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

[Franknbeans 46]

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

They already were

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

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.

 

 

1. You still did not answer the question. I did not ask if YOU were better off. I asked if you thought the country was better off. I am better off, but I am also upper middle class, so that would happen if Bozo the Clown were in charge. I don't think that the country as a whole is better off. That was my question to you.

 

2. I did not expect you to be impartial and you are certainly beholden to your "party". It is your job. However, you think that everyone else is that way and it is not true. I have never registered to a party or voted in a primary. I have probably voted Republican as much as I have voted Democrat (although Republican choices in MA are hard to come by). I can assure you that I don't think about the good of a party when I vote.

 

One thing that I have tried to point out to you (specifically) is that you exhibit the same behavior that is disturbing to many about politics in the US today. You are more concerned about "taking a back seat to the other side" than trying to find ways in which you can BOTH do what is right. Compromise and fresh ideas for the good of the country are sorely lacking. The fact that you (and your colleagues) are being groomed to someday (possibly) participate in our government with those (twisted) values is disturbing.

 

I am pretty cynical about government today, but I am hopeful that we can blow up the party system and get back to having a country where we are proud of our combined accomplishments as opposed to a country where we point out and try to exploit the failures of "the other side".

[cmh6476 756]

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.

 

 

Oh I'm not that worried about it, it's not going to change my daily mantra or general attitude. It'd just be different in this position working for the minority party as oppossed to the majority...

 

1. You still did not answer the question. I did not ask if YOU were better off. I asked if you thought the country was better off. I am better off, but I am also upper middle class, so that would happen if Bozo the Clown were in charge. I don't think that the country as a whole is better off. That was my question to you.

 

2. I did not expect you to be impartial and you are certainly beholden to your "party". It is your job. However, you think that everyone else is that way and it is not true. I have never registered to a party or voted in a primary. I have probably voted Republican as much as I have voted Democrat (although Republican choices in MA are hard to come by). I can assure you that I don't think about the good of a party when I vote.

 

One thing that I have tried to point out to you (specifically) is that you exhibit the same behavior that is disturbing to many about politics in the US today. You are more concerned about "taking a back seat to the other side" than trying to find ways in which you can BOTH do what is right. Compromise and fresh ideas for the good of the country are sorely lacking. The fact that you (and your colleagues) are being groomed to someday (possibly) participate in our government with those (twisted) values is disturbing.

 

I am pretty cynical about government today, but I am hopeful that we can blow up the party system and get back to having a country where we are proud of our combined accomplishments as opposed to a country where we point out and try to exploit the failures of "the other side".

 

Yes I think this country is better off. I think we are safer, most are financially better off, and overall I think you could say we are better off.

 

You don't have to point anything out to me, as familiar as I am with the fed govt and my state govt, I see the games being played all the time. I don't think personally this is a cause for concern, because I see the things our own office tries to accomplish and the ideas and the beliefs of my own boss, and I think those are the qualities the people of this district deserve. I am honored to be able to help serve those people.

 

On the larger scale, I don't see anyway that I'm going to reshape Washington and the fighting between the two parties. There is a whole lot at stake, between leadership positions, power, and the chance to have your ideas leading your own body of govt. I mean if we go to the minority party do you honestly think there is a chance that any of my boss's bill would ever be written into law? Hell no there isn't.

 

Which is why I am so partial, but it isn't like I try to disguise that and sell it for something it isn't. I'm probably one of the most open here when it comes to my views and beliefs, so take that for what it's worth. I don't know why you would expect me to act any differently

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Oh I'm not that worried about it, it's not going to change my daily mantra or general attitude. It'd just be different in this position working for the minority party as oppossed to the majority...

Yes I think this country is better off. I think we are safer, most are financially better off, and overall I think you could say we are better off.

 

You don't have to point anything out to me, as familiar as I am with the fed govt and my state govt, I see the games being played all the time. I don't think personally this is a cause for concern, because I see the things our own office tries to accomplish and the ideas and the beliefs of my own boss, and I think those are the qualities the people of this district deserve. I am honored to be able to help serve those people.

