Political Change

[grndproxwarning]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/16/2002 241 AM xsqueezeme wrote:

correction: Bush did not go to an Ivy League school. Contrary to popular belief that Dubya went to Yale, known for his play on the English language, he was misquoted by the media when he said he attended Yale. Actual words were "I graduated from Y'all University...."

As for the eternal question, Who's dumber Republicans or Democrats?
Democrats know that the rich won't vote for them, except for confused movie stars. Republicans know the poor won't vote for them, except for one guy in Cleveland who hasn't figured it out yet.
So both parties work the Middle.
The Republicans try to convince the MIDDLE that unless they have Republicans in office, the Democrats will turn them into poor people; while the Democrats try to convince the MIDDLE that no one will turn them into rich people, ever.
Therefore, the only intelligent politicians--Democrat or Republican--are the ones who lose the election. Once they're out of office, they'll leave you alone, and that's about as intelligent a result as we can ask for.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You forgot one thing,Just wait until they pass their TAX CUT
!! All geared to BIG BUSINESS AKA dubyas Ole drinkin buddys.

I still would rather hear Bubba say: I never had sexual
relations with that woman instead of

O we are good friends,BUT WE NEVER TALK BUSINESS!!!
Enron And W
What dreams are made of

 

[KCFlyer]

It never ceases to amaze me how much graft and corruption of corporations can occur in just two short years.

 

[Bob Owens]

But there are a lot of Kansans who would vote for Bin Laden if he were running on the GOP ticket.

And what other ticket could he be on? Bin Laden was the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans since Ronald Reagan!

Does anyone out there know how Bin Ladens father died? I heard it was in a helicopter accident that occured as he was returning from doing a deal with the Senior Bush? Is there any truth to this?

The fact that the Republicans took over should not be all that suprising. The Democrats were not really much of a choice if people wanted change. The New Democrats like Leiberman, who voted to limit the liability of corporate executives and reduce transparancy really cant be considered Labors ally. My guess is that Roe v Wade will suddenly not be a hot issue along with Campain Finance reform or term limits. Abortion will still be in place throughout the Republican era, only thing that might change is that the poor will get limited access. After all we have to pump up the labor pool so they can pay everyone less.I'm sure if one of Dubyas party girls comes home in that way, daddy will have it taken care of. Didnt Mrs Bush say she was in favor of Abortion? Maybe she will use her namesake to keep Dubya away from the issue. Loyal Republicans, even the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells and all the other Holy Hippocrits will understand when he avoids the issue, the Tax breaks he gets them on their personal income will be his contribution to Gods work. So as the slaughter continues we will hear very little about the moral deprivation that sullies our nation.Instead what we will see is a continuation of the transfer of wealth to the very rich at the expense of the rest of us. I found it interesting on earlier quotes where one person posted that the rich paid 30% of the taxes, but he failed to mention that they had 90% of the wealth. If they made 90% of the money they should pay 90% of the Taxes. 1.15% of 1 million is a lot less than 1.3 % of 100 million, more poor are being audited than rich.The fact is that certain regressive taxes were modified by the bi-partisan millionaires club that we call our government. They upped Social Security in order to build up a Trust fund that they immediately used to make up for the shortfall they had because of the Tax cuts they gave to the rich. The Social Security tax burden starts approaching zero as a percentage as soon as you start to earn over $85,000 dollars. They also eliminated most of the deductions that working class people had, while lowering the top rates and capital gains, another shift of the tax burden, in other words we end up paying more and they end up paying less. Over the last twenty years there has been a major shift of the Tax burden from the rich towards the rest of us. As Welfare for the unfortunate comes under scrutiny, as it should, welfare for the rich and corporations continues unabated. We see our Nation prepare to go to War once again against Iraq to protect the interests of the rich, wouldnt be so bad if at least they were paying for it. Now they let us pay for it and send our kids to go die in it, all in the end to guarantee their profits. Its amusing to see how people who dont have to go or never went support the idea of going to war. I say let those who support it go, they can switch places with those who joined up to learn a skill or who joined in order to Protect America, not what the elites call American Interests. As Thomas Paine said 200 years ago our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Just prior to the first Iraq war one of Bush the 1st spokesmen told the press that the reason why we were going to war could sumed up as Jobs, American jobs. If thats a good reason to go to war and kill then we are going a long way for nothing, we should be aiming our guns at those who imposed NAFTA, Free Trade with China and the WTO upon us. Those who close American factories and build new ones overseas that are indemnified by the same taxpayer who lost his good paying factory job and now flips burgers. The same factory worker who lost his job could end up in a foreign country, rifle in hand supressing a revolution where the local population decided that they own the factory where his job ended up. In other words laying down his life to protect the interests of the ones who laid him off. Is that in his interests even if it is labeled as an American Interest? Just because the owner is American, when he wants to be but not when the tax bill comes, and the overseas investment was underwritten by the US Government courtesy of some polititions who of course received a suitable contribution? We've lost more jobs, good paying American jobs where we actually produced things than we would if Iraq had kept Kuwait through these agreements.
Go ahead and continue your fruitless debate over who is to blame, the Democrats or the Republicans, your both right and your both wrong, in the end we are all to blame. The Democrats are only slightly less hostile than the Republicans when it suits them. When Charles Rangel a democrat from NY voted for Free trade with the China the press asked him arent you afraid of Labors backlash, he responded what are they going to do, vote Republican?. He still got labors endorsement in the recent elections.
The next few years we will probably see the elimination of the imnheritance tax that will accelerate the concentration of wealth, something that Historians throughout time have recognized is incompatable with Democracy. We will see more father/son dynasties. We will see the restrictions of Freedoms and the increase in government power under the Republicans (the supposed champions of less government)in the name of security. We will see bills like S1327 that establish the right of shareholders to see their capital grow, this right will be superior to our right to sell and withhold our labor in the best interests of taking care of our families. When the Supreme Court becomes nothing more than the extension of the two party system as the Presidential Election decision revealed, and neither party really has the best interests of the general population or the Constitution in mind we are all in serious trouble.

