If the Dems take control of the House and/or Senate...

[Uh-huh 0]

well, it isnt just across party lines. The corruption is happening on an individual basis, it has nothing to do with the party as a whole. The Dems just wish it did.

He's right. Corruption has nothing to do with party ideology.

 

However, it has everything to do with power.

 

The GOP has been in control of Congress for twelve years now, with control over everything. Permanence in power fosters a laissez-faire environment where political favors are for sale to the highest bidder.

 

If the Dems take back control of Congress, watch them succumb to the same temptations of power.

[TyCobb 0]

Delay, Abramoff, they're all there...the stench from Washington is worse than any time I can remember...

 

Maybe that's because the opposition and the media have been on attack since Gore lost.

 

When your motto becomes "Guilty until proven innocent", it's not hard to come up with a long guilty list.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Maybe that's because the opposition and the media have been on attack since Gore lost.

 

When your motto becomes "Guilty until proven innocent", it's not hard to come up with a long guilty list.

Maybe it's because they broke the law.

[Uh-huh 0]

Maybe that's because the opposition and the media have been on attack since Gore lost.

 

When your motto becomes "Guilty until proven innocent", it's not hard to come up with a long guilty list.

 

Yes, the list is pretty long alright... includes GOP and Dems

[TyCobb 0]

Maybe it's because they broke the law.

 

Sandy Berger steals confidential docs ... no problem.

 

Dan Rather drums up some phony docs and faxes them in from a kinkos just before the election ... no problem.

 

Karl Rove "outs" Valerie somethingoranother (not really, but we know he's a mean guy anyway) ... GET A ROPE!

 

Yes, the list is pretty long alright... includes GOP and Dems

 

No mention of Ol' Dingy Harry? Yeah, that's an unbiased list.

 

17 of 20 are Repubs. Nice.

 

And #1 on the list? Conrad Burns - guilty of flying some guys to the 2001 Super Bowl on the taxpayer nickle. Yep, that puts him at #1.

[brinett9 0]

A lower body count would be nice.

[TyCobb 0]

A lower body count would be nice.

 

I wouldn't count on it. What I WOULD count on is this time the bodies will be counted in NYC, not Baghdad.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Spin, spin, spin is right. All this talk of cutting the deficit is a lot of accounting smoke and mirrors, complete and utter bullsh!t. The bottom line is the federal debt went up by substantially more in fy 2006 than in fy 2005. Federal debt has increased some roughly 33% in the six years since Bush took office.

 

FY Ending ------Total Debt ----------------- FY Increase

9/29/2006 --- 8,506,973,899,215.23--- 574,264,237,491.73

9/30/2005 --- 7,932,709,661,723.50--- 553,656,965,393.18

9/30/2004 --- 7,379,052,696,330.32--- 595,821,633,586.70

9/30/2003 --- 6,783,231,062,743.62--- 554,995,097,146.46

9/30/2002 --- 6,228,235,965,597.16--- 420,772,553,397.10

9/28/2001 --- 5,807,463,412,200.06--- 133,285,202,313.20

9/28/2000 --- 5,674,178,209,886.86---- 17,907,308,253.43

9/30/1999 --- 5,656,270,901,633.43--- 130,077,892,735.81

9/30/1998 --- 5,526,193,008,897.62--- 113,046,997,500.28

9/30/1997 --- 5,413,146,011,397.34

I'd be interested in the link to this data.

 

TIA

[Chronic Husker 85]

Sandy Berger steals confidential docs ... no problem.

 

Dan Rather drums up some phony docs and faxes them in from a kinkos just before the election ... no problem.

 

Karl Rove "outs" Valerie somethingoranother (not really, but we know he's a mean guy anyway) ... GET A ROPE!

Sure thing, Captain Overreaction.

 

The media coverage of all the slime has been just. If you break the law and are involved in politics, you deserve to have your name splattered all over the papers.

 

Honestly, I can't believe there hasn't been more media pressure for Hastert to step down. He's known about Foley for years. Deplorable.