 

On the larger scale, I don't see anyway that I'm going to reshape Washington and the fighting between the two parties. There is a whole lot at stake, between leadership positions, power, and the chance to have your ideas leading your own body of govt. I mean if we go to the minority party do you honestly think there is a chance that any of my boss's bill would ever be written into law? Hell no there isn't.

 

Which is why I am so partial, but it isn't like I try to disguise that and sell it for something it isn't. I'm probably one of the most open here when it comes to my views and beliefs, so take that for what it's worth. I don't know why you would expect me to act any differently

 

I appreciate the response. I guess it just confirms why I am cynical.

[De Novo 0]

Alaska's Gravina Island is home to 50 people and more than 350 Sitka black-tailed deer. Under the U.S. highway bill passed last month, this group will get a $223 million bridge taller than the Brooklyn Bridge in New York.

Alaska owes its bounty to Congressman Donald Young, a Republican who heads the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation Committee and has told voters he used his position to enhance Alaska's share. A second bridge, spanning 2 miles in Anchorage, to be called ``Don Young's Way,'' got $229 million. 

``I'd be silly if I didn't take advantage of my chairmanship,'' Young said, according to the Anchorage Daily News. ``I think I did a pretty good job.''

 

OMFG

 

With selfish recklessness like this, it's time for the government to experience a major overhaul.

 

 

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

 

TIA

 

Because you don't trust the data or want to send it to someone else?

 

If it's the former, you don't deserve to vote. Sorry.

[TyCobb 0]

They already were

 

Yes, as a result of the dereliction of a Democrat. And I expect it to happen again if one is elected.

 

The reason is that very few Dems take this war seriously. Their paradigm is one of law enforcement, not war. And that is why I won't vote a single one into office (unless they actually nominate a moderate, which is unlikely).

 

I'm not 100% pleased with the conservatives either, much like Voltaire. But unlike him I won't take the chance with the Dems. The stakes are too high. I'll just try to elect Repubs with more fiscal sense than the current administration, but who share the exact same zeal to protect my kids and country.

[parrot 789]

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.

That is bull. Non-defense discretionary spending has risen sharply since Bush took over from Clinton.

 

Defense and non-defense discretionary spending.

 

Notice how both defense and non-defense climb sharply under Bush. That is the danger when you have an administration and both houses of Congress rubber-stamping each other.

 

Not to mention the long-term mandatory spending they've locked us into with increases in the debt and medicare part D.

[Chronic Husker 85]

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

So, you've already conceded the fact that the GOP has focked things up so bad that they're doomed to lose the house and the senate?

 

[cmh6476 756]

So, you've already conceded the fact that the GOP has focked things up so bad that they're doomed to lose the house and the senate?

 

corn prices are at a record high, and gas pricest are the lowest theyve been in years. I hope those Dems aren't counting on a bunch of rural pickups for their majority

[jerryskids 5,206]

Because you don't trust the data or want to send it to someone else?

 

If it's the former, you don't deserve to vote. Sorry.

So... if I were to doubt the validity of a bunch of numbers typed by an unknown person on an internet chat bored, I don't deserve to vote? How mindless borg-like brainwashed neocon thinking of you.

[Chronic Husker 85]

corn prices are at a record high, and gas pricest are the lowest theyve been in years. I hope those Dems aren't counting on a bunch of rural pickups for their majority

I don't think they are.

[Brick Tamland 0]

corn prices are at a record high, and gas pricest are the lowest theyve been in years. I hope those Dems aren't counting on a bunch of rural pickups for their majority

 

 

The current nat'l avg is $2.20/gallon. Gas prices the lowest in years? If you consider 2005 years ago, then yes. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are still higher than any time since the mid-1980s.

 

http://eepm.orst.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm

 

 

 

corn prices are at a record high, and gas pricest are the lowest theyve been in years. I hope those Dems aren't counting on a bunch of rural pickups for their majority

 

 

.....And, according to yesterday's edition of your own KC Star:

 

"Indeed, corn prices have been running barely above $2 a bushel recently - almost a $1 a bushel lower than a decade ago."

 

Record high?

[Franknbeans 46]

Yes, as a result of the dereliction of a Democrat. And I expect it to happen again if one is elected.

