartisan trait.

(snipped the rest)

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
> delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
> by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
> income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
> result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

The whole business of free lunches is a relative issue. Nobody likes
the idea of a lazy welfare recipient. On the other hand, I've seen a
proud bricklayer crushed because he had to accept food stamp
assistance. It didn't look like he was getting a free lunch to me.
YMMV.

> >My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
> >that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
> >for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
> >long run.
>
> Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
> Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
> on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
> the President.

No, on the contrary ... the President is responsible to submit the
budget, and his budget proposal begins the Congressional budget
process. In addition, he must either approve it or veto it. There's
a good summary of the responsibilities for the budget process at
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20175.pdf

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nate Perkins wrote:
>
> > You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
> > kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
> > security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
> > To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.
> >
> > I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
> > (if you could find one).
>
> Again - you need help with the math. Approximately 50% of
> the Federal Budget has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "national
> security and a stable government". Simply by phasing out
> Social Security (privatizing it) and by eliminating all the other
> entitlements with the stroke of a pen, you could reduce federal
> taxation a corresponding 50%. The objection is not to
> taxation per se - it is to taxation as a vehicle for wealth
> redistribution far beyond any congressional mandate.

Hmm? http://www.truthandpolitics.org/2004-outlays-summary.php

Remember that the Social Security and Medicare expenditures don't come
from income tax, but instead come from payroll tax (which is a flat
tax).

The biggest slices are then military, medicaid and social welfare, and
service payments on the national debt.

...

> > I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
> > I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
> > Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
> > times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
> > class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or
>
> I LOVE that idea. I am middle class, and the total Federal tax burden
> I carry (income + sin taxes + gasoline taxes + excise taxes + ???) is
> likely well north of 40%.

Heh, no the 20-26% is just what would be required to offset your
*federal income tax*. The others would still be on top of that.
Still seem like a good idea?
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/gale/20040812.htm

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate Perkins"
>
> > I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
> > future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
> > me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
> > close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
> > the contrary.
>
>
> You don't suppose there's other factors involved? Like expenditures?
> Why do you refuse to look at government spending?

If you look at my other posts in this thread I think you will agree
that I am very willing to look at government spending. It is way too
high. I am a fiscal conservative and would love to see smaller
government. What boggles me is that so many guys who claim to be
fiscal conservatives are still willing to support George Bush,
although he has increased government spending far worse than "Slick
Willie." He's as bad as a "Liberal Democrat" on this.

> > Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
> > cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
> > of deficit growth.Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
> > GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
> > his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.
>
> Deficit growth sounds alot like spending too much money to me.
> Reagan, like Bush, had to also spend heavily on the military.

Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.

> > Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
> > debt.
>
> He's trying too hard to please too many people in my view. Nobody wants
> their favorite program cut. Your challenge is to explain how Kerry will make
> things better. So far I've heard zip from either you or him.

We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.

Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
more than about real issues. Still, Google is your friend. Or you
can go to the source at
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >
> >> I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
>
> >> delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
> >> by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
> >> income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
> >> result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .
> >
> >The whole business of free lunches is a relative issue. Nobody likes
> >the idea of a lazy welfare recipient. On the other hand, I've seen a
> >proud bricklayer crushed because he had to accept food stamp
> >assistance. It didn't look like he was getting a free lunch to me.
> >YMMV.
>
> Nothing "relative" about it -- when someone is given something that he has not
> earned, it's a free lunch. And there is *nothing* in the Constitution that
> authorizes the government to take money from the pocket of one American, and
> give it to another American. Nothing.

The relative part is simply that the value of the benefit depends on
whether or not you are receiving it. Of course you only want to pay
for the services you actually use, who doesn't? Of course you don't
like the idea of "welfare bums" -- who does? But the harsh reality is
that if you lost your job and if you had a serious illness (say
cancer) then you'd be darned glad you could get Medicare. Because the
"evil gubmint" would keep you from dying in a gutter somewhere. So,
relatively speaking when you don't need it, then it's worthless
welfare -- but if you did need it then it's a different story. That's
why it's relative.

Don't get me wrong -- I am *not* arguing for bigger government. In
fact I would love to see smaller, more efficient government. What I
am arguing is the original point that "it's not the government's
money." In fact people ought to understand that they have an
obligation to pay for the services they receive from the government,
just like they have to pay for everything else. If you want to see
smaller government and reduce the "free lunches" then vote for someone
who will do that (of course Dubya hasn't been exactly stellar in this
area).

You are quite right that there is nothing in the original Constitution
that allows for a federal income tax. It's instead covered in
Amendment 16. Of course, the Constitution itself, without all the
Amendments, is void of a lot of things that we now take as common
sense (for example, the Bill of Rights of course comprises the first
10 amendments).