 

[MrMarky]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/16/2002 11:08:26 AM PineyBob wrote:
[P]OK LISTEN UP TIME FOR CIVIC 2002 to begin.[BR][BR]1. Federal budget surplus - It's your friggin money! NOT THEIRS! IT BELONGS IN YOUR POCKETS Morally and ethically case closed![BR][BR][BR][STRONG]Yeah? And who does that $4 Trillion plus national debt belong to?? Must be somebody else, huh? [BR][BR]The purpose of generating a surplus is to begin paying down the principal on our tremendous national debt. Interest payments alone on that debt have traditionally been the second largest item in the federal budget, after the Pentagon. And that's without paying a cent toward principal![BR][BR]Love you guys who claim the surplus is ours, but the debt isn't. TWA would still be flying if they used that kind of bookeeping.[/STRONG][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[Bob Owens]

Funny how they always forget about the debt. I guess they feel we should just pass that along to our children along with all the IOUs in the Social Security Trust fund. That is after we pollute the hell out of the planet and cut down every tree and suck out every drop of oil out of the ground. Boy that sounds responsible and Conservative doesnt it? Horay for us and screw the next guy even if its our own kids. Ah but not to worry the market will take care of everything all by itself right? Isnt that how it works? We dont need no stinkin government, the market will take care of it!

 

[Bob Owens]

The only scam about Social Security is the fact that the politicians (who are not in the program) hoodwinked the public into nearly tripling their contribution to build up an imaginary trust fund. The program was designed from its inception to be a pay as you go system. There was never suposed to be a fund, nor a shortage. The government intiated this fictional fund to supply needed capital to cover the deficits caused by giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich. In the future as more and more people retired they would have had to raise the age, which they did anyway or increase the rate, which they did in the early eighties. Now our irresponsible behavior is going to leave our children with the burden of paying for their own expenditures plus paying off the foolish spendthrift ways of their parents, us. The regular debt plus the IOUs for Social Security. More and more of each tax dollar will go towards debt service. Leaving less and less for things that society needs.

