What's the point of even debating with you bama. You can't even argue against the actual stance of liberals, you have to make up your own. You b**** about liberals wanting to take half of your paycheck, then jump it up to 70% in the next few lines. There is no point in even talking to you. There's nobody here and no true democrats looking to take anywhere near half of your "average joe" paycheck, and you know damn well that's true. But instead of manning up and arguing against reality, you make up your own extreme version of things because it's easy as hell. For the life of me, I don't know how you can be tired of defending yourself against what you claim to be defending yourself against since there is hardly anybody in this country that takes that view.
Thanks, Oski. I had typed something similar (less lucid and eloquent, actually), but I decided there was no point in posting it. I think I was wrong. "p*****s" (sic) and "real men" (sic) alike should be able to enjoy and appreciate that sensible post of yours.
That's because govt. in all its blunderous forms, already takes 50 percent of my check when I factor in all the regulation, state and local taxes, etc. As for your assertion that "no true Democrats" want to take more of my tax dollars, why is it that every single last Democratic candidate wants to raise taxes by repealing Bush's cuts? I am arguing against reality, because the reality is that our federal govt. is growing at a ridiculous rate thanks to Bush and his linguine-spine, quasi-lib, Republican buddies in Congress. Liberals never have been able to answer what is everyone's "fair share" to pay to the govt and I doubt you will answer that question. Do you consider the increasing amount of encroachment and bloat of the Feds into your life a problem? Or do you simply want to take advantage of the goodies paid by others?
Here's a liberal post for ya : Some calulate that half of your tax money goes to current and past military spending. (let's not even mention corporate welfare) TOOLS FOR PEACE OR TOOLS FOR WAR $100 11 Blankets for refugees 11 hand grenades $4,000 3-day training for 160 youth in peace building 1 rocket launcher $14,000 Enroll 2 children in Head Start 1 cluster bomb $40,000 2 home health aides for disabled elderly 1 Hellfire missile $145,600 Associate Degree training for 29 RNs 1 Bunker-buster guided bomb $586,000 Rent subsidies for 1,000 families 1,000 M-16 Rifles $763,000 Annual salary/benefits for 15 RNs 1 minute war on Iraq $46 million Improve, repair, modernize 20 schools 1 hour war on Iraq $130 million WIC program nutrition for 200,000 families 7 unmanned Predator drones $275 million Eradicate polio worldwide 3 tests of missile defense system $350 million Best vaccinations for 10 million children worldwide 6 Trident II missiles $413 million Childcare for 68,000 needy children Amphibious Warfare Landing Ship Program $494 million 7,000 units of affordable housing 1 year military aid to Colombia $1.1 billion Prevent cuts to education programs (FY2003) 1 day of war on Iraq $1.2 billion Minimum support to save Amtrak train service 2 months U.S. war force in Afghanistan $2.1 billion Annual salary/benefits for 38,000 elementary teachers 1 Stealth bomber $12 billion Double federal funding for mass transit 1 year cost of war in Afghanistan (2001/2002) $16 billion Healthcare coverage for 7 million children 1 year nuclear weapons program $38 billion Save 11 million lives worldwide fighting infectious diseases 1 month U.S. current military spending
Congratulations on your award, bamaslammer. You are personally responsible for some of the stupidest sh*t posted on this BBS.
It has been my experience that those who cling with exceeding tenacity to a personal idealism that is becoming, for them, increasingly difficult to defend, are the same people who are most in danger of seeing the faults of that idealism, and who are getting close to losing it. Often, these people will descend into fanaticism briefly, during which they will ignore obvious and undeniable facts and instead desperately attest to a "reality" that only they and their fellow fanatics can see. There is a possibility that they may never return from this fanaticism, but most come out on the other side with an ironic and detached feeling concerning their former beliefs. That being said, I would just like to be the first to congratulate bamaslammer on his impending escape from the dark shadows of paranoiac conservative ignorance.
You don't argue with WHAT I'm saying, but as some of you liberals (I don't want to tar with a broad brush because there are some liberals here I would not put in the "p***y" category) like to do with TJ and others, you simply attack the messenger.
Let's talk about the President and taking responsibility for his own actions. Time and time again when the economy or the deficit is brought up, Bush claims none of it is his fault. It's all the fault of 9/11 or fighting the war on terror. Or it was really Clinton's fault for the big mess Clinton left. So where is our president taking responsibility for his own actions? When it comes to someone from his whitehouse with top security clearance using that clearance to commit a felony, and do this at a time when we have troops in the field, it's not his fault. Even though he's responsible for that person being in a position to commit that felony, somehow it's not his fault. The fact that Bush was warned by the intel community time and time again that there wasn't credible WMD evidence regarding Iraq he didn't listen. Now that he didn't listen he's not man enough to take responsibility for that and instead is wasting money on an independent investigation. Somehow the fault lies with the intel community and Bush When Bush mentioned the nuke threat in the state of the union and it was found to be false, it wasn't Bush's fault, but any number of intel people, speechwriters, etc., but never with the President himself. So talking about personal responsibility has no place with our president.
Lost in the shuffle of all this is the fact that oski was not blaming the president for his personal problems. At least according to any reasonable interpretation. But who am I to hold up high comedy? continuez....
