If Conservatives Have Such Great Ideas....

[FiveSpeedF150]

[quote name='acolorado' date='21 March 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1269169965' post='458556']

Well I'm not sure how to respond to you except to point out that you're own questions would be answered if you read the thread.

If that doesn't work and you're from the South just read it out loud and go very slowly.

So if you think that the current system is messed up what is your solution? Just saying "reform of some kind" only solves problems in Republican Magical Fantasy Land.

If we had listened to Republicans in the past the country would still be segregated, interracial marriage would be illegal, old people and the disabled would be left to scrounge and starve on the streets without Medicare and Social Security, workers would still be chained to the machines in our factories, women would not be able to vote, and minorities would still be second class citizens.

According to Republicans allowing women to vote would turn us into Communists (1920's)

Then Social Security would turn us into Communists (1930's).

Then Civil Rights, interracial marriage, and desegregation would turn us into Communists (1950's).

Then Medicare would turn us into Communists (1960's).

Then cleaner energy would turn us into Communists (1970's).

Now health care reform will turn us into Communists.

I think it's pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

And if you really believe that using public services constitutes Socialism, pledge to all of us that you will never accept any such service in the future. You won't use our publicly subsidized streets, water, sewage, communications, or other utilities. You won't call our police or fire departments, you won't work for the government or military, you won't eat any product produced by a company receiving subsidies, you won't collect unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or VA benefits. You won't send your children to public schools, or accept the protection of our military.

Walk your Talk. That will be the day.
[/quote]

Easy, killer. I think you're projecting some anger in my direction. I said that I disagree with socializing healthcare, because I believe the private sector will continue to do it better in almost all ways. You responded by calling me a evil sexist, racist, republican southerner, although I never said anything to imply I was any of the above. (I do represent Florida with pride though ) Classy.

You're right about all the budget problems you mentioned. Is now the right time to be adding costs? Why the rush? Why is this being pushed through so hard now, is there a chance that public support will never get stronger behind it? Why is nancy pelosi telling us that "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"?

I don't trust the government to work in my best interests anymore than I trust anyone else to. I think that this bill is about power more than anything else. You obviously disagree.

[Rani]

[quote name='FiveSpeedF150' date='21 March 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1269198905' post='458615']
[quote name='acolorado' date='21 March 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1269169965' post='458556']
Well I'm not sure how to respond to you except to point out that you're own questions would be answered if you read the thread.

If that doesn't work and you're from the South just read it out loud and go very slowly.

So if you think that the current system is messed up what is your solution? Just saying "reform of some kind" only solves problems in Republican Magical Fantasy Land.

If we had listened to Republicans in the past the country would still be segregated, interracial marriage would be illegal, old people and the disabled would be left to scrounge and starve on the streets without Medicare and Social Security, workers would still be chained to the machines in our factories, women would not be able to vote, and minorities would still be second class citizens.

According to Republicans allowing women to vote would turn us into Communists (1920's)

Then Social Security would turn us into Communists (1930's).

Then Civil Rights, interracial marriage, and desegregation would turn us into Communists (1950's).

Then Medicare would turn us into Communists (1960's).

Then cleaner energy would turn us into Communists (1970's).

Now health care reform will turn us into Communists.

I think it's pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

And if you really believe that using public services constitutes Socialism, pledge to all of us that you will never accept any such service in the future. You won't use our publicly subsidized streets, water, sewage, communications, or other utilities. You won't call our police or fire departments, you won't work for the government or military, you won't eat any product produced by a company receiving subsidies, you won't collect unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or VA benefits. You won't send your children to public schools, or accept the protection of our military.

Walk your Talk. That will be the day.
[/quote]

Easy, killer. I think you're projecting some anger in my direction. I said that I disagree with socializing healthcare, because I believe the private sector will continue to do it better in almost all ways. You responded by calling me a evil sexist, racist, republican southerner, although I never said anything to imply I was any of the above. (I do represent Florida with pride though ) Classy.

You're right about all the budget problems you mentioned. Is now the right time to be adding costs? Why the rush? Why is this being pushed through so hard now, is there a chance that public support will never get stronger behind it? [b]Why is nancy pelosi telling us that "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"? [/b]

I don't trust the government to work in my best interests anymore than I trust anyone else to. I think that this bill is about power more than anything else. You obviously disagree.
[/quote]


if you want to see exasctly what's in the bill, all you have to do is a little research. Very little. Every single bill before Congress is on either the House or Senate websites and searchable on key words, like "health care". I don't think those were Peolosi's exact words. I recall they were something along the lines of once it's passed and people realize what's in it, they're going to be glad we did it. Having actually read it myself (though I had to keep going back to it because those things are guaranteed to put your ass to sleep), I agree with her.

'Rani

[LZ22]

[quote name='acolorado' date='14 March 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1268623246' post='457113']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='14 March 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1268618540' post='457106']
A "moderate" or "independent" doesn't tout socialism. There is nothing moderate, or independent about it. There seems to be a notable lack of continuity in your preaching.


Must be from boulder.
[/quote]

I know bud. You don't drive down the street, won't call the cops if you get in trouble, won't call the fire department if your house goes up. You won't drive an American car because the companies that make them get government subsidies. You won't eat food or wear clothes made in America because agriculture and textiles are subsidized also. You don't use electricity supported by the public utilities. You won't make any claim in a government court of law, or expect the protection of the publicly funded military. Won't take the bus if your car breaks down. You wont' go to the emergency room when your employer drops your insurance and you get sick. You won't collect social security, or use medicare when you retire. You wont' collect unemployment if you get laid off, or ever use any facility supported with government money such as a public swimming pool. You won't send your kids to public schools, or watch sports programs held in stadiums funded with public taxes. Or watch TV or use the phone for that matter, since those are subsidized by the U.S. government. You won't drink the water the city or county cleans, or use the sewage system or walk on the sidewalk. You won't collect food stamps if you're out of work and starving.

In fact you're not going to use the internet to reply to this, because the landlines used for the net are subsidized also and most of the lines laid for it were paid for by Uncle Sam. Not to mention it was developed using tax dollars by the Department of Defense.

Only "Socialists" would do any of that.

And of course the most important thing to you is ensuring that the United States pays as much per capita as every other developed country while getting much much less for it when it comes to Healthcare. You are proud that we are ranked #37 in the world while spending more than any other country. You believe that it's right for Americans to go homeless, starve, and sicken and die when they get laid off to maximize some corporation's profits.

Please. You can't even live up to the standards you claim to believe in.
[/quote]

Just had to chime in... about 75% of the services you listed are funded by state and local government, not Uncle Sam. Nobody has a problem with paying taxes to fund local schools, unemployment, public transportation, utilities, police, fire, hospitals, etc because they are LOCAL, aka my tax dollar is paying for services I directly use in my community. Oh, and medicaid is also administered by the state, not federal government. Sure, let the government subsidize landlines for the internet, because everyone can use it fairly and equally. However, conservatives have a problem with subsidies and entitlement programs that are strictly limited to only certain people. For example, I don't think think my tax dollars should be paying for someones welfare check, call me satan. The military protects EVERY person of the United States. However, if the military only protected the state of new york, and i live in illinois, then I would have a big problem with my tax dollar going towards that. Do you see the difference? Its not that conservatives hate all forms of government spending, only ones that try to steal money from one group of people to provide benefit to another.

I also think you would find it interesting to know that the health care industry is, i believe, the 86th ranked industry in overall profit margins in the US. That's 85 other industries that make more profit. I was fortunate enough to take multiple classes in risk management and insurance in school, and I can tell you that the healthcare industry is not this big, greedy corporate demon bloated with profits.

[TheScotsman]

My FD is all volunteer, and funded by the township.

I have yet, in my life to ever call the cops, for anything.

If it says "union made" I find an imported product instead.

I drive a truck made by one of the US builders that didn't take a bailout (AM Genreral), the DA has one from the other (Ford)

Never been to an emergency room that hasn't been funded by my own insurance... paid for by myself (the joys of being self employed) I can't collect WC on unemployment (again, self employed, duh.) If I pay into SS, why wouldn't I take every penny I am due, after all, that is what the socialist-security program said I was due.

I am on a well, I paid for, no city water anything.

I hate non-motor sports, no stadiums for me, I don't appreciate the company of my fellow man enough to want to make the 3.5 hour trip (one way) to go to one.


You show a lack of the basic understanding of just what gov't entity is funding what service, but that seems typical.

[acolorado]

[quote name='LZ22' date='02 April 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1270247177' post='461569']
[quote name='acolorado' date='14 March 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1268623246' post='457113']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='14 March 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1268618540' post='457106']
A "moderate" or "independent" doesn't tout socialism. There is nothing moderate, or independent about it. There seems to be a notable lack of continuity in your preaching.


Must be from boulder.
[/quote]

I know bud. You don't drive down the street, won't call the cops if you get in trouble, won't call the fire department if your house goes up. You won't drive an American car because the companies that make them get government subsidies. You won't eat food or wear clothes made in America because agriculture and textiles are subsidized also. You don't use electricity supported by the public utilities. You won't make any claim in a government court of law, or expect the protection of the publicly funded military. Won't take the bus if your car breaks down. You wont' go to the emergency room when your employer drops your insurance and you get sick. You won't collect social security, or use medicare when you retire. You wont' collect unemployment if you get laid off, or ever use any facility supported with government money such as a public swimming pool. You won't send your kids to public schools, or watch sports programs held in stadiums funded with public taxes. Or watch TV or use the phone for that matter, since those are subsidized by the U.S. government. You won't drink the water the city or county cleans, or use the sewage system or walk on the sidewalk. You won't collect food stamps if you're out of work and starving.

In fact you're not going to use the internet to reply to this, because the landlines used for the net are subsidized also and most of the lines laid for it were paid for by Uncle Sam. Not to mention it was developed using tax dollars by the Department of Defense.

Only "Socialists" would do any of that.

And of course the most important thing to you is ensuring that the United States pays as much per capita as every other developed country while getting much much less for it when it comes to Healthcare. You are proud that we are ranked #37 in the world while spending more than any other country. You believe that it's right for Americans to go homeless, starve, and sicken and die when they get laid off to maximize some corporation's profits.