 

[Sean]

I for one have not forgotten about the national debt. However I don't agree with the tax and spenders that raising taxes is the way around that. You all have been raising our taxes and raising our taxes yet there is still a national debt. What happened in the 70's? As high as taxes were then you guys should have wiped the debt out completely. If the debt in your home gets out of hand you can't just go to your employer and demand that they give you more money because you have wasted all of yours. Here's an idea. [STRONG]QUIT THROWING OUR MONEY AWAY!! [/STRONG]If someone would rather lay on their couch instead of work because they are lazy and they know the Democrats will continue giving them handouts let them. Just take the handouts away. It's easy really. If you are capable of working, then work or starve. There has got to be a stricter limit set on all of these handouts. What about all of this foreign aid we throw away every year? What has it gotten us? Half or more of the rest of the world hates us. They spy on us, fly our planes into our building, attack our embassies and military interests around the world, etc, etc, etc. Quit handing out the bilions upon billions we give away every year. And, that's just the money we know we are giving away. Every year we are giving billions to other countries by way of loans. Then instead of actually requiring them to pay back this money what do we do? We forgive the loans. Social inSecurity is another waste of resources. It was a political sham when FDR dreamed it up and it is still nothing more than a sham. What is the rate of return on your insecurity dollars? Somewhere less than 2% isn't it? Yeah that's a smart move. But let's not fix the broken system. Let's just tax the rich and let them pay for it because we would hate to get rid of the sham and a political issue. If we actually fixed it then we couldn't scare all the retired people into voting for us. The government has already proven they won't pay down any debt by increasing our taxes. Oh they have made a couple of payments at times. Nothing substantial ever happens though.

 

[Sean]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/16/2002 11:08:26 AM PineyBob wrote:
[P][BR]There is hope! go to www.lp.com and check out the Libertarian Party. Take their test and see if you are a libertarian. [BR]----------------[BR][BR]That web address doesn't work. Try this one. [A href=http://www.lp.org/quiz/]http://www.lp.org/quiz/[/A][BR][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]

 

[Bob Owens]

Sean;
The issue was what do we do with the surplus, give it back to the taxpayer now but end up taxing more later, when an even higher percentage of every tax dollar collected will go towards Debt service or use the surplus to pay down the debt so that in the future less will go for debt service. Then instead of tax cuts that are funded by increasing the debt you can get real tax cuts that dont threaten our future. In reality though your chasing the pennies while the dollars are blowing away when you go after Welfare abuse. The government wastes a lot more money in other ways.



Welfare, well there needs to be reform. I also dont beleive that healthy people should sit home and get paid. There is one simple way to eliminate unemployment, shorten the work week. If everyone worked only 32 hours a week instead of 40 the demand for labor would increase by 20%. Then there would be absolutely no reason for any fit person to not have a job.

Foriegn aid, the fact is the the US ranks very low in per capita humanitarian foreign aid when compared to other western democracies. Much of this aid is in military supplies send to prop up puppet governments, in other words to use against their own people because the people who run our country feel its in US interests to support such regimes. Thats why a lot of these people hate us, because we fund, arm and help train assasins that murder nuns and preists, labor leaders and regular citizens who demand justice and fairness.

As far as Social Security you need to talk to Piney Bob, he said that people get back all they paid in 5 years. Social Security also protects families. If you die and you leave behind children your wife will get money every month to keep them alive.And if you live you will collect. The insurance companies would love to see SS disappear. They could then raise their rates and offer less. Now they have to compete with a plan that not only provides life insurance but also a pension. They have to try and compete with a non-profit based plan. What would you rather see those who unfortunately lose their father being put back on the street corner begging to feed them selves? I'm not going to defend the management of the plan, it needs to be better managed but the concept is valid, it is just and it has delivered as promised for nearly 60 years. A truly civilized society takes care of those that are too old or too young to take care of them selves.