 

 

 

I wouldn't count on it. What I WOULD count on is this time the bodies will be counted in NYC, not Baghdad.

What do you mean, "this time"?

[parrot 789]

I'd be interested in the link to this data.

 

TIA

No problem, it's from a little outfit known as The Treasury Department.

 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

 

For fun look at the chart for the current month, notice how the debt jumped $40some billion the day after the fiscal years closed. They were holding off making certain medicare and other payments to make the deficit numbers look better for 2006. This is known as 'deficit reduction'.

[TyCobb 0]

The media coverage of all the slime has been just. If you break the law and are involved in politics, you deserve to have your name splattered all over the papers.

 

Honestly, I can't believe there hasn't been more media pressure for Hastert to step down. He's known about Foley for years. Deplorable.

 

Like I said, when it's a "guilty until proven innocent" witchhunt, the list will be long. Thanks for proving my point.

 

What do you mean, "this time"?

 

I mean when the inevitable terrorist attack occurs as a result of the Dem leadership, of course. What else?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

We should not be at war. Iraq is an albatross, pure and simple. We never finished our mission in Afganistan and we have a new mess that might make Vietnam look like Woodstock.

 

Homeland Security is a mess as well. They have lined the pockets of companies like Halliburton by playing off the fears of the masses.

 

Let me ask you this simple question - Are we better off than we were when the Republicans took control in November, 2002? I don't think so.

 

ETA: I have no party affiliation, so I am not coming at this from "both sides for the sake of benefitting the party". Can you say the same?

 

Hey, Chad. Since you started this stupid thread, why can't you at least answer the questions rather than ducking them? You complain about Dems doing the same, I would think that each party might want to set an example as opposed to going with the "we suck less" theme.

[Uh-huh 0]

Sandy Berger steals confidential docs ... no problem.

 

Dan Rather drums up some phony docs and faxes them in from a kinkos just before the election ... no problem.

 

Karl Rove "outs" Valerie somethingoranother (not really, but we know he's a mean guy anyway) ... GET A ROPE!

No mention of Ol' Dingy Harry? Yeah, that's an unbiased list.

 

17 of 20 are Repubs. Nice.

 

And #1 on the list? Conrad Burns - guilty of flying some guys to the 2001 Super Bowl on the taxpayer nickle. Yep, that puts him at #1.

Nice try. Of course the GOP dominates the list. They have the votes. The Dems don't.

 

Corrupt politicians are going to be the norm until we the people have the stones to kick them out of office when they misbehave. The bunch we have in power right now are misbehaving, so they have to go.

[Cousin Cucumber 0]

umm yeah I do just as you do. The tax cuts are whats keeping the economy rolling, just as the Reagan tax cuts did and the Kennedy tax cuts did. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

 

It is not hard to comprehend; it just isn’t true.

 

Republicans have gotten away with pretending that tax cuts are the answer to everything for far too long.

 

Line the pockets of the investor class.

Tell your average Joe six-pack conservative that it’s all about fairness.

What it’s really about is buying votes.

 

Vote for me and I’ll give you an extra $600 a year! Besides you don’t want Jesse Jackson or that soccer Mom liberal Nancy Pelosi telling you what to do with your own money do you?

 

Meanwhile the national debt spins out of control as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class slowly shrinks away.

 

What astounds me is how many people eat this chit up, like it’s the American way or something - probably because Rush Limbaugh & Pat Robertson tell them it is:

 

Hey, if it’s good enough for Jesus and it’s good enough for Rush, then it’s sure as hell good enough for me! That Global Warmin’ stuff is a bunch a BS anyhow. Oh, and I ain’t givin’ up my shotguns or payin' no more DEATH taxes neither.

 

Conservatives had a nice run - kudos. Unfortunately Bush overplayed your hand just a LITTLE bit. Actually, he overplayed it alot.

 

Enjoy Speaker Pelosi, and get ready for President Clinton II.

 

Tax Fairness

Environmental Awareness

National Preparedness

. . .

. . .

And a chicken in every pot!

