Cheney's new fishing companion
 

wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 6:08 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"rw" wrote in message

m...





Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote in news:puednU_mo4uiF5
:

Until there's either a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate
and/or a Democrat in the White House, they are essentially powerless to
change the disastrous course the Bush administration and his party have
set us on. That's the way the system works, and God help us if
something
doesn't change.

I call bull****. If the Dems had guts, they'd stop Bush. It might take
a super majority to overide a veto, but it still takes a simple
majority
to pass a bill. The Dems have been caving far too easily.

Suppose the House passes your great bill with a simple majority. The
Senate either never votes because it can't get past a filibuster; or, if
by some miracle, a few Senate Republicans have the guts to vote for the
bill and vote for cloture, it won't survive a Presidential veto. Be it
stem cell research, be it anti-torture, be it SCHIP, or whatever is your
hot-button issue. That's the way the system works without a clear
majority
and a lock on power.

Which, by the way, the Republicans had for six years, and look at the
mess
they've gotten us into.

Maybe the Dems could have cut off war funding. It's not clear. I think
Bushco would have defied them and we'd be in the middle of a
Constitutional crisis. But be that as it may, it would have been
irresponsible, IMO. That's too blunt an instrument to get us out of this
trap Bush and Cheney have blundered us into.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

BS! they are both feeding at the trough. They overspent for how many years
when they had a Democrat Supermajority? Only reason Clinton somewhat
balanced the budget, is revenues increased from the dot.bomb debacle
faster
than they could spend them. How much did spending go up during all those
Clinton years? Including the first 2 years. It was a Democrat controlled
Congress that put in "Baseline Budgeting" that built in a yearly 13%
increase.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This must be entertaining for you, pretending the last 6+ years just
didn't happen. Kinda-like playing "Fuher Bunker," sending out
dispatches to non-existant divisions. Fun times, take a riduculous
stance and then defend it to ehaustion. Reminds me of a "catch and
release" thread.

Bottom line is that most sensible people are saddened for what's
happened to our country, and realize that facing the pain ahead
requires adult grade honesty if we are to fix the mess and move
forward.

Dave

Dave
You are the one hiding your head in the sand. I am not defending the
present Executive Branch. I did not vote for them, and all my Congress
people are Democrats. I am saying neither side is worth ****! Quit
defending Clinton because he was better than Bush 2. He gave us the
Balkans, he have us Somalia and Mogadishu. Mogadishu was a lot of
unnecessary deaths because Clinton would not commit heavy armor. He pretty
much gave us 9/11 as he did not do much of anything about WTC first attack,
and lots of attacks against American facilities world wide. Clinton had the
charisma and the Congress, at least the first 2 years, to accomplish great
stuff. He sucked! I voted for Clinton the first time, and was extremely
disappointed by his administration. Are country has been going rapidly
downhill for a lot of years, and most of the those years was a Democrat
controlled Congress. Carter started it, by causing 20% inflation and
allowing Congress to build in Base Line Budgeting and a built in double
digit spending growth. And what we have for a choice now for POTUS is scary
on both sides. The Dem's have probably the scariest ones. Hillary is for
Hillary, and not for the country or anyone else. And Obama has some shaky
stuff in his background and has shown very bad judgment with his choice of
long time advisors. He may be even more liberal than McGovern, if that is
possible. McCain is not real high I/Q but may surround himself with decent
advisors. As to Iraq. We broke it and we are stuck with it for at least
the next 5 years. My opinion as what we should do in Iraq is kill every
warlord as a start and then pull back to the borders and secure them from
outside influence and tell the Iraqis to figure it out and Get-r-done.
Either kill each other and leave a land barren of people or make a peace.
Going to be tremendous civil war fighting when we leave, now or in 10 years.
But in a couple of years we may have less problems with Iran and Syria. Or
do as I suggest.

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Calif Bill wrote:

Clinton even admitted he raised taxes too much. He inherited an economic
growth cycle, just as Bush inherited a down turning economic cycle. The
budget was never balance. It was projected to be balanced, but look at
the national debt for all his years. It did not decrease. And the
inflow of money was huge!

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

This web site shows a graph of the national debt as a percentage of the
nation's annual income:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Compare the increasing trends under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II to the
decreasing trends under Clinton.

BTW, the data is from the Office of Management and Budget.

That the modern-day Republicans could have a reputation as fiscal
conservatives and good managers is a cosmic joke.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Show what the debt was in dollars. Not as a percentage of GDP. How much of
Clintons debt was IOU's to the Social Security "Lockbox"?