Dont get angry, get informed.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Addressed to;
KCFlyer, Mr. Marky, JIGuy, and all you other fine posters on this thread.

After digesting the bitter pill of 11/5, I've emerged with a pretty simple political outlook.

They won, We lost !!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I sit back and watch the show. They are pulling ALL the levers now !!!

They've got EXACTLY 2 years to turn this economy around.
They've got EXACTLY 2 years to boost peoples 101K's back to 401ks !!!!

They've got EXACTLY 2 years to get most folks back to work !!!!!!!

They've got EXACTLY 2 years to start to put together a surplus !!!!!

If They don't, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL BE.

They don't have US to fall back on anymore.

I know a lot of people who voted on Bush's recommendation's(for republican's), out of fear of terrorism.

They will be able to go to that well, for only so long.

If Dumbya & company try to run, on the great job they did of grabbing Bin Laden, than I think the next 24 months will be rather pleasant

We shall see.

NH/BB's

 

[JI Guy]

Agreed about the surplus vs. deficit issue...I have always been a prime proponent of using the surplus to pay down the debt..That policy can only long term enhance this country's position as it will stem interest rates and assist the economy in that manner...NHBB, I got a sense from this election that people were not reconciled with what was happening with their 401Ks..They didnt open them or thought oh, in a couple of years it will be back Surprise coming! And when in two years they do look at the carnage and realize this isnt temporary, look out! WHEN WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT SECURITY, WHY DOESNT THAT ALSO MEAN ECONOMIC SECURITY?? Does for me now!!

 

[BZuschman]

I just hope thatt the airline chiefs can convince the government axe the Railway act and go with binding arbitration. It's about time that the bloodsucking overpaid pilots get their due.

 

[JI Guy]

Getting back to the tax debate, this tidbit from today's NY Times is for all of you who derided my position about taxing the wealthiest the most and NOT giving them any more tax breaks: The tax burden of the 400 highest-income Americans, however, was reduced by more than a fourth by a 1997 tax law. This group, whose average income was $110.5 million in 1998, paid 22 percent of their income in taxes that year, down from 30 percent in 1995, according to an IRS report... WOW! What was your rate, folks?? Let me know!

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/18/2002 828 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Welfare, well there needs to be reform. I also dont beleive that healthy people should sit home and get paid. There is one simple way to eliminate unemployment, shorten the work week. If everyone worked only 32 hours a week instead of 40 the demand for labor would increase by 20%. Then there would be absolutely no reason for any fit person to not have a job.


WHAT?!?!?! Are you really serious?



As far as Social Security you need to talk to Piney Bob, he said that people get back all they paid in 5 years. Social Security also protects families. If you die and you leave behind children your wife will get money every month to keep them alive.And if you live you will collect. The insurance companies would love to see SS disappear. They could then raise their rates and offer less. Now they have to compete with a plan that not only provides life insurance but also a pension. They have to try and compete with a non-profit based plan. What would you rather see those who unfortunately lose their father being put back on the street corner begging to feed them selves? I'm not going to defend the management of the plan, it needs to be better managed but the concept is valid, it is just and it has delivered as promised for nearly 60 years. A truly civilized society takes care of those that are too old or too young to take care of them selves.


Non-profit? try money losing. In a truely civilized society people feel a responsibility for thier own actions and expect the guy down the street who DIDN'T by a new truck every other year to finance his irresponsibility. We fly a charter to Cuba every week. I think they have what you're looking for



Dont get angry, get informed.

Yes, please do. And when I say get informed, i don't mean by the latest conspiracy theory newsletter.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[La Treal]

Now low and behold, the government is going to be privatized. I guess that means that the rest of the good ole oil boys will be running the government. Especially after we steal Iraqs oil.

Be a independent, I will give credit where creidt is due and say that I would rather the bush admin handle the Iraq, terrorism, and homeland security issues (I consider to be one issue), but the ALL other issues shrub just plain ole sucks at.