Please. You can't even live up to the standards you claim to believe in.
[/quote]

Just had to chime in... about 75% of the services you listed are funded by state and local government, not Uncle Sam. Nobody has a problem with paying taxes to fund local schools, unemployment, public transportation, utilities, police, fire, hospitals, etc because they are LOCAL, aka my tax dollar is paying for services I directly use in my community. Oh, and medicaid is also administered by the state, not federal government. Sure, let the government subsidize landlines for the internet, because everyone can use it fairly and equally. However, conservatives have a problem with subsidies and entitlement programs that are strictly limited to only certain people. For example, I don't think think my tax dollars should be paying for someones welfare check, call me satan. The military protects EVERY person of the United States. However, if the military only protected the state of new york, and i live in illinois, then I would have a big problem with my tax dollar going towards that. Do you see the difference? Its not that conservatives hate all forms of government spending, only ones that try to steal money from one group of people to provide benefit to another.

I also think you would find it interesting to know that the health care industry is, i believe, the 86th ranked industry in overall profit margins in the US. That's 85 other industries that make more profit. I was fortunate enough to take multiple classes in risk management and insurance in school, and I can tell you that the healthcare industry is not this big, greedy corporate demon bloated with profits.
[/quote]

I see. Conservatives hate programs that funnel money from one group to another.

Like say, a 2 TRILLION dollar tax cut for the rich? The rich who we now find out were already in a lower tax bracket than most middle class families even before they got the break (the wonders of loopholes, accountants, and offshore accounts). So we got to pay the taxes they owed - how fair and balanced. Excuse me, but it seems conservatives only hate programs that channel money to help the poor, they never complain about the big gift packages they themselves engineer for the rich.

Or maybe you're referring to the tens of BILLIONS used to provide schools and hospitals to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan? According to many conservatives - we can't afford to build new schools and hospitals here in America - but they have no problem building them for the citizens of another country.

Perhaps you meant Medicare Plan-D, which wound up turning into a massive donation to private pharmaceutical companies, and will cost more in the long run than the recently passed reform bill. Yes, a Republican sponsored health care bill that will cost us more than the HCR. I suppose that if you're giving public money to private companies, that doesn't qualify as Communism, Socialism, Fascism, The end of America, or Tyranny.

The kicker is most of the programs America's "Conservatives" passed when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate were never budgeted. They went straight to the deficit. So really they never bothered to find a way to pay for them, which the Democrats to their credit have done with the new bill. In fact, 53% of the current deficit is the result of programs instituted by Republicans when they were in charge. Only 10% is due to Obama and the Dems - including Health Care Reform. So perhaps you only want to complain about the 10%, and just pretend the 53% doesn't exist - or just try to blame it all on the other party.

The only time I've heard conservatives complaining about spending is when it's Dems doing the spending. I never heard this when they were in charge. They certainly never complained about the massive transfers of taxpayer dollars that they came up with.

I believe the only word for it is hypocrisy.

Personally the most disturbing thing about it is how quickly they switch their "principles" when someone else gets the gavel.

So if you REALLY have a problem with big government giveaways - maybe you could start with the Elephants in the room?

[acolorado]

I should address you're concern that the insurance industry has a slim profit margin.

Ranking 85th or so is not bad in a country which has hundreds of different industries. The average rate of profit for a large company in the U.S. is 5% - the same 5% common to the insurance industry. I learned this when I was getting my degree in Management and Finance. Interesting stuff, but a bit misleading when you try to claim that 5% is a low profit margin, when in fact it's the standard for large organizations.

Being average doesn't make them poor.

Secondly - even if it were true for the sake of argument that they had a slim profit margin compared to other industries - does that justify the myriad of unethical and in some cases illegal practices which have come to light in the industry, and which the health care bill begins to address? Some examples:

Rescission - finding any detail to cancel a policy after a claim is made - which was actively encouraged and even rewarded at several large insurers.

Denying coverage based on the claim that pregnancy, domestic violence, or even family history constituted a pre-existing condition.

Charging bills back to the policy holder which had already been reimbursed by the care provider.

Haggling over which procedures are covered by a policy in the hope they could avoid payment - even in cases where the procedures were clearly specified in the policies.

These abuses are clearly wrong. They were not isolated events. Many of the companies which practiced them are now paying for them (such as Anthem Blue in California), but arguing that we can't reform them because they don't have a high enough profit margin is akin to saying that it's fine to rob a bank or mug some little old lady, so long as you need the money.

I worked in insurance for two years. I sold a lot of policies. I understand that the actuarial system is really the only feasible model pertaining to for-profit insurance. In a society of laws and moral standards it can't be used to justify crimes and abuses. Reform was absolutely necessary from this standpoint alone. The fact that the industry is not meeting the needs of our nation as a whole is another. When over 30 million Americans can't afford to insure themselves - it just makes sense for the government to step in.

One last point. I just learned the other day that the current HCR plan is almost identical to the plan the Republicans proposed as an alternative to Clinton's plan in the 90's. Back then they called it the reasonable alternative. It included the individual mandate - which was originally a REPUBLICAN proposal!

Now it is Communism, Socialism, Death Panels, Kill - Grandma, abuse of power, and tyranny.

Again - the only word for it is hypocrisy.

[acolorado]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='02 April 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1270252129' post='461577']
My FD is all volunteer, and funded by the township.

I have yet, in my life to ever call the cops, for anything.

If it says "union made" I find an imported product instead.

I drive a truck made by one of the US builders that didn't take a bailout (AM Genreral), the DA has one from the other (Ford)

Never been to an emergency room that hasn't been funded by my own insurance... paid for by myself (the joys of being self employed) I can't collect WC on unemployment (again, self employed, duh.) If I pay into SS, why wouldn't I take every penny I am due, after all, that is what the socialist-security program said I was due.

I am on a well, I paid for, no city water anything.

I hate non-motor sports, no stadiums for me, I don't appreciate the company of my fellow man enough to want to make the 3.5 hour trip (one way) to go to one.


You show a lack of the basic understanding of just what gov't entity is funding what service, but that seems typical.
[/quote]

God Bless. You seem to have found the conservative paradise.

Unfortunately - many of the services you refer to are in fact funded with federal dollars filtered down through the states and then to local communities. You also failed to mention highways, communications, and the military. I also note you seem to live on a reservation. Many of the government services on reservations are paid for directly using Federal dollars. Certainly far more than in the average community. In fact, here's a clip of John McCain complaining that federal funding for reservations had fallen behind in the mid 90's.
[url="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=597090960"]My link[/url]
It just seems strange to me that you complain about the government that funds the services you DO rely on every day for providing those services, especially when you appear to live in a community which receives more of those funds than most.

You're welcome for the roads by the way. I'm glad I worked hard to help you out there.

I should point out here that the policies you like to rail against such as Health Care were passed by a democratically elected legislature. The public spoke, and the elected acted. That you happen to find yourself supporting the minority at this point in time is just part of living in a healthy democracy. A few years ago I was in the same position. That's the "burden" we have to bear I suppose for living in this great country.

Now I can see you choose to live a lifestyle that abhors the Federal government and everything you call "libtard". I can respect you're right to make that choice, even if you don't have the common decency, or indeed vocabulary, to communicate it in a civilized and well premised manner - or at least to frame your insults with some level of dignity. The plain fact is - if the government were as evil as you claim - you wouldn't be able to practice those rights. Every day thousands of people are hard at work in various government departments protecting your right to hate that very government, complain about it in public, and ridicule the institutions which protect our wonderful Constitution and it's promises.

I find that deliciously ironic, and not a little hypocritical.

[Venger]

I guess this is how I see it. This will be my final word on this post as well, as I grow weary of banging my head against the same wall. I never said the republicans were the good guys and I never said the democrats were the bad guys. The entire system, as it is in place today, is broken. Each side fighting over who gets what. each side not voting to better the country but to promote their agenda and trying to do as little as possible so they can get re-elected. Taking taxes without concern as to where that money comes from. You talk about the rich not paying their fair share. What right does any government have to punish someone punitively because they are successful and reward someone for being lazy.
What is considered fair? Does a rich man use more services than a poor man? is He MORE protected by the army?
The only way things will get better is to truely tax people fairly...on what they spend. A consumption tax would level the playing field. If the rich buy more then they will pay more in taxes but the percent is equal to the poor who buy less. Mandating anyone to do anything is wrong. We tell our government what to do,not the other way around. As far as health care.The only fix is deregulation. Remove the border restrictions so I can purchase from anyone in the USA. Tort reform.If a dr or hospital doesn't have to carry their own ridiculous insurance they could charge less. Use your dollars to make them lower prices. Like car insurance. If state farm is charging you too much,switch to geico. If it works for car insurance surely it would work for health care. Bottom line this is about control. It has been proven the consumption tax would increase the tax base and it would eliminate the need for the irs which would also save tax dollars. Problem is if they go that route they lose the control over how much a person can make and spend and as we know with money and spending comes power. Isn't it interesting that most of our congress and presidents have all been millionaires? coincidence...no fucking way. Well now I am done.That's my whole wad.I have nothing more to say on this matter. I have thick skin and broad shoulders so...FLAME ON.Xo

[acolorado]

[quote name='Venger' date='02 April 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1270258067' post='461591']
I guess this is how I see it. This will be my final word on this post as well, as I grow weary of banging my head against the same wall. I never said the republicans were the good guys and I never said the democrats were the bad guys. The entire system, as it is in place today, is broken. Each side fighting over who gets what. each side not voting to better the country but to promote their agenda and trying to do as little as possible so they can get re-elected. Taking taxes without concern as to where that money comes from. You talk about the rich not paying their fair share. What right does any government have to punish someone punitively because they are successful and reward someone for being lazy.
What is considered fair? Does a rich man use more services than a poor man? is He MORE protected by the army?
The only way things will get better is to truely tax people fairly...on what they spend. A consumption tax would level the playing field. If the rich buy more then they will pay more in taxes but the percent is equal to the poor who buy less. Mandating anyone to do anything is wrong. We tell our government what to do,not the other way around. As far as health care.The only fix is deregulation. Remove the border restrictions so I can purchase from anyone in the USA. Tort reform.If a dr or hospital doesn't have to carry their own ridiculous insurance they could charge less. Use your dollars to make them lower prices. Like car insurance. If state farm is charging you too much,switch to geico. If it works for car insurance surely it would work for health care. Bottom line this is about control. It has been proven the consumption tax would increase the tax base and it would eliminate the need for the irs which would also save tax dollars. Problem is if they go that route they lose the control over how much a person can make and spend and as we know with money and spending comes power. Isn't it interesting that most of our congress and presidents have all been millionaires? coincidence...no fucking way. Well now I am done.That's my whole wad.I have nothing more to say on this matter. I have thick skin and broad shoulders so...FLAME ON.Xo
[/quote]

You have some good points Ray. Most of what you suggest is at least plausible and debatable. We're not getting that from many conservatives right now, and I commend you.

