Question for HHSDad or any other accounting type person.

[Frances Bavier]

Reading someone's mind is. I guess it's too much to ask for a group to expressly state its position these days?[/Quote] The point is - NEITHER party expressly states their true position. Unfortunately, some people can only see that the people that they disagree with are guilty of this ploy.

 

 

What it means is the small percentage of people who already pay the majority of taxes will pay even more. [/Quote] Oversimplification of the problem. We ALL need to pay more, and spend less.

 

 

Which is a redistribution.[/Quote]Which is a bad case of intentionally misstating the true problem, in an attempt to curry political favor and garner votes.

 

 

Frances, surely you understand that you are one of the top 3 one-sided political posters on here. Everyone else does.

[/Quote] This is a direct personal attack. I will report it as such. It also completely ignores the point that you were quoting, had you actually used the "Quote" feature provided by the site.

 

 

It's the economy, stupid. Remember? You can rag him on the easy stuff (Iraq), but you're going to look real bad trying to attack the economy. Look at the big surpluses states have right now, and already Dems foaming at the mouth to spend it all and be broke again, so they can raise taxes yet again.[/Quote] There is another shoe waiting to drop. The incredible debt that we have accrued has to be addressed. If I go to the bank and borrow $10,000, I can look like a rich man, dining at a swank restaurant, and buying a nice suit. Sooner or later, the bank is going to want it's money back.

 

 

Landshark already explained this one to you. No. Landshark has evaded the issue to this point in the conversation.

 

Ugh. Your posts where you break down each part of every sentence are the most excrutiating. Not going into a long diatribe, but I see very little I can even begin to agree with.

It can often be painful when we are asked to defend what we say.

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

Still with the generalizations about "liberals".

 

The distinction of paying "my" own way, as opposed to paying "our" own way is ludicrous. This country did not run up a debt of over eight trillion dollars overnight.

 

Do "we" pay down the debt, or do we ask the people that have received benefits for the last 50 years to pay it back? Oh wait - the people that have received benefits for the last 50 years is us. "We" have enjoyed the luxuries (i.e. driving on interstate highways, Social Security, welfare, NASA, etc.). It is up to "us" to pay for it - or lay it off on future generations.

 

I don't remember seeing any future generations driving down the highway, or drawing welfare payments, or cashing in Social Security checks. Therefore, if we are going to be honest about our situation, we need to look in the mirror and admit that, as Pogo once said in the comics - "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

 

Playing the "I didn't eat the cookie, Johnny did" game is a losing proposition. We've been doing that for quite a few decades now, and we can ALL see where it has gotten US.

 

 

Frances

There was nothing general at all about my use of the word liberal - my application of the word was very specific. The people who are leading the charge to rescind the Bush tax cuts are liberals. Liberal Republicans in the House will join their Democratic friends to push for higher taxes. They are advocating that people who already foot most of the bill for our bloated government to contribute even more.

 

You said that you support spending on NPR and the National Endowment of the Arts. Yet, you advocate increasing taxes. Obviously, a large part of the bill for government spending, both past and present, is being passed on to future generations. I don't want to pay for your listening entertainment, nor do I want my kids to pay for it.

 

President Bush proposed allowing free US citizens to choose whether to invest part of their social securitity contributions in stocks and liberals blocked the legislation.

 

Republican congressmen (liberals, moderates, and phony conservative alike) deserve a good bashing over their spending excesses, but Democrats have nothing to crow about when it comes to belt tightening. Raising taxes on those who already pay the most is not the answer. Killing a booming economy would also not reflect well on the new Democratic majorities in the House, Senate, and state houses around the country.

 

Even Chinese Communists understand the power of unleashing American-style capitalism to fund a large government bureaucracy and to relieve the poverty caused by decades of socialist oppression. American conservatives and liberals should take a close look at how much misery capitalism has relieved in China before placing additional shackles on our current economic system.

[Frances Bavier]

...You said that you support spending on NPR and the National Endowment of the Arts. Yet, you advocate increasing taxes. Obviously, a large part of the bill for government spending, both past and present, is being passed on to future generations. I don't want to pay for your listening entertainment, nor do I want my kids to pay for it.[/Quote] Fair enough. I don't want to pay for Bush's war pleasures in Iraq, yet that is what I've been asked to do. I also don't want my kids to pay for the war in Iraq, yet that is what they have been asked to do.

 

As I said in my reply to Fastbreak - the rub comes when we try to decide what programs are worthy of the financial support, and which are not. You are welcome to support Bush, and I will continue to oppose him and his trillion dollar war.

 

You vote your way, and I'll vote mine. I thank God that, fortunately, the majority would rather support the arts than this travesty of a war.

 

 

President Bush proposed allowing free US citizens to choose whether to invest part of their social securitity contributions in stocks and liberals blocked the legislation. [/Quote] Hard to imagine that someone disagreed with Bush, isn't it? In one post, we see Bush being decried as a "false conservative", and in the next, he is being hailed as the champion of privatization of Social Security. This guy has more faces than Lon Chaney.