> >> >My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
> >> >that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
> >> >for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
> >> >long run.
> >>
> >> Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
> >> Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
> >> on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
> >> the President.
> >
> >No, on the contrary ... the President is responsible to submit the
> >budget, and his budget proposal begins the Congressional budget
> >process. In addition, he must either approve it or veto it. There's
> >a good summary of the responsibilities for the budget process at
> >http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20175.pdf
>
> Again -- check the Constitution. It does *not* require the President to submit
> a budget

The link clearly points out the law requiring the President to submit
a budget proposal that starts the budget process in the House. This
refutes the original posted point that Congress, not the President, is
responsible for originating the budget.

Now if you want to say that only the items that are in the original
Constitution are valid points of law, I think you would be on very
shaky ground. How about the Bill of Rights? The Electoral College?
Abolishing slavery? The right of women to vote?

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:

> As I mentioned before the military has absorbed much of the expense
> while Bill reduced it so I would not go as far as to say he's as bad but
> fiscal conservatives generally support Bush because the alternative is
> the most liberal senator in the house with the track record to prove it.

Bah, liberal, conservative, libertarian -- who cares? It's a matter
of judgement and track record. Bush has none. Introducing Clinton
(as you guys are wont to do) doesn't change all of Bush's failures.

Of course you guys don't think the economy, Abu Ghraib, Iraq,
alienation of our allies, etc etc are really a failure so you may not
understand this subtle point.

> > Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
> > government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
> > two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.
>
> That's your opinion. We'll see what the next four years in office brings.
> I still don't know what Kerry would do to make things better. Are we
> supposed to believe he'll be different than he was his whole political life?

Opinion? You don't think Reagan raised taxes? Or Bush I? What were
their reasons?

You don't know what Kerry might do to make things better unless you
bother to listen to anything the other side says or face the reality
that Bush has made some real screwups. I doubt you are prepared to do
either.

> > We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
> > predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
> > guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
> > reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
> > tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
> > subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
> > am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.
>
> A true conservative isn't going to reject Bush and endorse Kerry. Kerry
> isn't going to spend less no matter how much you dislike George W.

If your definition of a conservative is someone who gives knee-jerk
support to Bush, then you are right. Most people have a different
opinion of what a conservative is, though.

> > Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
> > Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
> > more than about real issues.
>
>
> It's all over every news source I've seen. If Kerry was so out front with
> specifics, where are they. It isn't enough to say "I am for good things
> and better economies and more peace blah blah blah."

Google is your friend. I would post another link but someone else
here would add a snide comment about how it is so obvious.

> > Still, Google is your friend. Or you
> > can go to the source at
> > http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html
>
> The web site doesn't explain how cutting 98 percent of people's taxes
> will balance the budget or pay for education.

You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
> >
> >You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
> >poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
> >costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.
>
> A tax cut applied to those who pay little or no tax, obviously has little or
> no impact of any kind, on the deficit or on anything else.

Sigh. One more time.

When you give a tax cut to people who have little money on hand, they
tend to turn around and spend it. That's a stimulative tax cut. It
can have a large impact on pulling the economy out of a recession.

When you give a tax cut to rich folks, sometimes they spend a portion
of it and sometimes they save or invest it ... possibly stimulative in
the long run, depending on how much you believe in trickle down
economics. Certainly not very immediately stimulative in a recession.
It can actually be detrimental if it is coming at a large enough
expense to the debt.

Everyone will agree that the rich pay a lot more taxes than do the
poor. Therefore, a tax cut for the rich has a greater impact on the
overall deficit than does a tax cut for the middle class and poor.

Now the subjective part comes in when you suggest that everyone could
have lower taxes if we just cut government so that the "evil 'gubmint
doesn't get any more of my money." Most people agree that a leaner,
more efficient government would be a good thing. The main problem is
that the same leader that the conservatives look to (Bush) has just
expanded entitlements more than any president in the last 40 years.
As a moderate, this makes me think he's just irresponsible and lacks
credibility. So if you talk about smaller government and "getting
government off the people's backs" at the same time you are growing it
by leaps and bounds, do you really have credibility? Is Bush your
true conservative?

> > Bah, liberal, conservative, libertarian -- who cares? It's a matter
> > of judgement and track record. Bush has none. Introducing Clinton
> > (as you guys are wont to do) doesn't change all of Bush's failures.
>
> I mentioned Clinton to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Bush's
> authorized early out in the Guard while overlooking Clinton's draft
> dodging. Bush has a pretty good track record considering the circumstances.
> You are welcome to believe what you want too.

Ah, Clinton again! Okay, now that *Clinton* has been raised as an
issue, I am definitely convinced.

> > Of course you guys don't think the economy,
>
> Sure do. It's been discussed at length here.

Sure do what? Think Bush is doing a great job with the economy?
Think we're just cooking right along?