I think reforming the tax system would do wonders for our economy and society. Right now it benefits those who can hire a good accountant. A consumption tax would be simple and effective, and it would cut out the loopholes. It's fair of you to ask why the rich should pay more. Under an income based system that's obvious. I would be much happier with any system that doesn't allow people to shirk their fair share, which the current system does. If a consumption tax does that - I would support it 100%.

You ask why the government should punish someone for being successful and reward the lazy. Well, I don't think that is actually happening today. For every extra tax or higher rate on the wealthy, they benefit from a loophole such as the estate tax, deductions, or simply by moving their assets out of country. They can afford to hire the best accountants to help them. The IRS records from 2000 - 2005 indicate that in fact, most of the wealthiest 400 families in the U.S. pay a lower rate than most middle class families. A flat tax could perhaps fix that problem.

If the lazy people you're referring to are welfare recipients - I would have to agree that in many cases there is fraud going on. That system needs an overhaul. On the other hand, I've worked several minimum wage jobs - and those folks are not lazy at all. Compared to my time at big companies where there are lots of reasons and opportunities to avoid real work, my own experience tells me that those working at the bottom of the ladder are working far harder - and longer - than those further up. That's not lazy, and I'm not saying you - but many conservatives seem to have the impression that it's easy to work an $850 a month job and say as much. As long as we're on the same page here - welfare - I agree with you.

Deregulation comparable to auto and property insurance is a good idea. Even though property insurers operate across state lines - they have to abide by each individual state's laws. That is a workable system. What I've read from most conservatives though is a complete deregulation, more like what credit card companies have going.

Every credit card company in America is based in Delaware because it has the laxest laws in the country. How do you like your credit card company? They can charge insane interest rates, have every legal recourse on their side, and are accountable only to the lowest standard in America. Insurance would work the same way if based on an open state system - it would just be the smartest and most profitable thing for them to do. I don't think that we would wind up reaping many benefits as consumers. Just like credit cards - every company would soon be charging the same insane rates and using the same restrictive contracts. I think a national plan is the best way to go - and looking at the abuse that has happened in the industry - I think it needs some solid regulation on a national level.

I believe you're absolutely right when it comes to the two parties. Neither will give up the special interests that keep them funded. Neither would go for a flat tax because the rich would pay more, and the poor would pay more too. The middle would benefit, but that never seems like a priority in today's politics. We don't get many policies which don't cater to either the richest or the poorest. I find that if those are my choices, I'll go with what benefits the most needy, but I understand that others feel differently and have legitimate reason's for feeling that way.

I don't think you're banging your head on the wall . I know several of my positions are very liberal, and I can defend them pretty stubbornly, but I seek first and foremost a debate that's backed by facts and evidence. I have no problem changing my mind when the facts lead me to, or admitting I'm wrong when I am. I used to be a Republican, but back then the party was reasonable and based it's arguments and positions on the evidence. Someday, I may be again - I just like to support the best course of action and go where the evidence leads me. The thing is, a very large part of the health care debate has revolved around slanders, misinformation, fabrications, and outright lies. I've been called a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a traitor, a sympathizer, and a libtard (that one by one of our very own hehe), simply because I think the current plan - imperfect as it is - is the best solution available right now to a very big problem. Not many facts have been put forward in this debate by the opponents of reform, and the facts I've found back up the Dems on this. The right has gone with horrendous misinformation rather than putting forward solid arguments and discussion. They did not need to - the current plan originated as a conservative plan and includes many conservative elements, such as the individual mandate.

On other things, the Democrats are terrible, such as civil liberties - they have continued without a hiccup many of the policies started after 911 which are a bigger threat to our liberty than taxes will ever be. I would rather pay taxes I know will help people while also not having to worry that Uncle Sam is reading my email or listening into my phone calls if I call a friend overseas. I also like going shooting - I own 5 firearms, and I defend my right to own them vigorously - and think every state should have right-to-work in place. I have quite varied beliefs on different policies.

I would like to thank you though Ray. You're one of the very few people I've debated on this subject who takes a reasonable approach and doesn't need to resort to incivility. You're a great example of a real conservative, with well reasoned positions, and I have great respect for that.

[LZ22]

[quote name='acolorado' date='02 April 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1270252167' post='461578']
[quote name='LZ22' date='02 April 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1270247177' post='461569']
[quote name='acolorado' date='14 March 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1268623246' post='457113']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='14 March 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1268618540' post='457106']
A "moderate" or "independent" doesn't tout socialism. There is nothing moderate, or independent about it. There seems to be a notable lack of continuity in your preaching.


Must be from boulder.
[/quote]

I know bud. You don't drive down the street, won't call the cops if you get in trouble, won't call the fire department if your house goes up. You won't drive an American car because the companies that make them get government subsidies. You won't eat food or wear clothes made in America because agriculture and textiles are subsidized also. You don't use electricity supported by the public utilities. You won't make any claim in a government court of law, or expect the protection of the publicly funded military. Won't take the bus if your car breaks down. You wont' go to the emergency room when your employer drops your insurance and you get sick. You won't collect social security, or use medicare when you retire. You wont' collect unemployment if you get laid off, or ever use any facility supported with government money such as a public swimming pool. You won't send your kids to public schools, or watch sports programs held in stadiums funded with public taxes. Or watch TV or use the phone for that matter, since those are subsidized by the U.S. government. You won't drink the water the city or county cleans, or use the sewage system or walk on the sidewalk. You won't collect food stamps if you're out of work and starving.

In fact you're not going to use the internet to reply to this, because the landlines used for the net are subsidized also and most of the lines laid for it were paid for by Uncle Sam. Not to mention it was developed using tax dollars by the Department of Defense.

Only "Socialists" would do any of that.

And of course the most important thing to you is ensuring that the United States pays as much per capita as every other developed country while getting much much less for it when it comes to Healthcare. You are proud that we are ranked #37 in the world while spending more than any other country. You believe that it's right for Americans to go homeless, starve, and sicken and die when they get laid off to maximize some corporation's profits.

Please. You can't even live up to the standards you claim to believe in.
[/quote]

Just had to chime in... about 75% of the services you listed are funded by state and local government, not Uncle Sam. Nobody has a problem with paying taxes to fund local schools, unemployment, public transportation, utilities, police, fire, hospitals, etc because they are LOCAL, aka my tax dollar is paying for services I directly use in my community. Oh, and medicaid is also administered by the state, not federal government. Sure, let the government subsidize landlines for the internet, because everyone can use it fairly and equally. However, conservatives have a problem with subsidies and entitlement programs that are strictly limited to only certain people. For example, I don't think think my tax dollars should be paying for someones welfare check, call me satan. The military protects EVERY person of the United States. However, if the military only protected the state of new york, and i live in illinois, then I would have a big problem with my tax dollar going towards that. Do you see the difference? Its not that conservatives hate all forms of government spending, only ones that try to steal money from one group of people to provide benefit to another.

I also think you would find it interesting to know that the health care industry is, i believe, the 86th ranked industry in overall profit margins in the US. That's 85 other industries that make more profit. I was fortunate enough to take multiple classes in risk management and insurance in school, and I can tell you that the healthcare industry is not this big, greedy corporate demon bloated with profits.
[/quote]

I see. Conservatives hate programs that funnel money from one group to another.

Like say, a 2 TRILLION dollar tax cut for the rich? The rich who we now find out were already in a lower tax bracket than most middle class families even before they got the break (the wonders of loopholes, accountants, and offshore accounts). So we got to pay the taxes they owed - how fair and balanced. Excuse me, but it seems conservatives only hate programs that channel money to help the poor, they never complain about the big gift packages they themselves engineer for the rich.

Or maybe you're referring to the tens of BILLIONS used to provide schools and hospitals to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan? According to many conservatives - we can't afford to build new schools and hospitals here in America - but they have no problem building them for the citizens of another country.

Perhaps you meant Medicare Plan-D, which wound up turning into a massive donation to private pharmaceutical companies, and will cost more in the long run than the recently passed reform bill. Yes, a Republican sponsored health care bill that will cost us more than the HCR. I suppose that if you're giving public money to private companies, that doesn't qualify as Communism, Socialism, Fascism, The end of America, or Tyranny.

The kicker is most of the programs America's "Conservatives" passed when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate were never budgeted. They went straight to the deficit. So really they never bothered to find a way to pay for them, which the Democrats to their credit have done with the new bill. In fact, 53% of the current deficit is the result of programs instituted by Republicans when they were in charge. Only 10% is due to Obama and the Dems - including Health Care Reform. So perhaps you only want to complain about the 10%, and just pretend the 53% doesn't exist - or just try to blame it all on the other party.

The only time I've heard conservatives complaining about spending is when it's Dems doing the spending. I never heard this when they were in charge. They certainly never complained about the massive transfers of taxpayer dollars that they came up with.

I believe the only word for it is hypocrisy.

Personally the most disturbing thing about it is how quickly they switch their "principles" when someone else gets the gavel.

