I don't know why you would invoke the name of God - it doesn't appear to me that He has helped us these last six years. Maybe He isn't really a registered Republican after all. Is it possible that He is apolitical?

Frances

 

Perhaps the problem with politics today, is that not enough people invoke the name of God. Acording to libreals freedom of seach allows you to say anything you want, so long as you do not use the word of God. That is one of the reasons I do not want Hillary Clinton in office.

 

For you to say God has not helped us in the last six years, well, I honestly don't know what to say. I believe God has helped me personally as well as my family and friends. I will pray for you, and if you would like you may PM me and I will talk to you about the benifits of faith in God and his plan for salvation.

Okay - I'll bite.

 

How large does our tax base have to expand for us to pay off $8.6 TRILLION of national debt? How many more businesses have to start up, how many more people have to earn a paycheck, and just how far do we have to reduce taxes to reach these goals?

 

 

Frances

 

I don't know, Frances, I'm a lawyer not an economist or accountant. You engaged in discussion implying that the only ways of raising money is to raise taxes or cut spending, and I'm simply telling you that its not true, and that the country's economic growth generates more revenue than either of the other two. We had high national debt (vs. GDP) in the early 90's and the economic boom of the mid to late 90's did much to resolve it, and it occurred without tax increases and Lord knows it occurred DESPITE increases in spending.

 

And no, I'm not giving Clinton credit for the economic boom.

If she gets the nomination she will have my vote .

Perhaps the problem with politics today, is that not enough people invoke the name of God. Acording to libreals freedom of seach allows you to say anything you want, so long as you do not use the word of God. That is one of the reasons I do not want Hillary Clinton in office. [/Quote] This has to be one of the best examples of a non sequitur that ever graced the pages of BGP.

 

 

For you to say God has not helped us in the last six years, well, I honestly don't know what to say. I believe God has helped me personally as well as my family and friends. I will pray for you, and if you would like you may PM me and I will talk to you about the benifits of faith in God and his plan for salvation.

I'm sure that you feel God has touched your life. Your post, however, indicated that you believed God might intervene on behalf of America, to somehow preclude Hillary Clinton from being elected. I highly doubt that you've been speaking to God and He chose to reveal His poltical affiliation to you, while withholding that information from the rest of us. I believe that this is the way Pat Robertson got his start ...

 

Lastly, I appreciate your offer to pray for my salvation. I know that your offer is genuine, and for that, I thank you.

 

Frances

I don't know, Frances, I'm a lawyer not an economist or accountant. You engaged in discussion implying that the only ways of raising money is to raise taxes or cut spending, and I'm simply telling you that its not true, and that the country's economic growth generates more revenue than either of the other two. We had high national debt (vs. GDP) in the early 90's and the economic boom of the mid to late 90's did much to resolve it, and it occurred without tax increases and Lord knows it occurred DESPITE increases in spending.

 

And no, I'm not giving Clinton credit for the economic boom.

 

Well let's just take it to the extreme, Hearsay. Let's say that by cutting ALL taxes, the economy absolutely skyrockets. With NO taxes being collected, how long does it take to pay off that debt?

 

The reality is that cutting taxes may spur an economic rally, but at some point, we HAVE to pay taxes. No smoke and mirrors - just simple math. We owe over $8.6 TRILLION. No matter how you slice it and dice it, we have to generate that much (not counting interest) to be able to pay it off.

 

 

Frances

Lastly, I appreciate your offer to pray for my salvation. I know that your offer is genuine, and for that, I thank you.

 

Frances

 

I do truly mean that. And you're welcome.

Well let's just take it to the extreme, Hearsay. Let's say that by cutting ALL taxes, the economy absolutely skyrockets. With NO taxes being collected, how long does it take to pay off that debt?

 

The reality is that cutting taxes may spur an economic rally, but at some point, we HAVE to pay taxes. No smoke and mirrors - just simple math. We owe over $8.6 TRILLION. No matter how you slice it and dice it, we have to generate that much (not counting interest) to be able to pay it off.

 

 

Frances

 

I think we need to start another thread, where we can have a serious discussion about what constitutes national debt, what the budget deficit is, and how interest payments and taxes figure into those.

Hey, how can she run for president? She already served two terms.

I think that Hillary has too many negatives against her to become president. First, She is a horrible public speaker. Her husband was probably the best speaker to ever hold the office. When she raises her voice it is high pitch and annoying. The more people see her on the 'stump' the less they will like her. Second, she has no personality. Once again, her husband had charm and personality that was unmatched. Hillary comes across as a robot in some interviews. I think this is why some of her own party are running to Obama. He has excessive charm. Third, people will not only lign up to vote for her, but against her in droves. If she wins the nomination it will be like the '04 election, people will not be voting for her opponent, but against her (similar to a vote for Kerry was a vote against Bush). Her candidacy will fire up the opposition and drive them to the polls. Fourth, she will have to answer once again for all the Whitewater mess as well as all the scandals from Clinton I presidency. Fifth, people are going to want a fresh face. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is getting old. The presidency is going to start to look like a birthrite and not an elected office...

 

Her positives... She already has a political machine and great experience on her side. She has already raised and has the potential to raise a great deal of money. She will have cash reserves that will dwarf her opponents on both sides of the political fence. Her war room will begin to take down her opponents as we have seen this week when they started to go after Obabma...