> >Abu Ghraib,
>
> The hand full of soldiers are being prosecuted. But I fail to understand
> how it was worse than Saddam's prisons. Please explain.

Well, as long as Bush's prisons are better than *Saddam's* then I will
vote for him! Wow ... you sure do have high standards.

> > Iraq,
>
> We've been over that too. Apparently if you disagree with something said
> it never happened.

What part never happened? Nearly 1000 casualties and $150 billion, to
wage a war to contain WMDs that still can't be found? Nearly 1000
casualties and $150 billion, because Saddam backed the 9/11 terrorists
(uh, although he didn't)?

> > alienation of our allies,
>
> Sure. We should have been more like Germany, France and Russia, selling
> arms against UN sanctions to Iraq. No hypocrisy there either.

Those alliances worked for Reagan. They worked for Bush I. They
worked ever since Truman. So why couldn't Dubya make it work? Could
it be that Dubya stinks at diplomacy? Could it be that Dubya was
wrong about the WMDs and other countries didn't believe? No no -- it
must have been French backstabbing! Bring on the Freedom Fries.

> >etc etc are really a failure so you may not
> > understand this subtle point.
>
> I disagree with your political polemics. Do you understand that?

I understand that your post proves my point.

> > > > Right, a deficit is the difference between government receipts and
> > > > government spending. Reasonable presidents have understood that the
> > > > two need to be reconciled. Dubya (apparently) doesn't.
>
> > > That's your opinion. We'll see what the next four years in office brings.
> > > I still don't know what Kerry would do to make things better. Are we
> > > supposed to believe he'll be different than he was his whole political life?
>
> > Opinion? You don't think Reagan raised taxes? Or Bush I? What were
> > their reasons?
>
> Kerry is promising many TRILLIONS in new spending. Please explain
> how that is a good alternative if you think Bush spends too much.

Now you are changing the subject. As previously stated, the idea that
deficit=revenue-expenditure is not opinion, it's fact. The fact that
Reagan and Bush I raised taxes is not opinion, it's also fact.

On your new topic, you want to say that Kerry will be less fiscally
responsible than Bush, and you are shouting about "TRILLIONS" although
trillions are what Bush's tax cuts have cost to the deficit, and his
spending increases have also cost trillions. The truth is that this
"conservative" Bush has increased federal spending more than any
modern president Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or even Clinton.
You want to say that Kerry will be worse, but based on Bush's actual
performance it seems unlikely that anyone is likely to do much worse.
Bush is in a league of his own when it comes to miserably failed
fiscal performance. He's worse than a Liberal!

> > You don't know what Kerry might do to make things better unless you
> > bother to listen to anything the other side says or face the reality
> > that Bush has made some real screwups. I doubt you are prepared to do
> > either.
>
> I understand quite well when he's specific. Which ain't often.

You haven't looked for it, then. Both the campaigns of course have
policy briefs on their web sites. Why don't you take a look at both
and see which you think is most specific?

> > > > We agree on one thing, then. Bush panders as bad as any of his
> > > > predecessors, and (based on spending increases) arguably worse. You
> > > > guys are painting me as a Leftie but even *I* didn't support Bush's
> > > > reckless expansion of prescription drug benefits. I didnt support his
> > > > tariffs on Canadian lumber, I didn't support his expansion of farm
> > > > subsidies, I didn't support his protectionism of steel. But somehow I
> > > > am the "Leftie" and you guys are the conservatives. Boggles the mind.
>
> > > A true conservative isn't going to reject Bush and endorse Kerry. Kerry
> > > isn't going to spend less no matter how much you dislike George W.
>
> > If your definition of a conservative is someone who gives knee-jerk
> > support to Bush, then you are right. Most people have a different
> > opinion of what a conservative is, though.
>
> Must be why they have a majority in the House and Senate as well as the
> White House. I wonder why so many liberals are voting them in office then.

Heh, by your definition any "true" conservative must endorse Bush and
vote an all Republican ticket for Congress. And any Republican must
of course be a "true" conservative. What a novel idea. Someone ought
to tell Zell Miller and John McCain about this.

> > > > Kerry has in fact talked a great deal about bringing down the debt.
> > > > Of course the Fox media wants to talk more about Swift Boat crapola
> > > > more than about real issues.
>
> > > It's all over every news source I've seen. If Kerry was so out front with
> > > specifics, where are they? It isn't enough to say "I am for good things
> > > and better economies and more peace blah blah blah."
>
> > Google is your friend. I would post another link but someone else
> > here would add a snide comment about how it is so obvious.
>
> I need to Google to find out what Kerry stands for?

No, you already have your perceptions fully formed, and I seriously
doubt you would bother to verify them. You just want to go on with
circular one-line responses without providing data to support any of
your claims.