So if you REALLY have a problem with big government giveaways - maybe you could start with the Elephants in the room?
[/quote]

Ah, where to begin!

1) I believe that every class should get tax breaks. Not just the rich. I believe the middle class and lower class is just as deserving as the rich for a tax break. As for big gift packages 'engineered for the rich', I also don't support those. I assume you are referring to the bailout package. I didn't think the bailout was good. Sure, it may have cause a lot of harm in the short term, but long term I don't think its very good precedent to bailout large financial conglomerates who's very owned practices allowed them to fail. They have a right to fail and should have. That would have fixed the problem of 'too big to fail' if we actually allowed the too big of companies to actually fail. And yes, if you would like to phrase it that way, I don't like the programs that channel FREE money to the poor, aka welfare. Welfare is a large reason why the poor continue to be poor. They get a trickle of money from the government and in the process have less and less motivation to make it on their own and make a life on their own. Public housing is a complete disaster. When cities zone large blocks to permanent public housing, it only further concentrate welfare recipients to a single area which foster crime and drug problems. It also scares away any businesses or higher income tenants from moving in and boosting the local economy of the area, which only further pushes the area into an economic downward spiral. Business boosts economies, without it, economies fail.

2) Personally I fully support the building of schools in Iraq and Afghanistan. By building an education system in these areas, it gives the children a chance to build an education. Long term, these children will go on and build up their countries. It builds the trust of the native populations. Over time, more and more of the population will shy away from extremist activities and not support those monsters. If these unstable countries begin to support themselves with a functioning government, school system, and economy, it will stabilize the area and the region, and world, will be a safer place. (which I support). As for not enough schools in this country, yes, that is a problem. Maybe instead of your democratic president and congress passing the trillion dollar stimulus bill (looks like that worked well....not) that money could have been invested in education. Maybe if democratic administrations didn't pass medicaid (the reason why many state budgets are in the red, and its the 2nd biggest state expense...education being the first) then they could actually have a strong budget to support education.

3) The HCR bill closed the donut hole in medicare part D, which will only further the expense of the program. Also, just because a republican passed the bill the first time, doesn't mean I agree with it fully. I am mainly speaking what I believe as a conservative, and that means that I disagree with a lot of republican actions because they do not reflect true conservatism. Also, medicare part d has a lot of support from democrats as well.

4) Yes, the bush era didn't find a way to fund many of its programs. I also agree this isn't right. However, please tell me how the stimulus bill, one trillion dollars, is going to be paid for? Oh right, your grandchildrens tax money when they are taxed into poverty down the road. As for deficit spending, please review this graph:
[img]http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg[/img]
Notice how the white house currently likes to pretend its not spending as much as it actually is, compared to the CBO estimates. And yes, those numbers for the bush years include the wars. Ouch. To put the icing on the proverbial cake, Moody's has issued a warning that if Obama doesn't curb spending, they will reduce the US's credit rating, which will make it more expensive to borrow money, which will further increase the deficit.


NOTE: I have my conservative beliefs, and I don't blindly agree with many republican's ideas today. Many republicans have strayed away from what actually conservatism is. So don't classify me as a hypocrit please. Edited April 5, 2010 by LZ22

[acolorado]

[quote name='LZ22' date='04 April 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1270439016' post='461894']
[quote name='acolorado' date='02 April 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1270252167' post='461578']
[quote name='LZ22' date='02 April 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1270247177' post='461569']
[quote name='acolorado' date='14 March 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1268623246' post='457113']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='14 March 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1268618540' post='457106']
A "moderate" or "independent" doesn't tout socialism. There is nothing moderate, or independent about it. There seems to be a notable lack of continuity in your preaching.


Must be from boulder.
[/quote]

I know bud. You don't drive down the street, won't call the cops if you get in trouble, won't call the fire department if your house goes up. You won't drive an American car because the companies that make them get government subsidies. You won't eat food or wear clothes made in America because agriculture and textiles are subsidized also. You don't use electricity supported by the public utilities. You won't make any claim in a government court of law, or expect the protection of the publicly funded military. Won't take the bus if your car breaks down. You wont' go to the emergency room when your employer drops your insurance and you get sick. You won't collect social security, or use medicare when you retire. You wont' collect unemployment if you get laid off, or ever use any facility supported with government money such as a public swimming pool. You won't send your kids to public schools, or watch sports programs held in stadiums funded with public taxes. Or watch TV or use the phone for that matter, since those are subsidized by the U.S. government. You won't drink the water the city or county cleans, or use the sewage system or walk on the sidewalk. You won't collect food stamps if you're out of work and starving.

In fact you're not going to use the internet to reply to this, because the landlines used for the net are subsidized also and most of the lines laid for it were paid for by Uncle Sam. Not to mention it was developed using tax dollars by the Department of Defense.

Only "Socialists" would do any of that.

And of course the most important thing to you is ensuring that the United States pays as much per capita as every other developed country while getting much much less for it when it comes to Healthcare. You are proud that we are ranked #37 in the world while spending more than any other country. You believe that it's right for Americans to go homeless, starve, and sicken and die when they get laid off to maximize some corporation's profits.

Please. You can't even live up to the standards you claim to believe in.
[/quote]

Just had to chime in... about 75% of the services you listed are funded by state and local government, not Uncle Sam. Nobody has a problem with paying taxes to fund local schools, unemployment, public transportation, utilities, police, fire, hospitals, etc because they are LOCAL, aka my tax dollar is paying for services I directly use in my community. Oh, and medicaid is also administered by the state, not federal government. Sure, let the government subsidize landlines for the internet, because everyone can use it fairly and equally. However, conservatives have a problem with subsidies and entitlement programs that are strictly limited to only certain people. For example, I don't think think my tax dollars should be paying for someones welfare check, call me satan. The military protects EVERY person of the United States. However, if the military only protected the state of new york, and i live in illinois, then I would have a big problem with my tax dollar going towards that. Do you see the difference? Its not that conservatives hate all forms of government spending, only ones that try to steal money from one group of people to provide benefit to another.

I also think you would find it interesting to know that the health care industry is, i believe, the 86th ranked industry in overall profit margins in the US. That's 85 other industries that make more profit. I was fortunate enough to take multiple classes in risk management and insurance in school, and I can tell you that the healthcare industry is not this big, greedy corporate demon bloated with profits.
[/quote]

I see. Conservatives hate programs that funnel money from one group to another.

Like say, a 2 TRILLION dollar tax cut for the rich? The rich who we now find out were already in a lower tax bracket than most middle class families even before they got the break (the wonders of loopholes, accountants, and offshore accounts). So we got to pay the taxes they owed - how fair and balanced. Excuse me, but it seems conservatives only hate programs that channel money to help the poor, they never complain about the big gift packages they themselves engineer for the rich.

Or maybe you're referring to the tens of BILLIONS used to provide schools and hospitals to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan? According to many conservatives - we can't afford to build new schools and hospitals here in America - but they have no problem building them for the citizens of another country.

Perhaps you meant Medicare Plan-D, which wound up turning into a massive donation to private pharmaceutical companies, and will cost more in the long run than the recently passed reform bill. Yes, a Republican sponsored health care bill that will cost us more than the HCR. I suppose that if you're giving public money to private companies, that doesn't qualify as Communism, Socialism, Fascism, The end of America, or Tyranny.

The kicker is most of the programs America's "Conservatives" passed when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate were never budgeted. They went straight to the deficit. So really they never bothered to find a way to pay for them, which the Democrats to their credit have done with the new bill. In fact, 53% of the current deficit is the result of programs instituted by Republicans when they were in charge. Only 10% is due to Obama and the Dems - including Health Care Reform. So perhaps you only want to complain about the 10%, and just pretend the 53% doesn't exist - or just try to blame it all on the other party.

The only time I've heard conservatives complaining about spending is when it's Dems doing the spending. I never heard this when they were in charge. They certainly never complained about the massive transfers of taxpayer dollars that they came up with.

I believe the only word for it is hypocrisy.

Personally the most disturbing thing about it is how quickly they switch their "principles" when someone else gets the gavel.

So if you REALLY have a problem with big government giveaways - maybe you could start with the Elephants in the room?
[/quote]

Ah, where to begin!

1) I believe that every class should get tax breaks. Not just the rich. I believe the middle class and lower class is just as deserving as the rich for a tax break. As for big gift packages 'engineered for the rich', I also don't support those. I assume you are referring to the bailout package. I didn't think the bailout was good. Sure, it may have cause a lot of harm in the short term, but long term I don't think its very good precedent to bailout large financial conglomerates who's very owned practices allowed them to fail. They have a right to fail and should have. That would have fixed the problem of 'too big to fail' if we actually allowed the too big of companies to actually fail. And yes, if you would like to phrase it that way, I don't like the programs that channel FREE money to the poor, aka welfare. Welfare is a large reason why the poor continue to be poor. They get a trickle of money from the government and in the process have less and less motivation to make it on their own and make a life on their own. Public housing is a complete disaster. When cities zone large blocks to permanent public housing, it only further concentrate welfare recipients to a single area which foster crime and drug problems. It also scares away any businesses or higher income tenants from moving in and boosting the local economy of the area, which only further pushes the area into an economic downward spiral. Business boosts economies, without it, economies fail.

2) Personally I fully support the building of schools in Iraq and Afghanistan. By building an education system in these areas, it gives the children a chance to build an education. Long term, these children will go on and build up their countries. It builds the trust of the native populations. Over time, more and more of the population will shy away from extremist activities and not support those monsters. If these unstable countries begin to support themselves with a functioning government, school system, and economy, it will stabilize the area and the region, and world, will be a safer place. (which I support). As for not enough schools in this country, yes, that is a problem. Maybe instead of your democratic president and congress passing the trillion dollar stimulus bill (looks like that worked well....not) that money could have been invested in education. Maybe if democratic administrations didn't pass medicaid (the reason why many state budgets are in the red, and its the 2nd biggest state expense...education being the first) then they could actually have a strong budget to support education.

