Thread: A quick poll to get it all started

Originally Posted by Confed999

So no Democrats or Republicans?

No...you silly, silly man.

Not a "Republican-controlled" anything.

Originally Posted by Julie

No...you silly, silly man.

Not a "Republican-controlled" anything.

We've had plenty of "Democrat-contolled" political, economic, military, and social disasters. So I guess it's not really a "change" you want, you silly, silly lady.

Originally Posted by Julie

Funny.....most of our money should be going to the military, and you didn't even mention that topic.

I don't quite understand your statement. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you surprised that I didn't advocate spending more money on the military?

I think the military is getting enough money. We just need to watch where and how we spend it. Cut back on other non-essential government functions like welfare, medical insurance, disaster relief and we're set.

Originally Posted by Julie

No...you silly, silly man.

Not a "Republican-controlled" anything.

Let's draw some correlations.

Republicans took control of the house in 1994.

How was the economy from 1994 to 2006?

Not saying the Republicans are responsible for our prosperity. Just making an observation.

Originally Posted by gunnut

I don't quite understand your statement. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you surprised that I didn't advocate spending more money on the military?

Both.

Originally Posted by gunnut

I think the military is getting enough money.

I don't think so.

Originally Posted by gunnut

We just need to watch where and how we spend it.

We've always needed to do that.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Cut back on other non-essential government functions like welfare, medical insurance, disaster relief and we're set.

Does disaster relief, include occurrences as Katrina?

Originally Posted by gunnut

Republicans took control of the house in 1994. How was the economy from 1994 to 2006?

It was just wonderful !

Originally Posted by gunnut

Not saying the Republicans are responsible for our prosperity. Just making an observation.

You're getting just as silly as Confed. You're observing the wrong thing.

Here:

Bill Clinton Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Imagine that.

Bill Clinton negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit.

Bill Clinton dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation’s fiscal discipline. The President’s actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accompli...tyears-03.html

Originally Posted by Julie

You're getting just as silly as Confed. You're observing the wrong thing.

I've observed a socialist drive from both the Republicans and Democrats. This is why I'm in neither party. You don't want change, you just want more of the same.

Originally Posted by Julie

"Change" is smelling more, and more like honey, and the bees are flocking to it...Nationwide.

Bees don't flock, they swarm. Silly, silly geese flock. Maybe that's what you were referring to.

Originally Posted by Julie

Does disaster relief, include occurrences as Katrina?

You bet. The government is responsible for search and rescue, but not rebuilding people's lives. People are responsible for rebuilding people's lives.

Federal insurance on disaster will only encourage dangerous behavior, like rebuilding repeatedly on flood zones or places below sea level. Unlike Holland, we aren't short of land here. We don't need to live in a flood zone. We just want to.

Originally Posted by Julie

That's good.....now convince the other 57% of the nation that.

Those are facts, "convincing" isn't necessary to those with brains. Those facts of course need to be balanced against other facts that are not positive (in my opinion anyway) - a soft-seeming attitude to border control and immigration reform, and a supercilious stance on pork spending, for instance.

But I have confidence that the majority of the nation feels the primary issues are national security and economy, and since the economy is booming and the Dems are eager to portray themselves as squirting vaginas on any issue related to national security, I think we'll see the Repubs maintaining control of both houses.

-dale

Originally Posted by Julie

You're getting just as silly as Confed. You're observing the wrong thing.

And who's to say that my observation is any less valid than yours?

Originally Posted by Julie

Here:

Bill Clinton Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Imagine that.

Democrats controled the Congress back then.

Originally Posted by Julie

Bill Clinton negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit.

That appears rosy on the surface. But how is this balanced budget achieved? Was it a cut in government spending? Or a higher tax revenue?

Balanced budget sounds good on paper, but it can be a trap of spiraling tax increases if we aren't careful.

Originally Posted by Julie

Bill Clinton dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation’s fiscal discipline. The President’s actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accompli...tyears-03.html

I applaud that goal. Every president and every congress should have fiscal discipline.

However, this balanced budget should be achieved through making our government leaner rather than higher tax rates.

Bush cut taxes, according to socialist propaganda. However, when you get down to it, Bush cut tax rates. Tax revenue actually increased. I don't understand how can there be a tax cut when the government received more tax dollars from the citizens?

Originally Posted by gunnut

You bet. The government is responsible for search and rescue, but not rebuilding people's lives. People are responsible for rebuilding people's lives.

That is ironic since the now homeless people in New Orleans are seeing us attempting to liberate and rebuild the lives of Iraqis. It is not the citizens fault that the levees broke; it is not their fault that their insurance companies won't pay because of flooding causation; and it's not their fault that their State Revenue has been diminished to almost nothing.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Federal insurance on disaster will only encourage dangerous behavior, like rebuilding repeatedly on flood zones or places below sea level. Unlike Holland, we aren't short of land here. We don't need to live in a flood zone. We just want to.

Then our Government should not have encouraged livelihood in that particular location in the first place.

Originally Posted by Julie

That is ironic since the now homeless people in New Orleans are seeing us attempting to liberate and rebuild the lives of Iraqis. It is not the citizens fault that the levees broke; it is not their fault that their insurance companies won't pay because of flooding causation; and it's not their fault that their State Revenue has been diminished to almost nothing.

But are we rebuilding Iraqi lives by giving them unemployment benefits? Or rebuilding the infrastructure that we destroyed?

Originally Posted by Julie

Then our Government should not have encouraged livelihood in that particular location in the first place.

At least we can agree on this.

Originally Posted by Julie

I would assume "change" means "anything different" than what we have now.

Nazism would be different...

Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.