DILYSI Dave wrote: We've already had the healthcare discussion. I don't trust the government to keep me healthy.
All other things aside, as a 12 year military veteran and subject during that time to the governments version of healthcare, I could not agree more with you.
To this day (10 years later) I cannot go to a dentist without being asked how long I was in the military. The dental care was so poor that private dentists can spot their handiwork easily.
you elected them.. if you don't trust them.. it's your fault.
change something.
I'm not discounting your experience, but having had many dentists over my life, almost all of them discredited the previous one's work.
JThw8 wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: We've already had the healthcare discussion. I don't trust the government to keep me healthy.All other things aside, as a 12 year military veteran and subject during that time to the governments version of healthcare, I could not agree more with you. To this day (10 years later) I cannot go to a dentist without being asked how long I was in the military. The dental care was so poor that private dentists can spot their handiwork easily.
doitover wrote: I'm not discounting your experience, but having had many dentists over my life, almost all of them discredited the previous one's work.
Sadly the dental was just an off the top of my head example (since I just finished yet another crown to correct previous work)
Really it was some of the worst medical care (not just dental) I have ever experienced. And it wasnt always necessarily due to lack of skill or commitment on the part of the doctors but moreso to the cost cutting measures the government imposed upon them.
Salanis wrote:Jensenman wrote:Nope. We shaft our kids and grandkids. Why pay for our expenses today, when someone else can pay for them tomorrow? Gee... isn't borrowing money and expecting future generations to pay for it another form of "entitlement spending". You feel entitled to all of the services the government is providing and don't think you should have to foot the full bill. I think, if we raised taxes to the level required to pay all of our national expenses, people would start foaming at the mouth over the massive taxes. That would possibly cause congress-critters to take steps to cut expenditures if they were required to justify every tax dollar to the American people.Salanis wrote: Also remember: Obama is not going to cut spending for or gut the military. Neither will McCain cut any welfare spending.Like I said: the same old same old. Not to mention neither of these guys can spend a damn dime without Congress' approval. So our 'elected representatives' (ha!) promise bread and circuses with no pain and as usual We The People shaft ourselves.
Let me point out the #1 fallacy of your statement and yes I will yell at you over teh int3erwb:
I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED ENTITLEMENT SPENDING OR GOVERNMENT BORROWING TO PAY CURRENT BILLS. I SUPPORT A BALANCED BUDGET WITH NO DEFICIT OR DEBT AND IF IT TAKES CUTTING GOVERNMENT 'SERVICES' TO THE BONE THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I SUPPORT TERM LIMITS TO KEEP THESE JERKS FROM FEATHERING THEIR NESTS AT OURS AND OUR GRANDKIDS' EXPENSE.
Is that clear enough for you? 
And I guaran-damn-tee you that you will NEVER find a post of mine to suggest otherwise.
sarah palin said:I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
This lady is a nut job. She believes that a gas pipeline is gods will.
Why is it that my idea of paying all politicians the median income has not jumped off.
I mean EVERY paid politician to make the median income...
Jensenman wrote:Salanis wrote:Let me point out the #1 fallacy of your statement and yes I will yell at you over teh int3erwb: I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED ENTITLEMENT SPENDING OR GOVERNMENT BORROWING TO PAY CURRENT BILLS. I SUPPORT A BALANCED BUDGET WITH NO DEFICIT OR DEBT AND IF IT TAKES CUTTING GOVERNMENT 'SERVICES' TO THE BONE THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I SUPPORT TERM LIMITS TO KEEP THESE JERKS FROM FEATHERING THEIR NESTS AT OURS AND OUR GRANDKIDS' EXPENSE. Is that clear enough for you?Jensenman wrote:Nope. We shaft our kids and grandkids. Why pay for our expenses today, when someone else can pay for them tomorrow? Gee... isn't borrowing money and expecting future generations to pay for it another form of "entitlement spending". You feel entitled to all of the services the government is providing and don't think you should have to foot the full bill. I think, if we raised taxes to the level required to pay all of our national expenses, people would start foaming at the mouth over the massive taxes. That would possibly cause congress-critters to take steps to cut expenditures if they were required to justify every tax dollar to the American people.Salanis wrote: Also remember: Obama is not going to cut spending for or gut the military. Neither will McCain cut any welfare spending.Like I said: the same old same old. Not to mention neither of these guys can spend a damn dime without Congress' approval. So our 'elected representatives' (ha!) promise bread and circuses with no pain and as usual We The People shaft ourselves.
Then WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE REPUBLICANS?????
Regan, Bush I, and Bush II all increasded the size of the govenment, AND increased the size of the debt.
Good lord, the you may not like the entitelments, but when we run up a debt to pay the defense industry, it's no different than giving the homeless people a handout.
