On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:44:59 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:35:27 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take things away from
you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty easy to take
things out of context isn't it....

Like some of Bush's tax cuts. In context:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/in...2904n_clintons

Ultimately every dollar that government spends has to be paid for
somehow, by someone sometime. If you think those tax cuts created
"free money" you are mistaken. When John McCain says that the current
Republican Congress spends money in a way that puts drunken sailors to
shame, that should tell you something about the "fiscally responsible"
party. Besides, unless you are very well off, most of the Bush tax
cuts didn't help you, anyway.

"felton" wrote in message


Ultimately every dollar that government spends has to be paid for
somehow, by someone sometime.

Not really--those dollars just add to the runaway federal debt. But your
point is valid: if tax cuts are given, spending should also be cut. A
simple premise, really, but seemingly forgotten by everyone in Washington,
including democrats.

If you think those tax cuts created
"free money" you are mistaken. When John McCain says that the current
Republican Congress spends money in a way that puts drunken sailors to
shame, that should tell you something about the "fiscally responsible"
party. Besides, unless you are very well off, most of the Bush tax
cuts didn't help you, anyway.

They helped me, and I don't consider myself among the ultra-rich, as the
dems purport were the only beneficiaries.

Max

"Bart Senior" wrote
John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's made. .....


Y'know you might be right - Kerry and his fellow liberal democrats MIGHT
ruin the country if elected. But what's the alternative? Bush and the other
village idiots running congress are ruining the country right now. Four
years ago we were haggling about using the surplus to pay off the national
debt and our 401Ks were growing steadily. Now we have two concurrent wars
going on, we have people locked down without due process, the surplus was
turned into the biggest deficites ever and our 401Ks still haven't recovered
from the Bush recession. So what do you suggest? Me? I'm writing in
Hillary. She couldn't be worse that Bush or Kerry.

BTW did y'all know she was a big Goldwater supporter? Why'd she switch?
Cuz the Democrat Party is closer to Barry's 'radical' doctern of fiscal
conservatism and government obedience to the Constitution than the
barrow-and-spend religious zealots who took over the Republican party.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:12:00 -0400, "Vito" wrote:


"Bart Senior" wrote
John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's made. .....


Y'know you might be right - Kerry and his fellow liberal democrats MIGHT
ruin the country if elected. But what's the alternative? Bush and the other
village idiots running congress are ruining the country right now.

snip

My thinking exactly. I am much more comfortable with the White House
and the Congress not being controlled by the same party...either
party. When we have that dreaded "gridlock", the politicians are
forced to compromise somewhere in the middle, where most of us find
ourselves politically, anyway. Bush is not a hypothetical at this
point, he is a proven disaster.

I don't know what Kerry could do that could possibly be as misguided
as this administration and I would hate to think what this group would
do with another four years, as they seem to be on a mission to screw
up everything they can get their hands on.

"felton" wrote in message


My thinking exactly. I am much more comfortable with the White House
and the Congress not being controlled by the same party...either
party.

Amen.

Max

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"felton" wrote in message


My thinking exactly. I am much more comfortable with the White House
and the Congress not being controlled by the same party...either
party.

Amen.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

I very well may. But I'm watching what is going to happen in Congress, too.
If it looks as if it's going back to the left, I'll vote for W.

Max

That makes a certain amount of sense, except for one thing.

Taxes keep rising, so the damage once done, can never be
repaired

Connecticut had no state income tax. Then it was added and
sales tax was lowered. Now the talk is to raise sales tax again.

The old bait and switch.

The question remains--where is all the money going?

Maxprop wrote

"felton" wrote in message


My thinking exactly. I am much more comfortable with the White House
and the Congress not being controlled by the same party...either
party.

Amen.

Max

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

That makes a certain amount of sense, except for one thing.

Taxes keep rising, so the damage once done, can never be
repaired

Connecticut had no state income tax. Then it was added and
sales tax was lowered. Now the talk is to raise sales tax again.

The old bait and switch.

The question remains--where is all the money going?

Down the political toilet, for the most part. Much of the money democrats
wish to spend is on social programs to insure votes among the disadvantaged,
which in turn insures their perpetuation in Congress. Much of the money
republicans wish to spend is on projects that benefit those corporations and
individuals who helped them gain office. And members of both parties fill
the porkbarrel to overflowing to make themselves look good at home. As I
said: down the crapper.

I don't know about you, but I'm very, very tired of paying for all this.

Max