On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:15:07 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:21 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.

So then how many divorcees end up remarried?


Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your
reading comprehension skills:

"Half of all marriages end in divorce."

That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong
reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and
this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers.


And I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, you just helped make my
case for me -- admitting that marriage isn't taken nearly as seriously
by the general public as you would like everyone to believe. People
-do- get married for the wrong reasons. People -do- get divorced.
People -do- remarry (many times resulting in excommunication). Some
people -do- get married more than once, twice,.... sometimes even four
or five times or more. And in almost all of those marriages each
person took an oath that included "until death do us part". And some
people don't even get married at all -- they live together, have kids,
raise a family and retire without ever exchanging vows.

The fact is that marriage simply isn't taken seriously enough by
people to justify calling it a "sacred tradition" either by law or by
any religious standard.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.

So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they
controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)?

If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with
Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this
on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind
partisan.


The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have
consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while
the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund.

Proof please.


Sure, just as soon as you come up with proof that has been asked of
you for numerous claims you have made over the past several months. Or
you could look for the proof yourself. But that would be pointless
because if you can't find it, you characteristically conclude that it
doesn't exist, which is especially lame when your only resource is the
internet. And even -then- your research consists of a few common words
in a google search, followed by abandonment of your search because you
get discouraged at the high number of results.

So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your
many claims, don't beg me for any more proof.


Democrats have traditionally been of the expand
government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While
republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and
giving money back to the people.


Are you so out
of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular
with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy
crap you are ignorant, Dave!

The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically
ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to
"give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves.


You mean things like the right to vote? A fiscally responsible
government? A few years without war?


Whether
it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended
unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are
championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for
by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth
and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of
those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats
can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not
enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued
support.


You have just jumped into the deep end, Dave. Get help.


Democrats are popular with those who take.

Republicans are popular with those who MAKE.


And you are popular with those who make repetitive moaning sounds
while banging their heads against a padded wall. Seriously, Dave, get
some perspective.


Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system
-regardless- of who runs the country.

No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a
person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and
they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in
ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals
just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away.
Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn
to stop thinking of themselves as victims.


So -that's- why we invaded Iraq!


The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?

Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if
given that chance.


Really? Then why have you been saying for months that poor people just
want to kick back and leech from others through welfare checks, food
stamps and other social handouts?

You are clearly in a state of meltdown.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans

Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't
you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the
natural course to the free international market without seriously
altering it?


Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have
been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government,
yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has
increased in both size and spending.

Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed
"Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a
republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending,
and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that
"Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the
foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer.


In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress. If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years. The Democrats forced a few Reps to fold on the balanced budget
in exchange for a little district money because Clinton, unlike Bush,
wasn't afraid to veto a budget bill with higher deficit ceilings and
packed with Republican pork-barrel spending. And if the Reps -really-
wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would have
passed with almost a unanimous vote because the Dems have been pushing
for it for years. But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with
the spin and stick to the facts, Dave. Start your education on the
subject by learning about the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act.


Republicans spend like they are
on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending
is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for
all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like,
"Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they
leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a
surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending
and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget.

You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats,
enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise
taxes to pay for them.


So that's why Medicaid spending grew 13.2 percent in 2002, the
steepest rate of growth since 1992? Because Democrats were at the
helm? I really think you got your facts backwards, Dave.

Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for
Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT! Reagan spent jillions on
the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before,
even during wartime. Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill. Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some
decent economic advisors that bailed out the country. And now Baby
Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red. Yet you think
Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs? You are TOTALLY
CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education!


High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they
vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash
and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief,


"Read my lips...."


and cut the
budget.


HA! What a load of horse-hooey! So what year did the Republicans cut
the budget, Dave?.... aw, the heck with it. You want proof? Here you
go:


Reagan/Bush:
The Federal deficit jumped from $73.1B in 1980 to $237.9B in 1986. The
Federal debt jumped from $711.9B to $1,740.6B in that same time frame.
By the time he left office the Federal debt was $2,051.6B. By the time
Daddy Bush left office it was $2,999.7B and the deficit had risen to
$340.4B. Just a quick summary:

1980.....Deficit = $73.1B.....Debt = $711.9B
1992.....Deficit = $340.4B.....Debt = $2999.7B
----------------------------------------------
Change...Deficit ^ $267.3B.....Debt ^ $2287.8B

Both increased more that 400%!!!


Clinton:
By 2000, and for the first time in over 50 years, there had been a
budget SURPLUS for not just one but TWO YEARS. Clinton left office
with a SURPLUS of $86.3B, and was in the process of reducing the
Federal debt. He had also halted the increases in discretionary
spending, one of the hallmarks of the Republican party.