 

(Sorry, couldn't come up with a 4th line that rhymed)

[jerryskids 5,206]

No problem, it's from a little outfit known as The Treasury Department.

 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

 

For fun look at the chart for the current month, notice how the debt jumped $40some billion the day after the fiscal years closed. They were holding off making certain medicare and other payments to make the deficit numbers look better for 2006. This is known as 'deficit reduction'.

Thanks. FWIW I wasn't questioning the data per se.

[Greedo 13]

Don't forget the reason Newt and co. got ushered into the congress in 1994 - the stench from a democratic congress grown fat on power. Think Tip O'Neill, for starters. Both parties are equally guilty of almost every transgression for which they accuse the other.

 

It's time to balance the budget (spend less than we take in) and pay down the debt. Clinton and a republican congress were on the right track until the current administration blew it to hell with that stupid tax cut. Almost every penny should have gone to paying down the national debt.

 

And cmh, or chad, or whatever - you might want to do some research into tax burdens in other countries before you say something incorrect. Start with Sweden.

[cmh6476 756]

And #1 on the list? Conrad Burns - guilty of flying some guys to the 2001 Super Bowl on the taxpayer nickle. Yep, that puts him at #1.

are you suggesting there is an agenda behind all of this?

 

Hey, Chad. Since you started this stupid thread, why can't you at least answer the questions rather than ducking them? You complain about Dems doing the same, I would think that each party might want to set an example as opposed to going with the "we suck less" theme.

of course I think this war is justified, and while I continue to support it and acknowledge our accomplishments, others will come in and just try and discredit them, so it's aneverending circle. What would be the point?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The fact that he's more concerned with the party than the country to the point that he's willing to ignore sexual predators as long as they're in the party fold.

 

You talking about Tip O'Neil and Gerry Studds? At least the Reps run perverts out of the party, the Dems make them Chairman of a Committee.

 

[Uh-huh 0]

are you suggesting there is an agenda behind all of this?

of course I think this war is justified, and while I continue to support it and acknowledge our accomplishments, others will come in and just try and discredit them, so it's aneverending circle. What would be the point?

 

"Justified" . That's some mighty strong Kool-Aid they make you drink over in GOP-land.

[cmh6476 756]

"Justified" . That's some mighty strong Kool-Aid they make you drink over in GOP-land.

so you think it would have been better to just ignore it and allow the terrorists to continue using force and intimidation to try and control government? I'm gonna take the stance that we're tackling the issue head-on, the results will only truly be known, 10, 25, 50 years down the road

[Uh-huh 0]

so you think it would have been better to just ignore it and allow the terrorists to continue using force and intimidation to try and control government? I'm gonna take the stance that we're tackling the issue head-on, the results will only truly be known, 10, 25, 50 years down the road

I take it back. It's not Kool-Aid, it has to be LSD.

 

 

Or could it be that you all are simply insane?

[jerryskids 5,206]

It's time to balance the budget (spend less than we take in) and pay down the debt. Clinton and a republican congress were on the right track until the current administration blew it to hell with that stupid tax cut.

Blew what to hell? It amazes me how many seemingly intelligent posters on this bored just don't get it. Tax revenues are increasing; here is a link from the treasury dept. Please read it and try to understand why the current tax policy works.

 

If you want to discuss what that money is spent on, or our spending in general, that is a different thing. But the tax cut is not "stupid".

[Jeremy 0]

It's time to balance the budget (spend less than we take in) and pay down the debt. Clinton and a republican congress were on the right track until the current administration blew it to hell with that stupid tax cut. Almost every penny should have gone to paying down the national debt.

 

This is what's so frustrating. If we're ever able to get into the position again where we're able to start paying down debt, someone is going to come along (as Bush did) and take political advantage of the situation by saying what always sells. "The government is taking too much of your money. Look we got all this extra. You should have some of your hard earned money back." Of course that wins elections and up goes the debt ever higher.

 

Nobody is willing to think long term because it's not politically advantagous to do so. I blame the voters as much as the politicians. Think about your kids and grandkids instead of having a few extra bucks in your pocket today.

