Originally Posted By IRONMAN Well there you go. I am sure everyone on the left will avoid comment like the plague.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>the Democrats need to take a SERIOUS look at the budget and find ways to CUT spending and eliminating and/or restricting access to certain programs<< The Democrats won't cut spending, and neither did the Republicans when they were running the show. That's a dusty old GOP talking point that rings false after this administration and the GOP-controlled house and senate did not a thing about cutting spending when they held the reigns. Remember that this president couldn't find his veto pen until stem cells came along. It amuses me that anyone still believes that the GOP is very different in terms of spending than Democrats are. The only difference is where they spend it. The GOP tends to steer towards defense while the Democrats steer towards social programs. And clearly, the GOP doesn't mind "charging" it when it comes to paying for the war and any number of things. They are no longer the party of "fiscal responsibility".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They are no longer the party of "fiscal responsibility".> And yet, still better than the Democrats.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And yet, still better than the Democrats.<< Except there's no evidence of that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And yet, still better than the Democrats.<< Not based on the example of 2000 - 2006 they aren't.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I am not sure we need a 10% across the board budget fix, but the Democrats need to take a SERIOUS look at the budget and find ways to CUT spending and eliminating and/or restricting access to certain programs." Let's start with funding for Bush's moronic war.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP The problem isn't that government spends money, it's that it spends it inefficiently, and I don't know how to fix that. Ideally most government social programs are "preventative" measures: If we spend on education now, we won't have to spend on prisons later or if we pay for regular well child check-ups now we won't have to spend as much in medi-care later. There are certain exceptions: The National Parks System (generally approved of) and the National Endowment for the Arts (generally not approved of) for two. Defense (Police or Army) and Transportation are two examples where it's just easier for us all to fund one big system then for us each to raise our own private armies or our own private roads. To take ironman's example in post 75: Where did little boy A get his shovel and toy cars from? Let me explain where I'm going: I think we have comparitivly little "true" inherited wealth in this country, in the sense that the second generation either inherits the right not to have to work at all or inherits a top position in a large company. However, when you start out middle class you start out with certain advantages. I retuned home two different time to my parents home durring my college years, and my stable middle class parents were able to take me in. A good friend of mine on the other hand, his mother was occaisonally homeless, so when finicaial times got tough he couldn't move home, he had to quit school for awhile. Second, I inherited parents who both graduated from college and raised me with the assumption that I would go on to school after high school. Since at least some college preparations need to start in Junior High, that's a powerful assumption. I also inherited at least a moderate amount of intelligence and parents who were able to help me with my homework. I've worked in high schools and junior highs. Let me tell you, in general the kids who struggle in school had parents who struggled in school. (Obviously, there are exceptions.) I'm not saying anyone is bound to their parent's heratige, I'm just saying that swimming upstream takes alot of strength, more than most people have. I'm not saying that you didn't swim hard to get to where you are, but I am saying that some others have more current working against them than you give them credit for. So, many of these government programs aren't supposed to hand out money to lazy people, they're supposed to give people a hand and help them to swim upstream against everything that's dragging them down. It's supposed to work that way, unfortunatly it doesn't always. As a culture we'd rather just send a check then pay more social workers, but there you are. I don't resent the money, and I'd be okay with giving more to the government, I just wish theyre was a way to make sure it was spent the best way possible. (It would also be nice if everyone relized everything government does from them, like providing safe flate roads, and educating the neighbor's kids so they're not hoodlems smashing your windshield at night, providing parks or all kinds, keeping the food supply safe--only not so much recently, paying govenment workers enough that bribes are not routine here, enforcing building codes, orgaizining the airwaves so your neighbor's phone doesn't turn off your tv, and on and on and on...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The Top 25% of Income earners made 66% of the total share of income in the US, but paid 85% of that income in Federal Income Taxes. > I don't think you mean they paid 85% of their income - I think you mean they paid 85% OF federal income taxes. And congratulations - you discovered that we have a progressive tax system in order to pay for the sorts of things MrsElderP talked about, as well as our military, interest on the national debt that Bush has rung up, etc. etc. Could we spend the money more efficiently? Of course. So let's look at THAT rather than trying to pretend the rich are oppressed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Not based on the example of 2000 - 2006 they aren't.> <Even then.> No, not even then. I know you need to cling to that ideologically or your head will explode, but a LOT of Republicans (like my parents) are being more honest and saying that the current crop of Republicans have been worse on deficit spending than Democrats have been (and to get that admission out of my parents is no small thing).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Trust me I know. I made about 35k last year. Im lazy and content but I dont want nothing I didnt earn,>> <<Well there you go. I am sure everyone on the left will avoid comment like the plague.>> Well, my wife and I worked our butts off and made over 5 times what you made last year. I don’t mind paying the taxes I paid last year, and I would be more than happy to have a million dollar income and the taxes associated with that. I happen to believe that those who most succeed in our country also have the greatest obligation to contribute to the common good.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I know you need to cling to that ideologically or your head will explode, but a LOT of Republicans (like my parents) are being more honest and saying that the current crop of Republicans have been worse on deficit spending than Democrats have been (and to get that admission out of my parents is no small thing).> I'm not clinging to anything. I believe what I believe because I have examined the evidence and find it compelling. That your parents believe something is no evidence it is so.
Originally Posted By dshyates I believe your examination of the evidence is a lot like the Administration examining the pre-War intel. If it doesn't fit you pre-concieved notion of reality is goes in the trash as not credible. After all your arguements I really don't believe you possess the ability to do intellectual analysis. Just a bunch of either agreeing or knee jerk rejection.
Originally Posted By X-san Of course you do, but dsh isn't the one who's been supporting a losing cause all these years. At this point, you're one of the few still defending arguably the worst president in history. Certainly one of the worst, at the very least.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <dsh isn't the one who's been supporting a losing cause all these years.> Isn't he? <you're one of the few still defending arguably the worst president in history. Certainly one of the worst, at the very least.> No, I'm defending the GOP in general, from what I believe is an inaccurate claim. I do, however, believe that many people are wrong about President Bush. He certainly isn't one of the worst Presidents, and history will bear that out.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I know you need to cling to that ideologically or your head will explode, but a LOT of Republicans (like my parents) are being more honest and saying that the current crop of Republicans have been worse on deficit spending than Democrats have been (and to get that admission out of my parents is no small thing).>> <I'm not clinging to anything. I believe what I believe because I have examined the evidence and find it compelling.> Except, as 2oony pointed out, the recent evidence is exactly the opposite of what you claim. A GOP president and GOP Congress (through 2006) were worse on deficit spending than the immediately preceding Dem. president and GOP congress. It's hard to compare eras, but not that hard to compare the 90's with the 2000's. With the all-GOP DC, we saw a reversal from declining deficits (and briefly into surplus) into large deficits again. THAT's the evidence. <That your parents believe something is no evidence it is so.> No, the evidence is evidence it is so. They're just not so blinded by ideology that they can't see it.