3) The HCR bill closed the donut hole in medicare part D, which will only further the expense of the program. Also, just because a republican passed the bill the first time, doesn't mean I agree with it fully. I am mainly speaking what I believe as a conservative, and that means that I disagree with a lot of republican actions because they do not reflect true conservatism. Also, medicare part d has a lot of support from democrats as well.

4) Yes, the bush era didn't find a way to fund many of its programs. I also agree this isn't right. However, please tell me how the stimulus bill, one trillion dollars, is going to be paid for? Oh right, your grandchildrens tax money when they are taxed into poverty down the road. As for deficit spending, please review this graph:
[img]http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg[/img]
Notice how the white house currently likes to pretend its not spending as much as it actually is, compared to the CBO estimates. And yes, those numbers for the bush years include the wars. Ouch. To put the icing on the proverbial cake, Moody's has issued a warning that if Obama doesn't curb spending, they will reduce the US's credit rating, which will make it more expensive to borrow money, which will further increase the deficit.


NOTE: I have my conservative beliefs, and I don't blindly agree with many republican's ideas today. Many republicans have strayed away from what actually conservatism is. So don't classify me as a hypocrit please.
[/quote]

L7 - Thank you for a good post with some research bud. This is how you debate politics.

First off I need to correct 2 things here which are just not true.

1) The stimulus - The stimulus was planned, proposed, and it's first half implemented by Henry Paulson and the Treasury Dept. under Bush. It was a Republican proposal and plan. The first half was distributed under Bush. The second half was distributed under Obama. Obama could have stopped the second half and chose not to. Now as you can see this is hardly a Dem plan or Dem spending. Again, the Bush treasury dept. chose not to budget this on their watch. Many of your arguments rely on blaming Dems for the stimulus, but that just isn't the case.

2) The chart - Other than a claim that the chart includes funding for the wars, I can't find evidence that it truly does. the claim comes from the Heritage foundation, which has a track record of partisan misinformation. It would be like me citing a claim from Daily KOS. Not very credible to the other side. In fact, let me link my own chart from the New York Times, showing Bush is responsible for most of the spending. It includes a lot more detail than the Washington Post chart.
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html"]My link[/url]

Until I see some solid evidence that the chart does include war spending, I go with the more numerous studies and analysis I've found showing that it is way off base. Which programs were respobsible? No indication here. Earlier I pointed out that the Republicans never budgeted most of their programs. They simply went straight onto the national debt. Likewise - the Bush administration used an accounting gimmick which did not include the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the stimulus spending in the national deficit. The first half of your chart does not include a lot of spending. The Obama administration pledged to end that practice and has. Thus the chart for 2009 includes that spending as part of the budget, which Bush did not do. The jump in spending results primarily from including the costs of the wars and the stimulus. This is not new Dem spending, it's simply the old Republican spending coming to light. The Obama administration has pledged to focus on reducing the deficit and looks like it will. Here is a more up to date chart from the CBO on the projected deficit. After the very outrageous start (the result of now showing all our costs and of the stimulus), you can see the Dems will be reducing the deficit, although further fixes will be needed by 2014. The Republicans only ever increased it. I find the Dems to be the fiscally conservative party - and it should be remembered that Obama has just recently said that with HCR done he wants to switch our focus to deficit reduction.
[url="http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm"]My link[/url]


Aside from those 2 problems, you have a lot of good points. Welfare is a big problem, especially in big cities. No question there. That needs to be fixed. Also medicaid and medicare are exploding with the boomer generation retiring. We will need to make some cuts and increase taxes. No one who is serious about balancing the budget disagrees with either of these proposals. When you hear conservatives say we can't raise taxes, we can do it all with cuts - they just don't know what they're talking about. Likewise we can't raise taxes without making cuts - that would screw the recovery effort.

You've also helped me prove my initial point. If Republican's really didn't believe in big government they would not have instituted the largest government expansion in decades, which they did. They tried to hide the cost of this expansion by simply not including it with the deficit reports. Not very honest. Even though there are clear problems in our future, I can trust Obama to be honest about them. He already has. The evidence shows I can't trust the Republicans to do that.

Also, many of your arguments try to attribute spending proposed and implemented by the Bush administration to Obama. If the Republican's didn't want to take credit for these "accomplishments" why would they do them in the first place? Why lie about it now? Because it was unpopular, and rather than take responsibility, the current Republicans and many conservatives would rather just try to lie and blame it on someone else.

I don't think you're a hypocrite L7. In fact you've done more research here than most, and alot of your arguments are spot on. I think you got part the story from one side and didn't have the time or energy to check it out completely. It's hard to do and takes alot of time in the current media environment. That happens to me too, and part of the reason I like debating is that sometimes people bring things to my attention that I missed. Sometimes I find I don't like it, like Obama's record on civil liberties - but it's true and I can't argue with the facts. In the long run both Bush's and Obama's decisions on civil liberties may pose a bigger threat than our fiscal problems. I have to check out everything I read, but I like to make sure I know the facts.

[LZ22]

[quote name='acolorado' date='05 April 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1270451043' post='461935']

L7 - Thank you for a good post with some research bud. This is how you debate politics.

First off I need to correct 2 things here which are just not true.

1) The stimulus - The stimulus was planned, proposed, and it's first half implemented by Henry Paulson and the Treasury Dept. under Bush. It was a Republican proposal and plan. The first half was distributed under Bush. The second half was distributed under Obama. Obama could have stopped the second half and chose not to. Now as you can see this is hardly a Dem plan or Dem spending. Again, the Bush treasury dept. chose not to budget this on their watch. Many of your arguments rely on blaming Dems for the stimulus, but that just isn't the case.

2) The chart - Other than a claim that the chart includes funding for the wars, I can't find evidence that it truly does. the claim comes from the Heritage foundation, which has a track record of partisan misinformation. It would be like me citing a claim from Daily KOS. Not very credible to the other side. In fact, let me link my own chart from the New York Times, showing Bush is responsible for most of the spending. It includes a lot more detail than the Washington Post chart.
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html"]My link[/url]

Until I see some solid evidence that the chart does include war spending, I go with the more numerous studies and analysis I've found showing that it is way off base. Which programs were respobsible? No indication here. Earlier I pointed out that the Republicans never budgeted most of their programs. They simply went straight onto the national debt. Likewise - the Bush administration used an accounting gimmick which did not include the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the stimulus spending in the national deficit. The first half of your chart does not include a lot of spending. The Obama administration pledged to end that practice and has. Thus the chart for 2009 includes that spending as part of the budget, which Bush did not do. The jump in spending results primarily from including the costs of the wars and the stimulus. This is not new Dem spending, it's simply the old Republican spending coming to light. The Obama administration has pledged to focus on reducing the deficit and looks like it will. Here is a more up to date chart from the CBO on the projected deficit. After the very outrageous start (the result of now showing all our costs and of the stimulus), you can see the Dems will be reducing the deficit, although further fixes will be needed by 2014. The Republicans only ever increased it. I find the Dems to be the fiscally conservative party - and it should be remembered that Obama has just recently said that with HCR done he wants to switch our focus to deficit reduction.
[url="http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm"]My link[/url]


Aside from those 2 problems, you have a lot of good points. Welfare is a big problem, especially in big cities. No question there. That needs to be fixed. Also medicaid and medicare are exploding with the boomer generation retiring. We will need to make some cuts and increase taxes. No one who is serious about balancing the budget disagrees with either of these proposals. When you hear conservatives say we can't raise taxes, we can do it all with cuts - they just don't know what they're talking about. Likewise we can't raise taxes without making cuts - that would screw the recovery effort.

You've also helped me prove my initial point. If Republican's really didn't believe in big government they would not have instituted the largest government expansion in decades, which they did. They tried to hide the cost of this expansion by simply not including it with the deficit reports. Not very honest. Even though there are clear problems in our future, I can trust Obama to be honest about them. He already has. The evidence shows I can't trust the Republicans to do that.

Also, many of your arguments try to attribute spending proposed and implemented by the Bush administration to Obama. If the Republican's didn't want to take credit for these "accomplishments" why would they do them in the first place? Why lie about it now? Because it was unpopular, and rather than take responsibility, the current Republicans and many conservatives would rather just try to lie and blame it on someone else.

I don't think you're a hypocrite L7. In fact you've done more research here than most, and alot of your arguments are spot on. I think you got part the story from one side and didn't have the time or energy to check it out completely. It's hard to do and takes alot of time in the current media environment. That happens to me too, and part of the reason I like debating is that sometimes people bring things to my attention that I missed. Sometimes I find I don't like it, like Obama's record on civil liberties - but it's true and I can't argue with the facts. In the long run both Bush's and Obama's decisions on civil liberties may pose a bigger threat than our fiscal problems. I have to check out everything I read, but I like to make sure I know the facts.
[/quote]

This is why I hate engaging in internet debates...my eyes strain from all the reading!

First off, since you shot down my graph due to the slant of the website, I'll shoot down your links due to the slant of themselves. (http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html) I don't expect anyone to read that whole thing, but its worth a skim for a few minutes. As you will find, New York Times isn't exactly a fair and balanced news outlet

1) "Now as you can see this is hardly a Dem plan or Dem spending." I have an extremely hard time believing you on this statement. As far as liberal ideology goes, the government should do most of the spending. Please post further evidence that supports your claim the Stimulus bill was not a creation of Obama's administration and the Democratic Congress. Obama campaigned pretty darn hard to get that thing passed...in fact he made it his sole priority to get it passed, along with every other democrat in congress. It was their pride and joy. They claimed if we PASSED it, unemployment would never go above 8%...whoooops! And if we didn't, the apocalypse would come. We passed it, and unemployment went above 10%. Right there, I lost all faith that this administration is good at made estimations. Again, I never said I like TARP. If I were president I would have chosen a second great depression than to bailout the banks.