 

Her only hope (IMO)? Wipe out the Dems early. Stockpile so much cash that it will intimidate the Republicans. Hope that the Republicans nominate a dud... there are no superstars in the wings. And walk through the general election...

Like you, I get major heartburn over people that are capable of working, but simply choose to live off Welfare. I was (and still am) a strong proponent of the "Welfare to Workfare" program.

 

On the other hand, I fully understand that some on this thread are trying to imply that if a Democrat sits in the White House, taxes will go up because we will give money to lazy people. THAT is an oversimplification of the situation. The truth is, regardless of who sits in the White House for the next 30 years, we will (at some point) have to pay back the money that we have already spent. There are only two ways to do that - raise taxes, or cut spending.

 

The idea that only Democrats raise taxes is ludicrous (remember Bush the Elder saying "Read My Lips"). The notion that Republicans are the party of "small government" has been laid to rest over the last six years.

 

Let's be honest - we have some hard choices staring us in the face. We are either going to have to forego some programs that we have come to rely on, or we are going to have to ante up.

 

If someone wishes to debate Hillary Clinton because of her stance on social issues, then that is fine. If someone wishes to claim that she will raise taxes, while implying that such an act will not occur as long as we have a Republican in the White House, then they are simply lying to themselves, and expecting the rest of us to be dumb enough to buy into the lie as well.

 

I would ask you (and not rhetorically), scooterbob, if you disagree with my main point - that we will either have to cut spending (drastically) or raise taxes? Is there a third option that I do not see?

 

 

Frances

 

Francis, what causes you to state that the Republican party of the last 6 years has destroyed the notion that Republicans are no longer the party of small govt?

I think that Hillary has too many negatives against her to become president. First, She is a horrible public speaker. Her husband was probably the best speaker to ever hold the office. When she raises her voice it is high pitch and annoying. The more people see her on the 'stump' the less they will like her. Second, she has no personality. Once again, her husband had charm and personality that was unmatched. Hillary comes across as a robot in some interviews. I think this is why some of her own party are running to Obama. He has excessive charm. Third, people will not only lign up to vote for her, but against her in droves. If she wins the nomination it will be like the '04 election, people will not be voting for her opponent, but against her (similar to a vote for Kerry was a vote against Bush). Her candidacy will fire up the opposition and drive them to the polls. Fourth, she will have to answer once again for all the Whitewater mess as well as all the scandals from Clinton I presidency. Fifth, people are going to want a fresh face. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is getting old. The presidency is going to start to look like a birthrite and not an elected office...

 

Her positives... She already has a political machine and great experience on her side. She has already raised and has the potential to raise a great deal of money. She will have cash reserves that will dwarf her opponents on both sides of the political fence. Her war room will begin to take down her opponents as we have seen this week when they started to go after Obabma...

 

Her only hope (IMO)? Wipe out the Dems early. Stockpile so much cash that it will intimidate the Republicans. Hope that the Republicans nominate a dud... there are no superstars in the wings. And walk through the general election...

 

Well done analysis.

Francis, what causes you to state that the Republican party of the last 6 years has destroyed the notion that Republicans are no longer the party of small govt?

 

The fact that riders attached to bills have skyrocketed to the point that a bill with 6,000 (and no - that is NOT hyperbole) is not uncommon.

 

The fact that our national debt is now over $8.6 trillion dollars - and growing by $1.5 billion PER DAY.

 

The fact that W has used his power of veto exactly ONCE during his six years in office.

 

The fact that all of this has happened while the Republican party had total control of the federal government.

 

The fact that the cost of all of this is not being paid by those of us that are reaping the benefits. The cost is being passed on to future generations, allowing many to remain ignorant of the true cost of the benefits of which we are the recipients.

 

Your question was fair. I answered it. Now I would ask you a fair question in return.

 

What action items can you show me, to demonstrate that the Republican party truly is the party of "small government" these last six years?

 

 

Frances

There is no longer a party of "small government". However, keeping healthcare in the private sector and allowing private social security accounts would be huge in reducing the size of government, or at least keeping it from continuing to grow.

There is no longer a party of "small government". However, keeping healthcare in the private sector and allowing private social security accounts would be huge in reducing the size of government, or at least keeping it from continuing to grow.

 

I, personally, am wholeheartedly in favor of private social security accounts, but $3 trillion of that $8 trillion national debt is owed to our social security fund, and the proposals I have heard for privatizing talk about paying that back without interest at this point. That dog won't hunt.

The fact that riders attached to bills have skyrocketed to the point that a bill with 6,000 (and no - that is NOT hyperbole) is not uncommon.

 

The fact that our national debt is now over $8.6 trillion dollars - and growing by $1.5 billion PER DAY.

 

The fact that W has used his power of veto exactly ONCE during his six years in office.

 

The fact that all of this has happened while the Republican party had total control of the federal government.

 

The fact that the cost of all of this is not being paid by those of us that are reaping the benefits. The cost is being passed on to future generations, allowing many to remain ignorant of the true cost of the benefits of which we are the recipients.

 

Your question was fair. I answered it. Now I would ask you a fair question in return.

 

What action items can you show me, to demonstrate that the Republican party truly is the party of "small government" these last six years?

 

 

Frances

I agree with everything above except for the bolded paragraph. It's a tired expression and I'm tired of hearing it (not just from you Frances.) I remember it being used in the 70's and it has probably been used long before that.