> > > > Still, Google is your friend. Or you
> > > > can go to the source at
> > > > http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html
>
> > > The web site doesn't explain how cutting 98 percent of people's taxes
> > > will balance the budget or pay for education.
>
> > You spend a lot of time noticing that the rich pay more taxes than the
> > poor do ... and yet you don't understand that a tax cut for the rich
> > costs has more deficit impact than does a tax cut for the poor.
>
> The poor don't pay income taxes do they? I don't think you really give a flip
> about the deficit, you just want to dip your hands into the evil rich pocketbook.

Oh, yeah, you found me out! ROFL. How do you know what my tax
bracket is???

What about Warren Buffett, who's endorsed John Kerry? D'ya suppose
he's just looking for a welfare handout, too?

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
> "Nate Perkins"
>
> > > > Bah, liberal, conservative, libertarian -- who cares? It's a matter
> > > > of judgement and track record. Bush has none. Introducing Clinton
> > > > (as you guys are wont to do) doesn't change all of Bush's failures.
>
> > > I mentioned Clinton to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Bush's
> > > authorized early out in the Guard while overlooking Clinton's draft
> > > dodging. Bush has a pretty good track record considering the circumstances.
> > > You are welcome to believe what you want too.
>
> > Ah, Clinton again! Okay, now that *Clinton* has been raised as an
> > issue, I am definitely convinced.
>
> No, you definitely avoided the issue.


Since you insist that Iraq, the economy, Abu Ghraib, the deficit, etc
etc are not really problems or that Bush has no responsiblity for any
of these issues, then there seems to be little purpose in continuing
this dull circular discussion.

If anyone else is interested in why moderates and conservatives can be
thoroughly disgusted with Bush, check out this article by a
conservative writer in Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106025/#ContinueArticle

Remember the two psychiatrists on one show swearing adamantly George had an
attention deficit disorder. I wondered how well he had mastered it when
flying high performance fighter aircraft . Suppose his daddy got him pilots
duty!!!!!!!!!!! mjh

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"WD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 22 Aug 2004 08:44:50 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>
> >Someone is not exactly truthful, that's for certain. Given the lack of
solid
> >proof possible in either direction, I'd point the finger at the people
who
> >instigated this morass.
>
> Charlie, Kerry have to the liar! I know it deep down in my heart, I can
even
> feel it in my bone. Bush will never lie cuz, he's is a born again
Christian, a
> Christian NEVER lie. Are you forgetting that he lead us to victory against
the
> Saddam Hussein and the beautiful sight of shock and awe destruction of
Baghdad?
>
> >Loved the cartoon in the Roanoke Times yesterday: showed a swift boat at
speed,
> >towing 2 water skiers. The header noted that the swift boat was one man's
> >contribution to 'Nam, while the water skiers, Bush & Cheney, did nothing.
>
> I love both faces of Michelle Malkin's twisted mouth angrily refuting
Chris
> Matthew's stunned face.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:

>Everyone will agree that the rich pay a lot more taxes than do the
>poor.

So stipulated.

>Therefore, a tax cut for the rich has a greater impact on the
>overall deficit than does a tax cut for the middle class and poor.

If you assume that economics is a zero-sum game, yes. But that assumption is
incorrect.
>
>Now the subjective part comes in when you suggest that everyone could
>have lower taxes if we just cut government so that the "evil 'gubmint
>doesn't get any more of my money."

Should be obvious that government would be smaller, cheaper, and less
intrusive, if it restricted itself to performing the functions authorized it
by the Constitution.

>Most people agree that a leaner,
>more efficient government would be a good thing. The main problem is
>that the same leader that the conservatives look to (Bush) has just
>expanded entitlements more than any president in the last 40 years.

Not to mention signing the blatantly unConstitutional McCain-Feingold bill.
I hear you.

>As a moderate, this makes me think he's just irresponsible and lacks
>credibility. So if you talk about smaller government and "getting
>government off the people's backs" at the same time you are growing it
>by leaps and bounds, do you really have credibility? Is Bush your
>true conservative?

Certainly not. Nor do I believe that he is the best possible man for the job.
I *do* believe, however, that he is a considerably better choice than the
available alternatives, either now or four years ago. The voters tend to favor
those candidates who promise them the most (whether that be security,
prosperity, freedom, tax cuts, handouts, or whatever), and often ignore those
who speak realistically.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> None of this would matter one whit if Kerry and his campaign hadn't
>started using his three purple hearts and silver star as a centerpiece of
>his campaign. Earlier this year, you couldn't turn on the TV without his
>throwing those medals in your face at every opportunity.

How could Kerry throw those medals in your face? He already threw them in the
Reflecting Pool.

Oh, wait, those were somebody *else's* medals he threw, weren't they?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.