[Uh-huh 0]

Blew what to hell? It amazes me how many seemingly intelligent posters on this bored just don't get it. Tax revenues are increasing; here is a link from the treasury dept. Please read it and try to understand why the current tax policy works.

 

If you want to discuss what that money is spent on, or our spending in general, that is a different thing. But the tax cut is not "stupid".

Are you trying to postulate a relationship between tax cuts and increasing tax revenues? Let's hear it.

 

While you're at it, let's hear about the negligible economic effect of the federal debt increasing almost 3 TRILLION dollars since W came to power.

 

Let's not forget $300 billion spent on Iraq and Aghanistan since 2003. Or the housing bubble. None of these have anything to do with the increase in tax revenues -- it's all caused by "tax cuts", correct?

[jerryskids 5,206]

Are you trying to postulate a relationship between tax cuts and increasing tax revenues?

No, the treasury dept is.

[Voltaire 4,562]

Don't forget the reason Newt and co. got ushered into the congress in 1994 - the stench from a democratic congress grown fat on power. Think Tip O'Neill, for starters. Both parties are equally guilty of almost every transgression for which they accuse the other.

 

It's time to balance the budget (spend less than we take in) and pay down the debt. Clinton and a republican congress were on the right track until the current administration blew it to hell with that stupid tax cut. Almost every penny should have gone to paying down the national debt.

 

I couldn't agree more. I'm so fed up with the GOP, but fortunatly for them I do remember how bad the Dems were. At least the Dems were willing to do the unpopular, raise taxes to pay for their spending. When the GOP cut taxes, it had an obligation to do the unpopular and cut spending too.

 

I want the GOP to lose this election, then regroup and figure out what went wrong and fix it. I'm no Dem, but I'll be voting Dem for a while until then. For sure this election.

[Uh-huh 0]

No, the treasury dept is.

Yes, of course, the Bush administration. Of course!

 

 

As I said before, supply side economics is a canard, based on a false cause-effect premise. It has been used -- twice by GOP administrations -0 to sell an politically unpopular pig in a poke.

 

Believing in the tooth fairy is more real.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Yes, of course, the Bush administration. Of course!

 

 

As I said before, supply side economics is a canard, based on a false cause-effect premise. It has been used -- twice by GOP administrations -0 to sell an politically unpopular pig in a poke.

 

Believing in the tooth fairy is more real.

Don't evah diss the tooth fairy!@#

 

Seriously, by your argument then, parrot's debt data should be discounted as well. Since they are from the same source and all.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

We should not be at war. Iraq is an albatross, pure and simple. We never finished our mission in Afganistan and we have a new mess that might make Vietnam look like Woodstock.

 

Homeland Security is a mess as well. They have lined the pockets of companies like Halliburton by playing off the fears of the masses.

 

Let me ask you this simple question - Are we better off than we were when the Republicans took control in November, 2002? I don't think so.

 

ETA: I have no party affiliation, so I am not coming at this from "both sides for the sake of benefitting the party". Can you say the same?

 

 

Chad, I am going to ask one more time. You keep answering different questions, so I am going to make it real easy for you. Answer these two questions:

 

1. Do you honestly think that the country is better off now than it was when the Republicans took over for Clinton?

2. You challenged me to not come at this from "both sides for the sake of benefitting the party". I have told you that I have no party, so I can assure you that I am looking at this from the middle. CAN YOU SAY THE SAME?

[jerryskids 5,206]

Chad, I am going to ask one more time. You keep answering different questions, so I am going to make it real easy for you. Answer these two questions:

 

1. Do you honestly think that the country is better off now than it was when the Republicans took over for Clinton?

2. You challenged me to not come at this from "both sides for the sake of benefitting the party". I have told you that I have no party, so I can assure you that I am looking at this from the middle. CAN YOU SAY THE SAME?

You claim that you "have no party", yet every political post I've ever seen from you is either pro-democrat or anti-Republican. I think that you like to think of yourself as an independent, but...