Stick to the facts jack.

[De Novo 0]

So... if I were to doubt the validity of a bunch of numbers typed by an unknown person on an internet chat bored, I don't deserve to vote? How mindless borg-like brainwashed neocon thinking of you.

 

No, I was implying that anyone who has an opinion on the economy and Bush's performance should already know that the Federal debt has increased by 50%--yes, FIFTY--while he was in office. You seemed surprised by the numbers.

[TyCobb 0]

So, you've already conceded the fact that the GOP has focked things up so bad that they're doomed to lose the house and the senate?

 

 

Of course not. In fact, I don't think they will lose either. What I am conceding is that the left is assuming they will win both.

 

And I am willing to grant that assumption for the sake of argument, which is why I said I expect another attack on US soil shortly after they are in power again.

 

Thanks for asking.

[parrot 789]

And I am willing to grant that assumption for the sake of argument, which is why I said I expect another attack on US soil shortly after they are in power again.

So the attack shortly after Bush assumed power was the fault of the Democrats, but if another attack occurs shortly after Dems reassume some power, it will - of course - be the fault of Dems.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Of course not. In fact, I don't think they will lose either. What I am conceding is that the left is assuming they will win both.

 

And I am willing to grant that assumption for the sake of argument, which is why I said I expect another attack on US soil shortly after they are in power again.

 

Thanks for asking.

 

So, the changes in Congress will make Homeland Security useless and prevent our intelligence and military from acting. Gotcha.

[Chronic Husker 85]

GB Ty Cobb

[TyCobb 0]

So the attack shortly after Bush assumed power was the fault of the Democrats, but if another attack occurs shortly after Dems reassume some power, it will - of course - be the fault of Dems.

 

Who said anything about an attack which occurs "shortly after Dems reassume some power"?

 

I'm saying the attack will occur as a result of the changes they will make. Those may take some time to inact, but I have no doubt of their effect.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Who said anything about an attack which occurs "shortly after Dems reassume some power"?

 

I'm saying the attack will occur as a result of the changes they will make. Those may take some time to inact, but I have no doubt of their effect.

 

Could it be this idiot who made the statement?

 

... which is why I said I expect another attack on US soil shortly after they are in power again.

 

[TyCobb 0]

So, the changes in Congress will make Homeland Security useless and prevent our intelligence and military from acting. Gotcha.

 

No, the changes in Congress will eventually castrate the Homeland Security legislation, if not retract it altogether, as many of the Dems loathe it and voted against it.

 

The changes in Congress will also eventually allow terrorist detainees to be tried in civil courts under legal constraints which will hamper us in the war. Namely, their lawyers, many of whom are on the side of the terror backers, will be given confidential information which they will then divulge to terror regimes and undercut us in the war.

 

Those are just a few examples of why we will lose the war with Dems in charge.

 

Could it be this idiot who made the statement?

 

There's no need for insult, Patriotsfatboy. That was typed in haste and I retract it. My bad.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

There's no need for insult, Patriotsfatboy. That was typed in haste and I retract it. My bad.

 

I apologize for saying that. I retract it as well. Just wanted to make sure that you understood that it was actually you who made the statement.

[Uh-huh 0]

No, the changes in Congress will eventually castrate the Homeland Security legislation, if not retract it altogether, as many of the Dems loathe it and voted against it.

 

The changes in Congress will also eventually allow terrorist detainees to be tried in civil courts under legal constraints which will hamper us in the war. Namely, their lawyers, many of whom are on the side of the terror backers, will be given confidential information which they will then divulge to terror regimes and undercut us in the war.

 

Those are just a few examples of why we will lose the war with Dems in charge.

There's no need for insult, Patriotsfatboy. That was typed in haste and I retract it. My bad.

 

That's quite a sweeping conclusion. What is it based on?

[TyCobb 0]

That's quite a sweeping conclusion. What is it based on?

 

Common sense.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

[JohnnyCochranVoice]

Innuendo, fear, extrapolation, conjugation, subjugation, and masturbation

[/JohnnyCochranVoice]

 

Fixed

[Brick Tamland 0]

Common sense.