 

 

Republican congressmen (liberals, moderates, and phony conservative alike) deserve a good bashing over their spending excesses, but Democrats have nothing to crow about when it comes to belt tightening. Raising taxes on those who already pay the most is not the answer. Killing a booming economy would also not reflect well on the new Democratic majorities in the House, Senate, and state houses around the country. [/Quote] So, which is it? Do we continue to spend, and not raise taxes? Financial disaster lies at the end of that road. Do we raise taxes and continue to spend? It will take a VERY long time to get back to where we should be if we follow that road. Do we cut programs at the same time we cut taxes? Show me the politician that steps up to the microphone and lists EXACTLY what programs we are going to cut. For goodness' sake, let's keep in mind that if we cut out NPR and Endowments for the Arts, the cuts are going to be superficial and have absolutely no real impact.

 

Even Chinese Communists understand the power of unleashing American-style capitalism to fund a large government bureaucracy and to relieve the poverty caused by decades of socialist oppression. American conservatives and liberals should take a close look at how much misery capitalism has relieved in China before placing additional shackles on our current economic system.

Am I misreading your statement? Are you espousing that we should embrace Communism, but reject the socialist aspects of that style of government? Joseph McCarthy must be rolling over in his grave at that thought.

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

Am I misreading your statement? Are you espousing that we should embrace Communism, but reject the socialist aspects of that style of government? Joseph McCarthy must be rolling over in his grave at that thought.

Yes. You are misreading my statement.

[Booge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyrayjoebob

Frances, surely you understand that you are one of the top 3 one-sided political posters on here. Everyone else does.

This is a direct personal attack. I will report it as such. It also completely ignores the point that you were quoting, had you actually used the "Quote" feature provided by the site.

 

LOL, pointing out that your posts are extremely partisan is a personal attack???

Far from it. Isn't running to the mods when someone disagrees with you getting embarrassing yet?

[Frances Bavier]

...LOL, pointing out that your posts are extremely partisan is a personal attack???

Far from it. Isn't running to the mods when someone disagrees with you getting embarrassing yet?

 

I hope that the moderators allow this thread to remain open. It is actually showing signs of serious debate.

 

Unfortunately, this is the second consecutive post that I have had to report. I will not participate in personal attacks that are intended to divert the debate that is the gist of this thread.

 

 

Frances

[Booge]

I hope that the moderators allow this thread to remain open. It is actually showing signs of serious debate.

 

Unfortunately, this is the second consecutive post that I have had to report. I will not participate in personal attacks that are intended to divert the debate that is the gist of this thread.

 

 

Frances

 

I think the mods are used to you reporting "personal attacks" that aren't really personal attacks. No one has attacked you Frances, it's just your same old trick of trying to get someone booted when they disagree with you.

[All Tell]

As I said to BJRB - if we were all truly paying our fair share, there would be no deficit. The truth is, as a country, we are $8.6 TRILLION in debt. I could be wrong, but I'd say that, as taxpayers, we are clearly NOT paying our share. We are passing it along to future generations.

And I say that if useless programs such as NPR, the Endowment for the Arts etc were completely cut a huge portion, if not the entire defecit would be eliminated. Why not CUT those and other entitlement programs to reduce the defecit rather then raise taxes to do it?

[Frances Bavier]

And I say that if useless programs such as NPR, the Endowment for the Arts etc were completely cut a huge portion, if not the entire defecit would be eliminated. Why not CUT those and other entitlement programs to reduce the defecit rather then raise taxes to do it?

 

I agree that there is a real need to cut programs. I'm not sure what programs such as NPR and the National Endowment for the Arts cost us each year (I'm sure we could look it up), but I feel fairly safe in saying that they are nothing more than a drop in the ocean of spending that we currently engage in.

 

It is easy for us to sit here on BGP and point out the various programs that we would like to see cut. The hard part is finding a politician that will stand in front of the cameras and stand up for making those cuts. Even harder, is finding a politician that will actually make the cuts after making the promises. Of course, he'd never get elected in the first place, so the second part of the equation is a moot point.

 

The very idea of seeing a politician (of either party) run on a platform of eliminating Social Security at this point in time is preposterous. With the graying of America, and the fact that the baby boom is now beginning to hit the SS years makes such a stand pure suicide for a politician.

 

 

Frances

[All Tell]

I agree that there is a real need to cut programs. I'm not sure what programs such as NPR and the National Endowment for the Arts cost us each year (I'm sure we could look it up), but I feel fairly safe in saying that they are nothing more than a drop in the ocean of spending that we currently engage in.

 

It is easy for us to sit here on BGP and point out the various programs that we would like to see cut. The hard part is finding a politician that will stand in front of the cameras and stand up for making those cuts. Even harder, is finding a politician that will actually make the cuts after making the promises. Of course, he'd never get elected in the first place, so the second part of the equation is a moot point.