This budget affects Texas, and not in a good way. From the Houston Chronicle: HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Page 1 Feb. 2, 2004, 11:35PM Bush's budget calls for 3.5% rise Costs to continue the war on terror are not included By JOHN C. HENRY Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- President Bush unveiled a $2.4 trillion election-year budget Monday that cuts dozens of programs affecting Texans, from community policing to water projects, and boosts spending on defense and homeland security. Although the president's budget sets aside $401.7 billion for defense, it does not include any money for ongoing military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Administration officials said a separate emergency request for up to $50 billion would be submitted to Congress after the November election. "Hopefully the needs will be less, but it will all depend entirely on the security situation," said Joshua Bolten, the White House budget director. The president's budget, which would increase federal spending by 3.5 percent overall, would pour most of the additional money into the military, domestic security programs, and some education and health initiatives. It also provides more money for NASA as the agency refocuses its mission to put humans on Mars, a project that carries an unknown pricetag. Bush, who inherited a budget surplus when he took office three years ago, has overseen a sharp series of budget increases that outstripped tax revenues. This reversal has been due in large part to the costly war against terrorism and a series of tax cuts that he sold as economic stimulants and now wants Congress to make permanent. Faced with a record $521 billion federal deficit this year, Bush's spending blueprint for 2005 would reduce the deficit to $364 billion. The budget submitted to Congress on Monday projects a budget shortfall of $237 billion -- or about half the current deficit -- by 2009. Under Bush's budget, the government will have to borrow almost one-fourth of what it is spending this year and about 15 percent next year. His plan sets aside $178 billion next year just to pay interest on the government's debt. Other than broad references to economic growth and greater restraint on spending, the president and his budget writers provided few details on how the deficit would be reduced by half over the next five years. "I'm confident our budget addresses a very serious situation," he said at a meeting of his Cabinet. "And that is that we are at war and we had dealt with a recession. And our budget is able to address those significant factors in a way that reduces the deficit in half." Bush's budget, which faces weeks of congressional hearings and debate, calls for eliminating 65 government-backed programs and reducing spending on 63 others. Spending at seven of 16 Cabinet-level agencies would be cut under Bush's proposed budget. While spending at the Education Department would increase in areas related to the president's Leave No Child Behind initiative, $1.4 billion would be cut if Congress goes along with his plan to eliminate dozens of programs aimed at alcohol abuse, dropout prevention, counseling programs, and the arts. The Environmental Protection Agency budget would be cut by 7.2 percent. Among the programs hardest hit would be the agency's low-interest loan program to help communities replace aging water treatment and sewage treatment facilities. Bush also proposed cutting spending at the Small Business Administration by more than 10 percent and at the Corps of Engineers, which oversees port and drainage projects in Houston, by more than 13 percent. The president wants to reduce federal spending on the Community Oriented Policing Services program from $482 million to $97 million next year. Known as COPS, the program helps police departments, including Houston's, hire extra police officers or pay for overtime to keep more officers on the streets. Similar recommendations by past presidents have been ignored by Congress, but some conservative Republicans see this year as one of their best chances to reduce spending on domestic programs. "We have a real budgetary crisis on our hands," said Rep. John Culberson, a west Houston Republican who has fought efforts by some lawmakers to write pet projects into spending legislation. "We're going to have to aggressively cut spending everywhere we can." House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, a Florida Republican whose panel controls spending, said non-defense programs targeted by Bush for cuts make up less than one-fifth of the federal budget and will have limited impact when trying to reduce the deficit. Young cautioned that anyone relying on federal funding should be "prepared to make sacrifices" and said lawmakers would look closely at Bush's proposed increases "to see if we can afford them in a lean budget year." While the president's spending and tax priorities parallel themes he has been striking as he began campaigning for re-election, the blueprint he unveiled Monday provides a target for Democrats in Congress and those who are campaigning for his job. "It's the most anti-family, anti-worker, anti-health care, anti-education budget in modern times, and it doesn't deserve to pass," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, one of the Democrats running for president, said the spending plan "makes it clear what President Bush's priorities are: tax cuts for the rich and tough luck for everyone else." John Podesta, the White House chief of staff under former President Clinton, said Bush's promise to significantly reduce the deficit without tax increases is laughable. "They're more likely to find a nuclear bomb in Baghdad that they have in cutting the budget deficit in half in the next five years," Podesta said.
To be fair, that parasite on all taxpayers, Oski2005, was complaining about a personal problem, the extra high taxes he will have to pay to pay down the defecit.
How dare you complain! Be a real man and pay down the deficit that other people ran up yourself! Take some responsibility for others misdeeds!
You know bammer, we could probably pay for your defense issues , fund most of their social programs, stimulate domestic energy production and alternative energy research, reduce global warming and poluution, and reduce Saudi funding to radical fundamentalist by simply placing a $5 a barrel tarriff on imported oil. Your going to have to back off on driving the testosteronemobile though. (I still don't know why everyone thought Ross Perot was crazy)
He just looked and sounded crazy sometimes. Needed very good image engineers like the Bushies to make him not open his mouth and reveal this. Some of his policies made sense, others not, just like anybody else.
Not going to happen, thank God. Cheap gas is good. No matter where it comes from. Speaking of said "testeronemobile," I drive her hardly at all during the winter months and with 500 hp, I still get around 22 MPG on the hwy (when babied), better than a lot of SUVs. I put less than 5K miles a year on that puppy, so I don't think I'm contributing much to "pollution." My diesel truck gets around 25 MPG HWY, my Maxima commuter car gets around 28 MPG HWY, so I'm doing my part to reduce dependency on foreign oil.