Clinton/Gore shrank the govenemnt. And was on target to have a surplus.
And don't give me the crap that Reagan/Bush had a democrat house- Clinton had a Republican house and sentate, and he managed to bring down the debt.
Or will you vote for Barr??
I'm going to call out all the real fiscal conservatives, and point out that these guys have been lying to you for 30 years, and you just sit back and take it.
Proud?
Eric
And you keep missing the point of EVERY post I make about this: IT'S BOTH SIDES, DAMMIT! Neither side is innocent, the repubs were just the last. Both sides have pissed away our futures so that their personal nests could be feathered.
FWIW: Clinton/Gore may have been on target for a surplus, BUT THAT DID NOT AND WOULD NOT REDUCE THE GOVERNMENT'S OVERALL DEBT! I clearly remember the squabble about whether the projected surplus would be applied to the national debt; it wasn't gonna happen. The surplus would only have been applicable to the year that it finally happened, NOT to the federal government's preexisting monstrous debt which has been in existence since the 1860's.
Here in my backwards little state, the government MUST operate within its income, it cannot run a debt. That means that as tax revenues drop, so does disbursements to the various state agencies. The wussies in the State House don't want to screw up their political careers (ha!) by cutting someone's pet pork project, so they created the Budget and Control Board which can ONLY cut/raise spending across the board, not to individual projects etc.
The ONLY reason this kind of E36 M3 keeps happening is because We The People stand around looking down our pants and saying 'politics is boring and unimportant' while these R and D leeches send bread and circuses to keep everybody happy.
As far as voting Libertarian: what a joke. A Libertarian President would have even less chance of fiscal success than the current crop of clowns.
I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED ENTITLEMENT SPENDING OR GOVERNMENT BORROWING TO PAY CURRENT BILLS. I SUPPORT A BALANCED BUDGET WITH NO DEFICIT OR DEBT AND IF IT TAKES CUTTING GOVERNMENT 'SERVICES' TO THE BONE THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I SUPPORT TERM LIMITS TO KEEP THESE JERKS FROM FEATHERING THEIR NESTS AT OURS AND OUR GRANDKIDS' EXPENSE. Is that clear enough for you?
So you're voting Republican? Cause you can't be voting Democrat with a wish list like that.
I happen to agree with you 100% but unfortunately we can't seem to get either party to listen.
J-man. You misunderstood me. My comments were not directed towards you, but inspired by what you had to say.
With the possible exception that, I do think our legislators are shafting future generations, not their own.
My comments were directed towards "conservatives" who favor a party that does not shrink government, but passes more expenses to my own and future generations. I wanted to point out that the Rep sentiments that "we need X, but shouldn't have to be bothered to pay for it... let someone else do it." Is no different, and arguably worse, than Dems wanting to tax wealthy people to provide social services.
At least the current generation paying to funnel money to other people has some representation. The generations that can't vote yet, or haven't been born, don't have the opportunity to say "Don't build up that berkeleying debt!"
The problem lies in Congress (oooh, look, a pun). And everyone that looks and says "My congress critter is OK, it's everyone else's that's the problem" is perpetuating the problem. And let's not even get into Uncle Bill and exactly how he managed to have a projected balanced budget. And W let the D's run all over him on spending, and he gets left holding the bag. It was probably some type of deal for something else, like knocking Iraq over. I suspect "I'll vote for your school and medicine program, you vote for my Iraq program."
Maybe we should think seriously about how much money we give to the rest of the world. Let's stop defending Europe. Stop defending Japan. Let Isreal do whatever they want to their neighbors (they are perfectly capable of defending themselves). Stop feeding Africa (or more accurately, stop filling African dictator's Swiss or Caymen bank accounts). We could do it for a year and take all that money and pay the bankers back on the debt and invest in nuclear power plants (small one in every town), geothermal, small (house sized) solar systems, refineries, coal and DRILLING everywhere there's actually oil. We could be energy independant in maybe 2 years if we really tried, keeping those dollars here. At that time, we could look around and see who our real friends are and help them clean up the shambles that they will be in without our dollars. Then we'll look at our public school system and set it back 50 years to when it worked, before we worried about hurting a child's feelings because they went out smoking crack instead of studying algebra.
It will never happen.
^^ Which is why we need to stand up, be counted and get rid of the jerks we have now and put hard term limits on the jerks we elect later,
But as long as the bread and circuses keep flowin' and someone else is gettin' stuck with the bill and or 'elected representatives' don't have to take the heat, the good times in Foggy Bottom will continue to roll.
Jensenman wrote: ^^ Which is why we need to stand up, be counted and get rid of the jerks we have now and put hard term limits on the jerks we elect later,
Which is why I will, once again, vote Libertarian. That's the only way I can be counted as a fan of limited government. Both the R's and the D's have removed themselves from the running for a fiscal conservative.