 

Rush=common sense?

 

[Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0]

Common sense.

 

 

There's nothing common about sense. You'll have to do better than that.

[parrot 789]

I'm still trying to get this straight TyCobb, you blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks even though he shared power with a GOP controlled congress. But if another attack were to occur with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, fault will suddenly lie with Congress? It almost sounds like you're intent on not ever putting any blame on Republicans under any circumstances...

[TyCobb 0]

I'm still trying to get this straight TyCobb, you blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks even though he shared power with a GOP controlled congress. But if another attack were to occur with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, fault will suddenly lie with Congress? It almost sounds like you're intent on not ever putting any blame on Republicans under any circumstances...

 

I'm for blaming those who are negligent, be they Republican or Democrat. My analysis concludes that the Dems view the war as a legal struggle, whereas most Repubs view it as a war against evil.

 

I happen to agree with the latter and view the former as negligent. But if any Repub happens to view it otherwise, they wouldn't get my vote.

[Cdub100 3,383]

[JohnnyCochranVoice]

Innuendo, fear, extrapolation, conjugation, subjugation, and masturbation

[/JohnnyCochranVoice]

 

 

Fixed

 

Yeah I don't think scaring everyone is going to work. Although one never knows

[parrot 789]

I'm for blaming those who are negligent, be they Republican or Democrat. My analysis concludes that the Dems view the war as a legal struggle, whereas most Repubs view it as a war against evil.

 

I happen to agree with the latter and view the former as negligent. But if any Repub happens to view it otherwise, they wouldn't get my vote.

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the war on Afghanistan so I don't think there's any basis for the idea that they're unwilling to make war if that is seen as a necessity. Also, I think what Kerry said about the long-term fight against terrorism was essentially right, it is going to be mostly an intelligence battle with law enforcement and/or special forces supplying the muscle most of the time. That is not being negligent or not taking seriously the threat of terrorism, it is simply recognizing the reality of decentralized, covert, cell-based groups like Al Qaeda. Large scale military invasions are not going to stamp out terrorism, particularly when much of it is home grown like the attacks in Great Britain.

 

I guess we have a different view of negligence; to me negligence was Bush saying he was no longer concerned about OBL; to me negligence was not putting American troops into the fight at Tora Bora when we had solid intel that OBL was quite possibly there, and hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters and leaders absolutely were there. Tora Bora was one instance that called for a large military mobilization and we didn't do it.

[TyCobb 0]

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the war on Afghanistan so I don't think there's any basis for the idea that they're unwilling to make war if that is seen as a necessity.

 

They also voted overwhelmingly for the war in Iraq. But who's counting?

 

All that shows me is they're willing to vote for things when they're popular. Thanks for bringing up Kerry's name. He voted for, against, for, then against ... I'm not sure his most recent position.

 

As for whether Dems are willing to endure low approval ratings because they believe in the rightness of the battle against evil, I doubt it. That's why Bush has my admiration ... and that's part of why the Repubs will continue to get my votes.

 

Now if the left were to run Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman ........ hmmm?

[Chronic Husker 85]

Now if the left were to run Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman ........ hmmm?

So you'd vote for Zell Miller. That says a lot.

[Nguman 0]

No other nations compare to the kinds of corporate taxation that manufacturers and other businesses must deal with than in the US. Think of all the money being saved by nations that have moved to Mexico and India from relief from the tax burden. Obvioussly there is some benefit to having those taxes, but you are just kidding yourself if you think the money received from the rollback in federal taxes has not helped the economy. Is it the single determining factor? Of course not, but the more money companies can decide how to use on their own the better. Taxes have put people out of business, that can't be ignored.

 

 

Actually if you look at comparable Countries with the similiar economy to the U.S., they have a very high tax rates. For example, in Germany the tax rate is 45% for income over 60,000 euros, I believe. And the last time I checked, Germany still has a pretty strong economy. Personally, I didn't see my spending has greatly increased in the last 8 years if all things are taken in consideration. So I'm not sure if the tax cuts really were a big influenced on my spending.