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You claim that you "have no party", yet every political post I've ever seen from you is either pro-democrat or anti-Republican. I think that you like to think of yourself as an independent, but...

 

Do you want to back that up with something? Perhaps you can ask torrid about me giving him some grief over his liberalism?

 

I am very conservative from a fiscal standpoint as I am one that gets benefits from tax cuts and I don't like waste. However, I don't like what the Republicans have done lately by cutting taxes and increasing spending. I am not a big fan of the liberals and their hypocrisy in several issues (want to check what I wrote about the Foley issue?).

 

I know that you think that you have catalogued all of my posts, but what exactly are you basing this on?

[Voltaire 4,562]

You claim that you "have no party", yet every political post I've ever seen from you is either pro-democrat or anti-Republican. I think that you like to think of yourself as an independent, but...

 

You may say the same about me but it's only cuz the Dems are out of power and toothless. It's hard to criticize them because they haven't been able to do anything wrong lately. The GOP runs the ship, so the GOP gets all the plums and all the barbs. To me lots of barbs, they've sold out/ingnored all that I use to respect about them.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Do you want to back that up with something? Perhaps you can ask torrid about me giving him some grief over his liberalism?

 

I am very conservative from a fiscal standpoint as I am one that gets benefits from tax cuts and I don't like waste. However, I don't like what the Republicans have done lately by cutting taxes and increasing spending. I am not a big fan of the liberals and their hypocrisy in several issues (want to check what I wrote about the Foley issue?).

 

I know that you think that you have catalogued all of my posts, but what exactly are you basing this on?

Nope, can't back it up. Just an observation, perhaps without all of the data. Torrid hasn't played here much lately, perhaps I have selective long-term memory. I'll take your word for it. I've said before that I associate more with you than anyone else here, other than your commie pinko stances.

 

That being said, I still don't get why you and Voltaire (who I also think is smart) are caught up on "tax cuts". Tax REVENUES are at an all time high. That is indisputable. I suppose that you could ignore the strong correlation shown in the treasury dept link I provided and argue that the cuts had no impact and that revenues would have been higher had we not lowered them. Is that your position?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Take away the war, spending is on par with every other administration. Yes, we are at war, its costs money. Stop being so intelectually dishonest.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Nope, can't back it up. Just an observation, perhaps without all of the data. Torrid hasn't played here much lately, perhaps I have selective long-term memory. I'll take your word for it. I've said before that I associate more with you than anyone else here, other than your commie pinko stances.

 

That being said, I still don't get why you and Voltaire (who I also think is smart) are caught up on "tax cuts". Tax REVENUES are at an all time high. That is indisputable. I suppose that you could ignore the strong correlation shown in the treasury dept link I provided and argue that the cuts had no impact and that revenues would have been higher had we not lowered them. Is that your position?

 

 

Read again. Tax revenues are higher because of an increase in the number of people here, an increase in the cost of doing business, and because of ways that businesses pay their taxes. It is not a situation where it means that tax revenue per capita is increasing at a sustainable level. Read between the lines of what the independent folks say and the picture is not so rosy.

 

I am FOR tax cuts and the (short-term) increase in tax revenues. I am against the spending side of the equation. I run businesses that would be out of business if I ran them the way this government is run. You can't consistently spend more than you bring in and hope that by some magic that we will get more later on.

 

If anything, I am against BOTH parties. I don't like what either stands for, their ability to get it done, and their moral fiber. However, the current party is control is more of a target because they are in control.

[Flashover 0]

It is not hard to comprehend; it just isn’t true.

 

Republicans have gotten away with pretending that tax cuts are the answer to everything for far too long.

 

Line the pockets of the investor class.

Tell your average Joe six-pack conservative that it’s all about fairness.

What it’s really about is buying votes.

 

Vote for me and I’ll give you an extra $600 a year! Besides you don’t want Jesse Jackson or that soccer Mom liberal Nancy Pelosi telling you what to do with your own money do you?