 

The very idea of seeing a politician (of either party) run on a platform of eliminating Social Security at this point in time is preposterous. With the graying of America, and the fact that the baby boom is now beginning to hit the SS years makes such a stand pure suicide for a politician.

 

 

Frances

And yet it is not hard at all to find politicians who are more then willing to take more money from Americans to fund those same programs and to say so publically. That really scares me. It's redistribution of wealth as the government sees fit and any way you slice it that's socialism.

 

One of John Yarmuth's big talking points was universal health care. How is that going to be paid for? When it becomes a huge beurocratic nightmare like it is in Canada it will be to late. Once a spending program has been established it never goes away regardless of how bad it is. I squarely blame liberals for that because they would rather see their little pet programs continued and to see the "arrogant upper class" be taxed at a higher rate then to cut programs. And that's not the fault of the politicians entirely, it's the fault of an electorate that is more concerned about keeping entitlement programs and keeping people dependent on those programs.

[Booge]

The very idea of seeing a politician (of either party) run on a platform of eliminating Social Security at this point in time is preposterous. With the graying of America, and the fact that the baby boom is now beginning to hit the SS years makes such a stand pure suicide for a politician.

 

 

Frances

 

I would like to see a politician run on the platform of privatizing Social Security.

The rate of return the government generates from Social Security funds is almost zero. Any idiot could put the money into the safest, lowest yield interest bearing account and do much better, at the same time saving the huge cost of govt. administration. Of course the Dems are already squealing. Anything that makes the public less dependent on government they are going to fight to the bitter end.

[Frances Bavier]

... I squarely blame liberals for that because they would rather see their little pet programs continued and to see the "arrogant upper class" be taxed at a higher rate then to cut programs. And that's not the fault of the politicians entirely, it's the fault of an electorate that is more concerned about keeping entitlement programs and keeping people dependent on those programs.

As it has been said many times - in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. This continuing charade of blaming an 8 Trillion dollar debt on one party or the other is ridiculous. To think that it is solely the consequence of putting "liberals" in positions of power is clearly a case of pointing fingers. WE have created the debt, and WE should pay for it. Unless we can find a rich country to conquer and then plunder, we must come up with a plan that will deliver us from this debt. More importantly, once we have the plan, we must have enough restraint and self control to make it come to pass.

 

That will not be accomplished by eliminating the word "liberals" from the dictionary, nor will it happen by continuing to blame our situation on Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

I would like to see a politician run on the platform of privatizing Social Security.

The rate of return the government generates from Social Security funds is almost zero. Any idiot could put the money into the safest, lowest yield interest bearing account and do much better, at the same time saving the huge cost of govt. administration. Of course the Dems are already squealing. Anything that makes the public less dependent on government they are going to fight to the bitter end.

 

Do you honestly believe that the "Dems" are solely responsible for the current debt that our nation carries?

 

Do you honestly believe that the "Dems" want to have a public that is not self sufficient, or is totally dependent on government assistance?

 

Do you think that there are no "Dems" that would like to see the budget balanced, and the deficit erased?

 

Do you honestly believe that the "Dems" truly wish this country ill?

 

Those are four serious questions. I hope you can give them some thought, and respond to each.

 

 

Frances

[All Tell]

As it has been said many times - in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. This continuing charade of blaming an 8 Trillion dollar debt on one party or the other is ridiculous. To think that it is solely the consequence of putting "liberals" in positions of power is clearly a case of pointing fingers. WE have created the debt, and WE should pay for it. Unless we can find a rich country to conquer and then plunder, we must come up with a plan that will deliver us from this debt. More importantly, once we have the plan, we must have enough restraint and self control to make it come to pass.

 

That will not be accomplished by eliminating the word "liberals" from the dictionary, nor will it happen by continuing to blame our situation on Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.

 

 

Frances

Nor will it happen by continuing to fund wasteful programs. IF, and this is a huge IF, but IF useless programs were eliminated (not curtailed, not cut back, completely eliminated) and there was still a deficit then and only then would I favor tax increases. You are so put off by labels but it is my belief that liberals in this country would rather raise taxes then cut entitlements and that that is a foundation of their political philosophy. I have absolutely no problem with fiscal responsibility and as I have said over and over I have no problem with "paying my share". I do have a problem when I am asked to pay more when there are programs and entitlements that I feel are a complete waste of money that seem to be sacred cows. NPR and that Arts are just two of those. Welfare programs are rife with abuses, people with no motivation to help themselves or with not enough self control to keep from having children that they can't afford. Until those things are corrected I will remain adamantly opposed to paying 1 more cent in taxes.

[Bandit29]

Its all about the "handout" for the dems. They love to just handout money with all of their programs. It comes down to big goverment vs small goverment.