Dr. Hess wrote:Gimp wrote:According to Dr.Hess.Dr. Hess wrote: Anyway, doesn't really matter. Da O looses in November. Little Mac has it, 80% probability (today).According to?
Oh darn, turns out Little Mac was using a condom, looks like he looses after all.
Dr. Hess wrote: The problem lies in Congress (oooh, look, a pun). And everyone that looks and says "My congress critter is OK, it's everyone else's that's the problem" is perpetuating the problem. And let's not even get into Uncle Bill and exactly how he managed to have a projected balanced budget. And W let the D's run all over him on spending, and he gets left holding the bag. It was probably some type of deal for something else, like knocking Iraq over. I suspect "I'll vote for your school and medicine program, you vote for my Iraq program."
While I'm not going to knock your ideas- they are as valid as anything else... But for most of Bush II, Republicans controled both houses, or was very, very close. The D's didn't. You can diss Bill all you want, but he did stand up to the R's, shutting down the govenment at least 3 times- we lived through it, since my wife is a G employee. IMHO, that ended the argument that Reagan and Bush I had that it was the D's who expanded everything- if you didn't like it, you didn't have to sign it. And being that Reagan was popular, there's no doubt he would have won.
I'm not going to defend the Democrats WRT their spending, but give them credit for having the guts to tax you for their progrmas. Republicans are very lame in that they force us to do something without real input- if they asked us to pay for it, it's likely that it would fail. That's their real point.
Anyway, J- if you vote libritarian, it does mean something. It means that another fiscal conservative is willing to part company with a party that does not represent them.
As for me, I'm happy to pay taxes to help my fellow Americans, that's why I'm voting for Obama/Biden. Yes, there is corruption, but my observation is that it's the programs that pay for profit companies where it's the worst- defense, by far, the worst. if healthace is set up like many G programs are, like the EPA is- there's much less likelihood of corruption and waste.
But in the end, programs are as they are written.
My personal wish for the Democrats- the real leftist get out, and start a real set of parties. I'm not all that leftist, but I agree with the programs to a degree, and to a logical end that it should make us pay less in the long run for program X.
Anywan- J-man. Vote. Vote your real feelings- not just against D's. We D's lived (painfully) with Bush II for 8 years, you can live with Obama for at least 4. But can you live with a vote against your conscience?
Eric
DILYSI Dave wrote:Jensenman wrote: ^^ Which is why we need to stand up, be counted and get rid of the jerks we have now and put hard term limits on the jerks we elect later,Which is why I will, once again, vote Libertarian. That's the only way I can be counted as a fan of limited government. Both the R's and the D's have removed themselves from the running for a fiscal conservative.
The only real way a 3rd party will be taken seriously.
Heck, even Nader's party almost was almost fully recognized after so many voters turned their backs on Gore.
E-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/sarah-palin
wow.. Huffingtonpost has tons of palin info.. some very very funny
It's hard to see as she paddles her canoe, but I guess Mrs Palin has nice teeth
Holy back from the dead post Batman!!
alfadriver wrote: If it helps, check this graph out- http://zfacts.com/p/318.html You'll see that the debt/GDP was at it's lowest at the end of Carter, and shrank again under Clinton. While Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have grown it. It was said that Palin was like Regan. I don't think we can handle another Regan. Speaks of small government, gives us BIG. Speaks of ballanced budget, but racks up the fastest non-war debt ever. No, Democrats HAVE been responsible. Regan era Repubicans have not. Eric
This is not Democratic fiscal responsibility, this is criminal
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/89641.html
"Caused by insanity"?! What it really would be is "caused by reality".
aussiesmg wrote:alfadriver wrote: If it helps, check this graph out- http://zfacts.com/p/318.html You'll see that the debt/GDP was at it's lowest at the end of Carter, and shrank again under Clinton. While Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have grown it. It was said that Palin was like Regan. I don't think we can handle another Regan. Speaks of small government, gives us BIG. Speaks of ballanced budget, but racks up the fastest non-war debt ever. No, Democrats HAVE been responsible. Regan era Repubicans have not. EricThis is not Democratic fiscal responsibility, this is criminal http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/89641.html
Nice to keep digging up old threads, and turning a canoe into a flounder.
I would disagree thanksto the R hypocrates, but there's no point- you think you are right, and I think I am right. It's already a canoe and a flounder of a thread.
ignorant wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/sarah-palin wow.. Huffingtonpost has tons of palin info.. some very very funny
Now there's an objective news source....
I didn't dig up the thread.
I only responded to comments you made 2 years ago, the whole thread is a flounder, the canoe has nothing to do with it.
However your statement is about Liberal fiscal conservatism, I just highlighted the fact that there has been no such responsibility since you made the statement.
Are you saying your comments are not relevant now?
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