 

Meanwhile the national debt spins out of control as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class slowly shrinks away.

 

What astounds me is how many people eat this chit up, like it’s the American way or something - probably because Rush Limbaugh & Pat Robertson tell them it is:

 

Hey, if it’s good enough for Jesus and it’s good enough for Rush, then it’s sure as hell good enough for me! That Global Warmin’ stuff is a bunch a BS anyhow. Oh, and I ain’t givin’ up my shotguns or payin' no more DEATH taxes neither.

 

Conservatives had a nice run - kudos. Unfortunately Bush overplayed your hand just a LITTLE bit. Actually, he overplayed it alot.

 

Enjoy Speaker Pelosi, and get ready for President Clinton II.

 

Tax Fairness

Environmental Awareness

National Preparedness

. . .

. . .

And a chicken in every pot!

 

(Sorry, couldn't come up with a 4th line that rhymed)

 

[brinett9 0]

Take away the war, spending is on par with every other administration. Yes, we are at war, its costs money. Stop being so intelectually dishonest.

Take away the killings and Washington DC is a pretty danged safe place to live!

[Voltaire 4,562]

Nope, can't back it up. Just an observation, perhaps without all of the data. Torrid hasn't played here much lately, perhaps I have selective long-term memory. I'll take your word for it. I've said before that I associate more with you than anyone else here, other than your commie pinko stances.

 

That being said, I still don't get why you and Voltaire (who I also think is smart) are caught up on "tax cuts". Tax REVENUES are at an all time high. That is indisputable. I suppose that you could ignore the strong correlation shown in the treasury dept link I provided and argue that the cuts had no impact and that revenues would have been higher had we not lowered them. Is that your position?

 

I don't care so much about tax cuts or tax hikes, spending cuts or spending hikes. No honestly, I don't. I don't like government programs, I started following this political sh*t in the 80s when I saw the huge abuses of government money going on in social programs and the poverty trap they created. I use to buy into the GOP argument about tax cuts and smaller government myself.

 

Then I saw the Bushtards fock that whole argument up. These tax cuts were skewed, targeting the rich and the smaller government stuff never materialized, instead we got expanded government. Both times we've tried supply side economics, we've gotten mammoth budget deficits. The first time around, it was possible for Reagan to share blame the Dems since they ran Congress and spent like crazy. (Also I like Reagan). This time, who the fock do we blame this time? The GOP congress is hemoraging the taxpayers money on corporate welfare and pork projects; at least when the Clinton Dems ran the government in the early 90s, they didn't put it all on credit cards.

[cmh6476 756]

Chad, I am going to ask one more time. You keep answering different questions, so I am going to make it real easy for you. Answer these two questions:

 

1. Do you honestly think that the country is better off now than it was when the Republicans took over for Clinton?

2. You challenged me to not come at this from "both sides for the sake of benefitting the party". I have told you that I have no party, so I can assure you that I am looking at this from the middle. CAN YOU SAY THE SAME?

 

 

I can only answer for myself there, but I believe I am. I think a lot of people are though.

 

And no I can't say the same, why should I? I work tireless hours for the ideas and beliefs that we stand for. You think I'm going to feel good about taking a back seat to the other side? I have nothing to gain from the minority side taking control of the house.

 

[Voltaire 4,562]

I can only answer for myself there, but I believe I am. I think a lot of people are though.

 

And no I can't say the same, why should I? I work tireless hours for the ideas and beliefs that we stand for. You think I'm going to feel good about taking a back seat to the other side? I have nothing to gain from the minority side taking control of the house.

 

 

You'll be fine. The GOP could use the humbling to come back stronger. The party's a mess right now and this'll give them time to regroup and get their act together. Meanwhile, the Dems will probably remind America how bad they are. What are the chances that they surprise us and actually govern decently.

 

I can't vote for the GOP this election, no way. but next time Bush will be gone and the Dems would have shared responsibilty for what happens in the next two years. Hopefully, the more libertarian leaning GOP will take over from the religion people. Unless too many of us have already left the party.