2) I see one flaw with the NYT chart you showed me. First of all, I feel like I need to continue to repeat myself, I'm not trying to defend Bush in anyway, I just want to get my point across. I added up $673 bn in bush year policies added to the deficit, $185 bn for bailout, and 232 bn for continuing programs (war etc..). I did not include the money that was lost due to the two recession during the period, because those do not relate to spending. If you average all that up over 8 years, its $136.25 bn/year added to the deficit. Looking at Obama's side, he has the $125 bn stimulus (deficit per year) under his belt, and $56 bn for other programs. Thats $201 bn added to the deficit in his first year alone. I don't care if Bush himself drafted up the stimulus bill, but Obama and his administration were the ones who used every ounce of energy to push it through no matter what.

3) One thing: "I find the Dems to be the fiscally conservative party." NOBODY in washington even knows what fiscally conservative means. Dems OR GoP. This is my main point. I hate them all. All of them just spend spend spend. That CBO graph is wonderful in that it dips down a bit, but then it shoots right back to where it was to begin with. I have a problem with this, I want long-term care to the deficit. Not just short quick fixes. Unfortunately, the HCR bill only projects out to 10 years, as required, but does not show beyond. Social security and medicare looked to be phenomenal for the first 10 years too. Beyond this first 10 years, all the millions of new people going into states medicaid payouts (and that number will keep increasing over the years) will collapse state budgets once and for all. The government only subsidizes these new people for a few years, then they pass an increasing percentage of the new costs onto the states...who are already being forced to make massive budget cuts. My university is going to be seeing devastating budget cuts in the near future, I don't think the states can bear anymore costs.

4) I cannot trust Obama. I cannot trust some republican candidate either though. In fact, I cannot trust a single member of Congress to fix our problems. They have all proved to be incompetent. All they do is fill you up with hope about real solutions, only to let you down once they become sellouts. Maybe I can trust a third party candidate to come along.

5) Hey we agree on something! Civil liberties. If theres anything that grinds my gears more, its when the Constitution is infringed upon. Unfortunately, Bush had a nasty reputation for walking on it with domestic spying programs, and Obama is going down the same road regarding civil liberties and our rights. Every year our rights and civil liberties erode away. We have become complacent. I hope that changes.


I feel like this was a half-assed post, but I'm at work and can't be researching and typing this up forever

[acolorado]

[quote name='LZ22' date='05 April 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1270507532' post='462034']
[quote name='acolorado' date='05 April 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1270451043' post='461935']

L7 - Thank you for a good post with some research bud. This is how you debate politics.

First off I need to correct 2 things here which are just not true.

1) The stimulus - The stimulus was planned, proposed, and it's first half implemented by Henry Paulson and the Treasury Dept. under Bush. It was a Republican proposal and plan. The first half was distributed under Bush. The second half was distributed under Obama. Obama could have stopped the second half and chose not to. Now as you can see this is hardly a Dem plan or Dem spending. Again, the Bush treasury dept. chose not to budget this on their watch. Many of your arguments rely on blaming Dems for the stimulus, but that just isn't the case.

2) The chart - Other than a claim that the chart includes funding for the wars, I can't find evidence that it truly does. the claim comes from the Heritage foundation, which has a track record of partisan misinformation. It would be like me citing a claim from Daily KOS. Not very credible to the other side. In fact, let me link my own chart from the New York Times, showing Bush is responsible for most of the spending. It includes a lot more detail than the Washington Post chart.
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html"]My link[/url]

Until I see some solid evidence that the chart does include war spending, I go with the more numerous studies and analysis I've found showing that it is way off base. Which programs were respobsible? No indication here. Earlier I pointed out that the Republicans never budgeted most of their programs. They simply went straight onto the national debt. Likewise - the Bush administration used an accounting gimmick which did not include the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the stimulus spending in the national deficit. The first half of your chart does not include a lot of spending. The Obama administration pledged to end that practice and has. Thus the chart for 2009 includes that spending as part of the budget, which Bush did not do. The jump in spending results primarily from including the costs of the wars and the stimulus. This is not new Dem spending, it's simply the old Republican spending coming to light. The Obama administration has pledged to focus on reducing the deficit and looks like it will. Here is a more up to date chart from the CBO on the projected deficit. After the very outrageous start (the result of now showing all our costs and of the stimulus), you can see the Dems will be reducing the deficit, although further fixes will be needed by 2014. The Republicans only ever increased it. I find the Dems to be the fiscally conservative party - and it should be remembered that Obama has just recently said that with HCR done he wants to switch our focus to deficit reduction.
[url="http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm"]My link[/url]


Aside from those 2 problems, you have a lot of good points. Welfare is a big problem, especially in big cities. No question there. That needs to be fixed. Also medicaid and medicare are exploding with the boomer generation retiring. We will need to make some cuts and increase taxes. No one who is serious about balancing the budget disagrees with either of these proposals. When you hear conservatives say we can't raise taxes, we can do it all with cuts - they just don't know what they're talking about. Likewise we can't raise taxes without making cuts - that would screw the recovery effort.

You've also helped me prove my initial point. If Republican's really didn't believe in big government they would not have instituted the largest government expansion in decades, which they did. They tried to hide the cost of this expansion by simply not including it with the deficit reports. Not very honest. Even though there are clear problems in our future, I can trust Obama to be honest about them. He already has. The evidence shows I can't trust the Republicans to do that.

Also, many of your arguments try to attribute spending proposed and implemented by the Bush administration to Obama. If the Republican's didn't want to take credit for these "accomplishments" why would they do them in the first place? Why lie about it now? Because it was unpopular, and rather than take responsibility, the current Republicans and many conservatives would rather just try to lie and blame it on someone else.

I don't think you're a hypocrite L7. In fact you've done more research here than most, and alot of your arguments are spot on. I think you got part the story from one side and didn't have the time or energy to check it out completely. It's hard to do and takes alot of time in the current media environment. That happens to me too, and part of the reason I like debating is that sometimes people bring things to my attention that I missed. Sometimes I find I don't like it, like Obama's record on civil liberties - but it's true and I can't argue with the facts. In the long run both Bush's and Obama's decisions on civil liberties may pose a bigger threat than our fiscal problems. I have to check out everything I read, but I like to make sure I know the facts.
[/quote]

This is why I hate engaging in internet debates...my eyes strain from all the reading!

First off, since you shot down my graph due to the slant of the website, I'll shoot down your links due to the slant of themselves. (http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html) I don't expect anyone to read that whole thing, but its worth a skim for a few minutes. As you will find, New York Times isn't exactly a fair and balanced news outlet

1) "Now as you can see this is hardly a Dem plan or Dem spending." I have an extremely hard time believing you on this statement. As far as liberal ideology goes, the government should do most of the spending. Please post further evidence that supports your claim the Stimulus bill was not a creation of Obama's administration and the Democratic Congress. Obama campaigned pretty darn hard to get that thing passed...in fact he made it his sole priority to get it passed, along with every other democrat in congress. It was their pride and joy. They claimed if we PASSED it, unemployment would never go above 8%...whoooops! And if we didn't, the apocalypse would come. We passed it, and unemployment went above 10%. Right there, I lost all faith that this administration is good at made estimations. Again, I never said I like TARP. If I were president I would have chosen a second great depression than to bailout the banks.

2) I see one flaw with the NYT chart you showed me. First of all, I feel like I need to continue to repeat myself, I'm not trying to defend Bush in anyway, I just want to get my point across. I added up $673 bn in bush year policies added to the deficit, $185 bn for bailout, and 232 bn for continuing programs (war etc..). I did not include the money that was lost due to the two recession during the period, because those do not relate to spending. If you average all that up over 8 years, its $136.25 bn/year added to the deficit. Looking at Obama's side, he has the $125 bn stimulus (deficit per year) under his belt, and $56 bn for other programs. Thats $201 bn added to the deficit in his first year alone. I don't care if Bush himself drafted up the stimulus bill, but Obama and his administration were the ones who used every ounce of energy to push it through no matter what.

3) One thing: "I find the Dems to be the fiscally conservative party." NOBODY in washington even knows what fiscally conservative means. Dems OR GoP. This is my main point. I hate them all. All of them just spend spend spend. That CBO graph is wonderful in that it dips down a bit, but then it shoots right back to where it was to begin with. I have a problem with this, I want long-term care to the deficit. Not just short quick fixes. Unfortunately, the HCR bill only projects out to 10 years, as required, but does not show beyond. Social security and medicare looked to be phenomenal for the first 10 years too. Beyond this first 10 years, all the millions of new people going into states medicaid payouts (and that number will keep increasing over the years) will collapse state budgets once and for all. The government only subsidizes these new people for a few years, then they pass an increasing percentage of the new costs onto the states...who are already being forced to make massive budget cuts. My university is going to be seeing devastating budget cuts in the near future, I don't think the states can bear anymore costs.

4) I cannot trust Obama. I cannot trust some republican candidate either though. In fact, I cannot trust a single member of Congress to fix our problems. They have all proved to be incompetent. All they do is fill you up with hope about real solutions, only to let you down once they become sellouts. Maybe I can trust a third party candidate to come along.

5) Hey we agree on something! Civil liberties. If theres anything that grinds my gears more, its when the Constitution is infringed upon. Unfortunately, Bush had a nasty reputation for walking on it with domestic spying programs, and Obama is going down the same road regarding civil liberties and our rights. Every year our rights and civil liberties erode away. We have become complacent. I hope that changes.


I feel like this was a half-assed post, but I'm at work and can't be researching and typing this up forever
[/quote]

1) Go to google and type in Paulson Stimulus and you'll find the Bush stimulus. Saying you want a second great depression rather than taking the necessary action to stave it off is pretty heartless and not very thoughtful. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. That seems typical on the right today.

2) I've found that Republican's have a short memory. Today they claim they want to cut spending. As soon as they retake power, we won't hear that again. I criticize past Republican spending because that is the best indicator of what they'll bring us in the future. Republicans criticizing Obama over spending are hypocritical. If you're independent, you are wasting your vote.

3) The last time the budget was balanced was in 2000, when Clinton left office. If you really want a balanced budget, Dems are still your best shot.

4) Go to Politifact.com - an independent website which fact checks both parties and look up Obama's record on keeping promises. I would wager much better than any Rep. President in probably the last 50 years. Trusting a politician is relative. Obama is a saint compared to the alternatives.