 

On a similiar note, the federal debt and interests accounts for 64% of the US GDP currently. With the current spending, it is estimated to reach 70% by 2020. It doesn't take an economist to realized that we have a huge deficit on our hand. Regardless of economic stimulus, the US can't sustain this kind of deficient for long. Balance the damn budget!

[jerryskids 5,206]

No, I was implying that anyone who has an opinion on the economy and Bush's performance should already know that the Federal debt has increased by 50%--yes, FIFTY--while he was in office. You seemed surprised by the numbers.

Sorry, but if you look earlier I had already stated that I didn't doubt the data, I was just interested in what the source was. What I didn't say was that I was wondering if there was other data at the source. You know, to paint a more complete picture and all.

[Soonerman 0]

Okay, I need to introduce a little reality here:

 

Politicians overstate their importance by trying to tell us tax cuts have a significant impact on the economy. - Presidents will tell us that businesses only expand when "their" tax cuts are passed - they don't.

 

I've been doing corporate taxes for 20 years in all kinds of industries. I can tell you one thing for certain - Tax never drives a business. Not once in any planning meeting have taxes either caused or killed a business decision. In fact, there's one company out there that is entirely family owned whose entire Tax Planning effort (and they are extensive) is repealing the Estate Tax. That hasn't happened. Yet, the business continues to function and grow. Businesses expand when business is good. Think about it - have you ever made a decision to buy - or not - because of income tax implications? Rarely too, have businesses.

 

Now, does that mean taxes are ignored? Hell no. If a business knows a capital gains reduction or an accelerated depreciation break is coming up the next year, they'll likely put off significant tax-effected decisions until then. But the decision to purchase/sell /expand has already been made - by the business, because of business factors.. Rarely in the history of business has a CEO said: "Holy crap! The government's offering accelerated depreciation - let's buy a $100 Million airplane!"

 

Politicians constantly overstate their impact upon the economy - and we believe it. If you're really looking for a factor that has a ginormous impact upon both business and personal economies, look to the FED. - Interest rates are perhaps the single biggest driver of an macro and micro - economic trends.

 

thus endeth the lesson.

 

Nice argument. Too bad you completely misunderstand how tax cuts cause economic growth.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Actually if you look at comparable Countries with the similiar economy to the U.S., they have a very high tax rates. For example, in Germany the tax rate is 45% for income over 60,000 euros, I believe. And the last time I checked, Germany still has a pretty strong economy.

 

You obviously are "guessing" at what is going on in Europe. Check their unemployment rates, and their economic outlook compared to ours and get back to us.

[TyCobb 0]

I apologize for saying that. I retract it as well. Just wanted to make sure that you understood that it was actually you who made the statement.

 

Noted. By the way, love the author or hate her, here's an article describing my rational for saying the lawyers would sabatoge our war on terror by betraying us if we turned the detainees over as civil court matters.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Noted. By the way, love the author or hate her, here's an article describing my rational for saying the lawyers would sabatoge our war on terror by betraying us if we turned the detainees over as civil court matters.

 

1. Not sure why you are responding to me on this one because I did not question the sabotage by lawyers. While I did think that your statement was off base, I never mentioned it here. I was pointing out that your response to the other question on what your basis was (i.e. "common sense") had a comical element to it.

 

2. Using Ann Coulter as your basis for this argument is like using the Grand Wizard of the KKK in a civil rights discussion. I would have hoped that you could have come up with something that could be construed as (at least) rational (note the difference between that and rationale)

[TyCobb 0]

1. Not sure why you are responding to me on this one because I did not question the sabotage by lawyers. While I did think that your statement was off base, I never mentioned it here. I was pointing out that your response to the other question on what your basis was (i.e. "common sense") had a comical element to it.

 

2. Using Ann Coulter as your basis for this argument is like using the Grand Wizard of the KKK in a civil rights discussion. I would have hoped that you could have come up with something that could be construed as (at least) rational (note the difference between that and rationale)

 

I knew I misspelled that word. But my brain was just too fried from a long workday to fix it.

 

I accept the ridicule for posting a Coulter article. But it does represent my logic. And I presumed your mockery of my "common sense" was your way of questioning my logic. If not, my bad.