On 09 Jul 2004 20:11:18 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

There is no correlation between party affiliation and irresponsible spending.
With a gop in the WH and gops controlling Congress, we *should* be running a
tight ship right now.

Alas:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


(here's where you come back with a retort about how it's really Clinton's
fault)

The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one
politician, you get a pass on that one.




The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.

So, what happened? Without an opposing party Executive, the Republican Congress
has gone on a *wild* spending spree.

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.

Nonsense. Anybody can look up the current federal budget and see that only a
small portion of our current super-expenditures are directly related to the
invasion of Iraq.

Then what is the rest being spent on? Certainly we're not spending it
on entitlement programs (Except that lame prescription drug program,
than I'm a bit ****ed at Bush for supporting).



Has Bush vetoed a single spending bill, yet? (As of very recently he had not.)

Now here it gets a bit more confusing...............

I remarked:

High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable
income
from the average worker.

and you replied:

Hear hear!!!

Was that because you failed to recognize the fiscal (phony tax cut) policy of
the Bush Administration expressed in such simple terms, or because you don't
support it?

I agree that the government takes far more money than it deserves from
people's pockets. I was more in agreement with your lead-in statement
in this paragraph (Which, for some reason you failed to include here).


.........

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave


It's a curve, not a straight line.

When you get far enough out to the left you do begin to catch a glimpse of some
of those folks on the extreme right, they're just coming around the same circle
from the other direction.

We extremists all have a common desire- we want the boot of government off our
neck. Many of the righties would then hope to create a Norman Rockwell
conformist religious utopia, while more of the lefties would rejoice in a new
era of personal intellectual freedom and self sufficiency.

Until you can get people to stop succumbing to the dark sides of human
nature, the leftist utopian society will never happen without
governmental oversight, which will severely limit personal freedoms.

Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are
what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the
rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in
wealth. But since this cannot happen naturally, I cannot see this
happening without a big fight.

I'm sorry that you elected not to comment on my counter to your
corporate tax issue driving corporations from our country. Maybe I
shouldn't be surprised, because this is the point where many guys on
the left usually abandon the discussion. It's not so easy to come up
with good solutions is it? Many "solutions" breed bigger problems of
their own.

I'm not saying that I've got the answers. But I do see a pretty big
picture of the problem, and it's probably too late to change the road
that we're on. Our best bet is to adapt to the changing conditions,
and gravitate toward careers which are best suited to this country,
and not likely to be farmed out to lower paid workers in foreign
countries.

Dave

The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one
politician, you get a pass on that one.

"Economic downturn"? Where did that come from. Yes, the economy was less robust
in Clinton's final months, but we're discussing *government spending*. The
president is not directly responsible for boom and bust, but he OKs every
dollar spent by Congress during his watch. It *is*
reasonable to hold politicians accountable for government spending during their
terms.



Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are
what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the
rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in
wealth.

Wake up, Dave. You're 50 years behind the times in your understanding of
liberalism.

On 13 Jul 2004 05:12:05 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one
politician, you get a pass on that one.

"Economic downturn"? Where did that come from. Yes, the economy was less robust
in Clinton's final months, but we're discussing *government spending*. The
president is not directly responsible for boom and bust, but he OKs every
dollar spent by Congress during his watch. It *is*
reasonable to hold politicians accountable for government spending during their
terms.

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.

Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are
what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the
rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in
wealth.

Wake up, Dave. You're 50 years behind the times in your understanding of
liberalism.

I doubt that Chuck. I see it all the time. Every time someone shows
their bias against rich people, or those who somehow feel that the
rich should pay a disproportionately higher percentage of tax than any
one else, for no other reason than "they can afford it". All this so
that liberals can fix "the ills of society" by throwing taxpayer money
at it. That's counter to the basic principles of freedom (With
personal responsibility) and free market capitalism.

The further to the left your ideology goes, the closer to socialism
you get.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.


Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your
senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd get
it, and easily.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.


Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your
senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd get
it, and easily.



Dave's senators have call-blocked his phone.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:02:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.


Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your
senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd get
it, and easily.

Dealing with political offices is an exercise in frustration.

It's probably easier to search on the web. Point being that there is
little factual information here and lots of speculation.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:02:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.


Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your
senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd
get
it, and easily.

Dealing with political offices is an exercise in frustration.

It's probably easier to search on the web. Point being that there is
little factual information here and lots of speculation.

Dave


Weenie. You keep closing doors. YOU said "I'd be curious...". It's easy to
find out how presidents voted on legislation. You're either too lazy, or you
really don't want the answer to your question. Someone here would almost
certainly ask you to post a link, and the information might let the air out
of your argument.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:42:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:02:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.


Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your
senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd
get
it, and easily.

Dealing with political offices is an exercise in frustration.

It's probably easier to search on the web. Point being that there is
little factual information here and lots of speculation.

Dave


Weenie. You keep closing doors. YOU said "I'd be curious...". It's easy to
find out how presidents voted on legislation. You're either too lazy, or you
really don't want the answer to your question. Someone here would almost
certainly ask you to post a link, and the information might let the air out
of your argument.

Or if they were so inclined as to actually PROVE me wrong, THEY could
post the link.

In any case, I have already gotten one answer, and if you believe the
link that Chuck provided, then Bush HAS vetoed at least one spending
bill.....

Dave

I doubt that Chuck. I see it all the time. Every time someone shows
their bias against rich people, or those who somehow feel that the
rich should pay a disproportionately higher percentage of tax than any
one else, for no other reason than "they can afford it". All this so
that liberals can fix "the ills of society" by throwing taxpayer money
at it. That's counter to the basic principles of freedom (With
personal responsibility) and free market capitalism.

The further to the left your ideology goes, the closer to socialism
you get.

No, you don't "see it all the time".
You hear about it all the time on AM radio.
All most people know about liberals is what Rush LImbaugh tells them. :-)

Gould,

It may not be the attitude of most liberals, but we see it everyday in the
posts made by Harry, jps, bb and Basskisser. What you do not understand is
that the majority of conservatives do not listen to talk radio, Rush or any
of the other talking heads who spew propaganda.

When you assume they do, you are guilty of generalization and demonizing the
enemy, the same thing that you accuse AM radio talk shows of doing.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I doubt that Chuck. I see it all the time. Every time someone shows
their bias against rich people, or those who somehow feel that the
rich should pay a disproportionately higher percentage of tax than any
one else, for no other reason than "they can afford it". All this so
that liberals can fix "the ills of society" by throwing taxpayer money
at it. That's counter to the basic principles of freedom (With
personal responsibility) and free market capitalism.

The further to the left your ideology goes, the closer to socialism
you get.

No, you don't "see it all the time".
You hear about it all the time on AM radio.
All most people know about liberals is what Rush LImbaugh tells them. :-)