I understand we disagree, and we can look at some things like the stimulus from different perspectives. Glad you are researching.

[Rani]

[color="#4B0082"][b]With Newt running his mouth about the President and liberals again this came up........... Gave me a laugh........ And pretty much echoes my feelings about the damage he did when he had power in Congress.....[/b][/color]

[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"] A Moral Dilemma

Here's a dilemma for you… With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line – this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida…In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is — it's Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Newt Gingrich, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the Nation's once, most powerful men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?[/size][/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#4B0082"][b]'Rani[/b][/color][/size][/font]

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Rani' date='09 April 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1270796860' post='462803']
[color="#4b0082"][b]With Newt running his mouth about the President and liberals again this came up........... Gave me a laugh........ And pretty much echoes my feelings about the damage he did when he had power in Congress.....[/b][/color]

[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"] A Moral Dilemma

Here's a dilemma for you… With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line – this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida…In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is — it's Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Newt Gingrich, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the Nation's once, most powerful men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?[/size][/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#4b0082"][b]'Rani[/b][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]



Now if I had posed that same question, but substituted "obama" for Newt... the wacco liberals would be calling it a hateful racist statement.

And we see yet another demonstration of the liberal double standard in action. It really gets hard to take the liberals, and their hypocrisy seriously in any way.

[Rani]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='11 April 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1271009578' post='463066']
[quote name='Rani' date='09 April 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1270796860' post='462803']
[color="#4b0082"][b]With Newt running his mouth about the President and liberals again this came up........... Gave me a laugh........ And pretty much echoes my feelings about the damage he did when he had power in Congress.....[/b][/color]

[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"] A Moral Dilemma

Here's a dilemma for you… With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line – this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida…In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is — it's Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Newt Gingrich, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the Nation's once, most powerful men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?[/size][/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#4b0082"][b]'Rani[/b][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]



Now if I had posed that same question, but substituted "obama" for Newt... the wacco liberals would be calling it a hateful racist statement.

And we see yet another demonstration of the liberal double standard in action. It really gets hard to take the liberals, and their hypocrisy seriously in any way.
[/quote]

Scotsman, you are taking life and politics waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too seriously..........

Sit down, relax, close your eyes, breathe out.......Now deep breath in, hold it, let it out with an "oooooommmmmmmmmm"....... Repeat until you drop all interest in politics for the moment. Celebrate your refreshed mindset with a good Kentucky Bourbon.

'Rani

[Venger]

[quote name='Rani' date='11 April 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1271021809' post='463089']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='11 April 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1271009578' post='463066']
[quote name='Rani' date='09 April 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1270796860' post='462803']
[color="#4b0082"][b]With Newt running his mouth about the President and liberals again this came up........... Gave me a laugh........ And pretty much echoes my feelings about the damage he did when he had power in Congress.....[/b][/color]

[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"] A Moral Dilemma

Here's a dilemma for you… With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line – this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida…In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is — it's Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Newt Gingrich, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the Nation's once, most powerful men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?[/size][/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#4b0082"][b]'Rani[/b][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]



Now if I had posed that same question, but substituted "obama" for Newt... the wacco liberals would be calling it a hateful racist statement.

And we see yet another demonstration of the liberal double standard in action. It really gets hard to take the liberals, and their hypocrisy seriously in any way.
[/quote]

Scotsman, you are taking life and politics waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too seriously..........

Sit down, relax, close your eyes, breathe out.......Now deep breath in, hold it, let it out with an "oooooommmmmmmmmm"....... Repeat until you drop all interest in politics for the moment. Celebrate your refreshed mindset with a good Kentucky Bourbon.

'Rani
[/quote]

Rani,
You know I am fairly conservative but I gotta say I laughed my ass off and read the joke out loud to the family.
We can't take life too seriously. None of us are getting out alive.
Ray

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Venger' date='11 April 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1271029905' post='463105']
[quote name='Rani' date='11 April 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1271021809' post='463089']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='11 April 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1271009578' post='463066']
[quote name='Rani' date='09 April 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1270796860' post='462803']
[color="#4b0082"][b]With Newt running his mouth about the President and liberals again this came up........... Gave me a laugh........ And pretty much echoes my feelings about the damage he did when he had power in Congress.....[/b][/color]

[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"] A Moral Dilemma

Here's a dilemma for you… With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line – this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida…In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is — it's Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Newt Gingrich, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the Nation's once, most powerful men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?[/size][/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#4b0082"][b]'Rani[/b][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]



Now if I had posed that same question, but substituted "obama" for Newt... the wacco liberals would be calling it a hateful racist statement.

And we see yet another demonstration of the liberal double standard in action. It really gets hard to take the liberals, and their hypocrisy seriously in any way.
[/quote]

Scotsman, you are taking life and politics waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too seriously..........

Sit down, relax, close your eyes, breathe out.......Now deep breath in, hold it, let it out with an "oooooommmmmmmmmm"....... Repeat until you drop all interest in politics for the moment. Celebrate your refreshed mindset with a good Kentucky Bourbon.

'Rani
[/quote]

Rani,
You know I am fairly conservative but I gotta say I laughed my ass off and read the joke out loud to the family.
We can't take life too seriously. None of us are getting out alive.
Ray
[/quote]

You are most likely right.

But no Bourbon for me...that stuff is toxic.
I think they distill it with old gym sox.

[Venger]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='12 April 2010 - 12:05 AM' timestamp='1271045107' post='463156']
[quote name='Venger' date='11 April 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1271029905' post='463105']
[quote name='Rani' date='11 April 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1271021809' post='463089']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='11 April 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1271009578' post='463066']
[quote name='Rani' date='09 April 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1270796860' post='462803']
[color="#4b0082"][b]With Newt running his mouth about the President and liberals again this came up........... Gave me a laugh........ And pretty much echoes my feelings about the damage he did when he had power in Congress.....[/b][/color]

[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"] A Moral Dilemma

Here's a dilemma for you… With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line – this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida…In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is — it's Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Newt Gingrich, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the Nation's once, most powerful men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?[/size][/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#4b0082"][b]'Rani[/b][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]



Now if I had posed that same question, but substituted "obama" for Newt... the wacco liberals would be calling it a hateful racist statement.

And we see yet another demonstration of the liberal double standard in action. It really gets hard to take the liberals, and their hypocrisy seriously in any way.
[/quote]

Scotsman, you are taking life and politics waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too seriously..........

Sit down, relax, close your eyes, breathe out.......Now deep breath in, hold it, let it out with an "oooooommmmmmmmmm"....... Repeat until you drop all interest in politics for the moment. Celebrate your refreshed mindset with a good Kentucky Bourbon.

'Rani
[/quote]

Rani,
You know I am fairly conservative but I gotta say I laughed my ass off and read the joke out loud to the family.
We can't take life too seriously. None of us are getting out alive.
Ray
[/quote]

You are most likely right.

But no Bourbon for me...that stuff is toxic.
I think they distill it with old gym sox.
[/quote]

on that your right bucko,stick to scotch or irish whiskey. like nothers milk.
ray

[matias]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='11 April 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1271009578' post='463066']

Now if I had posed that same question, but substituted "obama" for Newt... the wacco liberals would be calling it a hateful racist statement.

And we see yet another demonstration of the liberal double standard in action. It really gets hard to take the liberals, and their hypocrisy seriously in any way.
[/quote]

Where do you see that? All I see is someone who is not a liberal putting some words in the mouth of liberals and then passing judgment on them for these words they have not uttered: double standards, hypocrisy etc...

In other words, we see someone who has a pre-formed opinion "making up" facts that, oh surprise! justify his pre-formed opinion, instead of putting his opinion to the test of real facts and real words. And I am not saying that's because he is an anti-liberal or what not. Judging from what I have read in this and other threads, TheScotsman is just someone who has a view of things and will try to bend facts to fit into it, instead of the contrary. Something you can find on all sides of the political spectrum, alas.

[matias]

[quote name='matias' date='12 April 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1271078381' post='463201']Judging from what I have read in this and other threads, TheScotsman is just someone who has a view of things and will try to bend facts to fit into it, instead of the contrary.[/quote]
[b][i]
I think I will rephrase this to make my meaning clearer:[/i][/b]
I am pretty sure TheScotsman is much more than I can claim to know from his postings, but in a lot of them on this forum it seems to me he has a view of things and tries to bend facts to fit into it, rather than the contrary. My own slant, as evidenced by foaming at the mouth most of the times I read one of his posts, must be factored into my previous statement.

[LZ22]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am guilty of this as well but feel the need to post this anyways. This thread has turned into a hateful, "you're wrong I am right because I said so" ranting post. There are endless "facts" that can be thrown from each side of the spectrum to the other to prove the other side wrong. In turn, there are endless "facts" that counter those other "facts" to negate any argument. The fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, both political parties have done damage to this country that will be very tough to reverse. I have seen many other threads where each and every one of you has stated that you hate how hostile and partisan the country is and how damaging it is. Somehow, in those threads you all believe that you have seen the light and don't want to contribute to the hostile partisanship. However, what has been said in this thread is the exact same of hostile partisanship that you people believe are toxic. I believe, as the future generations, we need to try to overcome this otherwise we will just be in the exact same place years down the road. Everyone has their own beliefs, I realize that, but the damage has been done and we need to find solutions...not someone to blame.

This article was in USA Today this morning and it makes it very clear that we are on the brink of a serious problem, regardless of who is to blame (both parties ) As a quote in the article, we are on the brink of the most predictable financial disaster in history. The bickering needs to end and solutions need to happen.
Link: [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm?csp=hf"]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm?csp=hf[/url]

[acolorado]

[quote name='LZ22' date='13 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1271220518' post='463558']
Ladies and gentlemen,

I am guilty of this as well but feel the need to post this anyways. This thread has turned into a hateful, "you're wrong I am right because I said so" ranting post. There are endless "facts" that can be thrown from each side of the spectrum to the other to prove the other side wrong. In turn, there are endless "facts" that counter those other "facts" to negate any argument. The fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, both political parties have done damage to this country that will be very tough to reverse. I have seen many other threads where each and every one of you has stated that you hate how hostile and partisan the country is and how damaging it is. Somehow, in those threads you all believe that you have seen the light and don't want to contribute to the hostile partisanship. However, what has been said in this thread is the exact same of hostile partisanship that you people believe are toxic. I believe, as the future generations, we need to try to overcome this otherwise we will just be in the exact same place years down the road. Everyone has their own beliefs, I realize that, but the damage has been done and we need to find solutions...not someone to blame.