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

On Apr 14, 12:37 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I think it's silly. If one of my Senators climbed up on a
high horse and declared that the rules of the game suck so
on behalf of my constituents in Illinois I'm going to forfeit
the game I'd fire the dumb sumbitch.

That's exactly the mentality that got us here in the first place. We
keep it up and we'll be nothing but a footnote in history...

Sure, the Dems could commit political suicide if they wanted
to, but why on earth would they want to ? Better to let the
clock run out on Shrub and the current Congress then do better
next time.

Nah, the voters gave them control of Congress at mid-term so that
they'd DO SOMETHING. That they didn't tells volumes about the supposed
differences between the two parties. And, IMO, it hands McCain a very
strong platform to run on. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Dems
throw yet another election. OP's right: if you're truly a lefty, the
Dems ain't your party...

Jon.

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Calif Bill wrote:

Clinton even admitted he raised taxes too much. He inherited an economic
growth cycle, just as Bush inherited a down turning economic cycle. The
budget was never balance. It was projected to be balanced, but look at
the national debt for all his years. It did not decrease. And the
inflow of money was huge! All those stock options that were cashed in
gave the Federal government about 36.5% of each option. 35% tax and 1.5%
Medicare. The California government got about 14% of all the Calif
generated options. Plus the Newt Contract with America cut Clinton's and
A DEMOCRAT CONTROL CONGRESS's overspending. All this added up to nirvana
for the party in charge of the Executive Branch. Plus Clinton was a
master of the PR world. When the government partly shut down in the fight
against overspending, it stuck all the blame on the Republicans. Clinton
was a lucky SOB. Greenspan screwed up in letting the 'unbridled
enthusiasm' run rampant and the massive Ponzi scheme of the IPO's and
margin's to run rampant. The "Contract with America' was one of the last
good things that happened to the US. Too bad it did not last.

Here's a graph of federal spending (per household):

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...harts_s/s3.cfm

Notice how it declined during the Clinton administration and began sharply
increasing in 2000 after Bush II was elected.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

And notice how it has not decreased under Pelosi and the Democrat Congress?
Part and most of that decrease was Newt and the Contract with America. They
shut down Clinton's increases in the first 2 years. I am not defending Bush
and the last 8 years. I am stating the facts. Neither side of the aisle is
doing a decent job!!!! Vote both sides out. If we could get a good 3 rd
party going, we might make either the Dem's or the Repub's the next Whigs.

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
:

Sure, the Dems could commit political suicide if they wanted
to, but why on earth would they want to ?


That really is what it comes down to, but there are some things the Dems
should really dig their heels into. They should ban torture, in no
uncertain terms, and they should probably refuse to sign off on any renewal
whatsoever of the Patriot Act until this comes to a clear up and down.
Seems safe enough-- we all know the Patriot Act isn't really necessary ;)




--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...


Possessed?

Yes.

Homoerotic imagery?

Uh huh.

You seem to be the one that brought
up that subject.

I do? Hm...... O.k., why don't you go ahead and show us a relevant
quote?

No?

Well, gosh, ain't we all surprised?

Now, where were we?

Hm.......

Oh yes......why do you supposed it is that you and kennie and stevie and
mikie......and dicklet (hee, hee, hee).....are so possessed by homoerotic
imagery?

Wolfgang

Hello?!

Wolfgang

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:58:25 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Oh yes......why do you supposed it is that you and kennie and stevie and
mikie......and dicklet (hee, hee, hee).....are so possessed by homoerotic
imagery?

Wolfgang

Hello?!

Yawn. Afternoon nap, dotchaknow. Show you the ref........ uh, oh
yeah, check above. There it is..... in blue on my puter......... you
mentioned it, not me...... yawn.

You're getting worse than your daddy Mikey with the
multiple-answering-your-own-posts posts.

Mikey

Davey

Cheney's new fishing companion
 

On Apr 14, 1:24 pm, rw wrote:

The Democrats are in favor of greater tax rates on higher-income
households.

Hey, I'm all for getting RDean to pay his share ;-) but the principle
of the matter is one thing, its effect on the overall federal fiscal
situation is another (small potatoes, IMO). Neither party, for
example, seems very interested in going after the corporate taxes of
ExxonMobil.

I'm of the view that our tax rates, on average, should be sufficient to
meet our obligations, including Medicare, Social Security, and the costs
of disastrous military adventures with no exit strategy.

Me too, but neither party is with us. That's why I call it quibbling.
(Unless of course you're still going to insist that Clinton somehow
earned his bubbly tax windfall.)

Jon.