This article was in USA Today this morning and it makes it very clear that we are on the brink of a serious problem, regardless of who is to blame (both parties ) As a quote in the article, we are on the brink of the most predictable financial disaster in history. The bickering needs to end and solutions need to happen.
Link: [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm?csp=hf"]http://www.usatoday....it_N.htm?csp=hf[/url]
[/quote]

I believe this is a case of false equivalency. If you spend a little time over at politifact.com or factcheck.org you're going to realize pretty quickly that currently Republicans are responsible for the vast majority of dishonesty and misinformation floating around right now. Do your homework on the debt, the deficit, taxes, HCR, - virtually anything and you'll find that there are rock-bottom facts based on solid evidence which tell the true story. Nearly all of them support Dems at the moment. Fact check both Republicans and Dems and pretty soon you'll be a solid Dem, at least if you have any appreciation of honesty and actual facts.

The only way you can say that the two parties are equally responsible for our problems right now is if you are willing to accept lies for truths and fictions for fact - and if you refuse to do your homework. I understand that it's easier to just accept the simple story spun out by the media that dig out the truth, but that doesn't make you a well-informed voter.

Living under self-imposed ignorance doesn't make you independent or balanced - it just makes you uninformed and misled, which I think the Republicans are perfectly happy with. If they do 80% of the lying, misleading, and hypocrisy - it suits them just fine to be blamed for only half of it. That's the case today. Of course they don't want anyone to look for the party to blame - they know who it is and they would rather "look to the future" and not to the past.

Look at the voting records on important issues which have come up in Congress this year. It's very partisan. The Dems are trying to fix problems, and regardless of how much good it will do the country, the Republicans are opposing them. They want the Dems to fail in all efforts to help this country, have said so out loud repeatedly, and are strategising now on how to continue to oppose every effort to improve the situation. They are the party of NO, no matter what the issue is. The one thing which is obvious is that if you really want solutions, there really is only one party offering those right now.

The longer people refuse to accept this, the longer we have a system with only one viable party.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='acolorado' date='15 April 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1271358925' post='463769']
[quote name='LZ22' date='13 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1271220518' post='463558']
Ladies and gentlemen,

I am guilty of this as well but feel the need to post this anyways. This thread has turned into a hateful, "you're wrong I am right because I said so" ranting post. There are endless "facts" that can be thrown from each side of the spectrum to the other to prove the other side wrong. In turn, there are endless "facts" that counter those other "facts" to negate any argument. The fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, both political parties have done damage to this country that will be very tough to reverse. I have seen many other threads where each and every one of you has stated that you hate how hostile and partisan the country is and how damaging it is. Somehow, in those threads you all believe that you have seen the light and don't want to contribute to the hostile partisanship. However, what has been said in this thread is the exact same of hostile partisanship that you people believe are toxic. I believe, as the future generations, we need to try to overcome this otherwise we will just be in the exact same place years down the road. Everyone has their own beliefs, I realize that, but the damage has been done and we need to find solutions...not someone to blame.

This article was in USA Today this morning and it makes it very clear that we are on the brink of a serious problem, regardless of who is to blame (both parties ) As a quote in the article, we are on the brink of the most predictable financial disaster in history. The bickering needs to end and solutions need to happen.
Link: [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm?csp=hf"]http://www.usatoday....it_N.htm?csp=hf[/url]
[/quote]

I believe this is a case of false equivalency. If you spend a little time over at politifact.com or factcheck.org you're going to realize pretty quickly that currently Republicans are responsible for the vast majority of dishonesty and misinformation floating around right now. Do your homework on the debt, the deficit, taxes, HCR, - virtually anything and you'll find that there are rock-bottom facts based on solid evidence which tell the true story. Nearly all of them support Dems at the moment. Fact check both Republicans and Dems and pretty soon you'll be a solid Dem, at least if you have any appreciation of honesty and actual facts.

The only way you can say that the two parties are equally responsible for our problems right now is if you are willing to accept lies for truths and fictions for fact - and if you refuse to do your homework. I understand that it's easier to just accept the simple story spun out by the media that dig out the truth, but that doesn't make you a well-informed voter.

Living under self-imposed ignorance doesn't make you independent or balanced - it just makes you uninformed and misled, which I think the Republicans are perfectly happy with. If they do 80% of the lying, misleading, and hypocrisy - it suits them just fine to be blamed for only half of it. That's the case today. Of course they don't want anyone to look for the party to blame - they know who it is and they would rather "look to the future" and not to the past.

Look at the voting records on important issues which have come up in Congress this year. It's very partisan. The Dems are trying to fix problems, and regardless of how much good it will do the country, the Republicans are opposing them. They want the Dems to fail in all efforts to help this country, have said so out loud repeatedly, and are strategising now on how to continue to oppose every effort to improve the situation. They are the party of NO, no matter what the issue is. The one thing which is obvious is that if you really want solutions, there really is only one party offering those right now.

The longer people refuse to accept this, the longer we have a system with only one viable party.
[/quote]



Listen to all the generalized BS.

reading your posts is a bit like listening to a 15 year old girl argue.


If you don't have a specific item, incident, statement, bill, law, (or any specific part of any of the list) to debate - you are just making a political stump speech proselytizing, or trolling. Must be a ward churchill student.






Conservatives are not the party of no.... we are the party of HELL NO!

Hell no! No more spending without paying for it, no more unconstitutional infringements on the rights and liberties of individuals, no more wealth redistribution to people that don't earn anything as a result of their laziness/stupidity-no more nany-state controls over each little thing. No more foreign aid to countries that hate us, no more illegal imigration. Personally I like being part of that "hell-no" party.

[LZ22]

[quote name='acolorado' date='15 April 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1271358925' post='463769']
[quote name='LZ22' date='13 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1271220518' post='463558']
Ladies and gentlemen,

I am guilty of this as well but feel the need to post this anyways. This thread has turned into a hateful, "you're wrong I am right because I said so" ranting post. There are endless "facts" that can be thrown from each side of the spectrum to the other to prove the other side wrong. In turn, there are endless "facts" that counter those other "facts" to negate any argument. The fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, both political parties have done damage to this country that will be very tough to reverse. I have seen many other threads where each and every one of you has stated that you hate how hostile and partisan the country is and how damaging it is. Somehow, in those threads you all believe that you have seen the light and don't want to contribute to the hostile partisanship. However, what has been said in this thread is the exact same of hostile partisanship that you people believe are toxic. I believe, as the future generations, we need to try to overcome this otherwise we will just be in the exact same place years down the road. Everyone has their own beliefs, I realize that, but the damage has been done and we need to find solutions...not someone to blame.

This article was in USA Today this morning and it makes it very clear that we are on the brink of a serious problem, regardless of who is to blame (both parties ) As a quote in the article, we are on the brink of the most predictable financial disaster in history. The bickering needs to end and solutions need to happen.
Link: [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm?csp=hf"]http://www.usatoday....it_N.htm?csp=hf[/url]
[/quote]

I believe this is a case of false equivalency. If you spend a little time over at politifact.com or factcheck.org you're going to realize pretty quickly that currently Republicans are responsible for the vast majority of dishonesty and misinformation floating around right now. Do your homework on the debt, the deficit, taxes, HCR, - virtually anything and you'll find that there are rock-bottom facts based on solid evidence which tell the true story. Nearly all of them support Dems at the moment. Fact check both Republicans and Dems and pretty soon you'll be a solid Dem, at least if you have any appreciation of honesty and actual facts.

The only way you can say that the two parties are equally responsible for our problems right now is if you are willing to accept lies for truths and fictions for fact - and if you refuse to do your homework. I understand that it's easier to just accept the simple story spun out by the media that dig out the truth, but that doesn't make you a well-informed voter.

Living under self-imposed ignorance doesn't make you independent or balanced - it just makes you uninformed and misled, which I think the Republicans are perfectly happy with. If they do 80% of the lying, misleading, and hypocrisy - it suits them just fine to be blamed for only half of it. That's the case today. Of course they don't want anyone to look for the party to blame - they know who it is and they would rather "look to the future" and not to the past.

Look at the voting records on important issues which have come up in Congress this year. It's very partisan. The Dems are trying to fix problems, and regardless of how much good it will do the country, the Republicans are opposing them. They want the Dems to fail in all efforts to help this country, have said so out loud repeatedly, and are strategising now on how to continue to oppose every effort to improve the situation. They are the party of NO, no matter what the issue is. The one thing which is obvious is that if you really want solutions, there really is only one party offering those right now.

The longer people refuse to accept this, the longer we have a system with only one viable party.
[/quote]

Haha how do you expect to be taken serious in a political debate? You claim that republicans have lied about every single thing, they are responsible for every dollar of debt, they are responsible for every bad woe that has fallen upon this country. In the meantime, you claim the Democrats are the bringers of prosperity, always tell the truth, always fixing every problem. You lecture me that I should do some fact checking...yet you provide ZERO facts to back up your points, other than the fact that you have a "I know I am right and you are wrong" mentality.

I do find this quote, "I understand that it's easier to just accept the simple story spun out by the media that dig out the truth, but that doesn't make you a well-informed voter." a little amusing...in the sense that an independent study I posted in a previous post in this thread concluded the media is predominately left-leaning. Which by your assertion, I should be liberal.

"The one thing which is obvious is that if you really want solutions, there really is only one party offering those right now. The longer people refuse to accept this, the longer we have a system with only one viable party." --- Seriously, are you like a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi or something? You sound like you are reading a script with a gun to your head!

Since you really have not provided any of "your homework," you have zero credibility. Please post evidence and support to your accusations.