Bush Jr:
Since Baby Bush took office (as of the end of 2004), discretionary
spending has almost doubled, program spending has increased by almost
half, the surplus went bye-bye and was replaced with a deficit of
$567.4B (an increase of more than -twice- the deficit at the end of
the Reagan/Bush years) and the debt had increased to an all-time high
of..... are you ready for this?..... $4,295.5B!!! Just the INTEREST on
the debt is $160.2B.


Is that enough proof for you? Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?


Then people start to bitch that they want this program and
that program, and accuse the republican administration of being
"insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and
they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon,
but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle
repeats.

This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been
ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were
recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash
at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two
wars. Those are not normal circumstances.


The circumstances are -never- normal, Dave -- except that people like
you will always come up with excuses and spins and lies to defend your
profound ignorance.


It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when
you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the
credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and
save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the
money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money
to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit
cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different
things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'.

You've just described historically typical democratic spending
policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at
the helm?

Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can.....


Can you read the Federal Register? Congressional voting records?
Budget resolutions? Domestic economic policy statements? Federal
Reserve economic analyses? The Wall Street Journal? The National
Enquirer? Anything in a library? I doubt it.....


And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from
obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did
it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the
poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on
drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women.

It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life.
Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when
they don't).

Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!"


You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way
too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future,
to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something
of themselves.

You were right then. What happened?

Then I got a look at the -real- world.

No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal.

It just doesn't work that way, Dave.

Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with
marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said
the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a
path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course.


When are your parents ever going to kick you out of their trailer,
garage, basement, or whatever emotionally secure little fortress of
social isolation you have built around yourself? Isn't it about time
you light a fire, haul your fat ass out that chair and into the -real-
world so you can actually learn something about it instead of making
wild speculations, adopting internet fantasies, and making up excuses
why you can't experience it firsthand?


You claim to live in the real world yet you know
nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to
you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you
want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality.

Frank, I live in the real world,


No you don't. You don't have any idea what happens in the real world,
just like you don't have any idea what is taught in college, or how
economics works, or how the government works, or any of the other
dozen or so claims you have proven are nothing but lies. You may get
to the store if you take an extra dose of Paxil, and you might have a
driver's license, but your mind is existing in it's own little fantasy
land devoid of facts or social interaction. That's why you can't break
away from your codependent relationship with your mommy -- life is
just too hard for you to make it on your own, isn't it? Poor baby.
It's sure a good thing that your neocon brothers are there to change
your diaper and powder your bottom, ready to hand you a pacifier every
time some liberal gets you all upset. Just like a Baby Bush clone.

Well, take a nap, Baby Bush clone, because it's time for me -- the
big, ugly ex-Marine who risked his life and gave up four years of it
just so you could be coddled in adulthood by your mommy, the engineer
who is educated at a level that you think you can fake with info from
the internet, the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for
several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the
news, the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of
social, ethnic and cultural issues, the guy who has never drawn a
single dollar of unemployment benefits or a welfare check (assuming
such benefits were available to an able-bodied male such as myself,
which they aren't, or hadn't you ever thought of that?), the newsgroup
junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility for you
and your posterity -- to go earn a living. Maybe some day you can earn
a living, too. But probably not. Just stay home with your mommy and
live your life through the TV and computer so the real world doesn't
have to deal with you.

But just to be fair, at least you are useful in one way -- you provide
great entertainment while I waste time before I go to work. Too bad
you don't get paid for it.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:57:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your
reading comprehension skills:

"Half of all marriages end in divorce."

That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong
reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and
this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers.


And I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, you just helped make my
case for me -- admitting that marriage isn't taken nearly as seriously
by the general public as you would like everyone to believe.

Based on what? A few failures caused by people who are still too
immature and materialistic to fully understand the responsibility that
a successful marriage entails?

That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.



The fact is that marriage simply isn't taken seriously enough by
people to justify calling it a "sacred tradition" either by law or by
any religious standard.


An erroneous conclusion arrived by a flawed premise and incomplete
data. Typical for you Frank.


The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have
consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while
the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund.

Proof please.


Sure, just as soon as you come up with proof that has been asked of
you for numerous claims you have made over the past several months.

So you are adopting the patented Twistedhed cop-out. I would have
though better of you Frank.


So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your
many claims, don't beg me for any more proof.

In other words, you can't.


Democrats have traditionally been of the expand
government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While
republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and
giving money back to the people.


Are you so out
of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular
with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy
crap you are ignorant, Dave!

The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically
ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to
"give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves.


You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


A fiscally responsible
government?

We have one. Once the economy fully turns around. Deficit spending
kicked the economy into high gear when Reagan did it in the 1980's.
The resultant economic boom erased the deficit and provided a surplus.
There is no reason to believe that the same won't happen now.


A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?




Whether
it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended
unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are
championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for
by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth
and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of
those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats
can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not
enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued
support.


You have just jumped into the deep end, Dave. Get help.

Your refusal to see the truth for what it is, beyond the blinders that
your left coast education have taught you does not negate it for those
of us who aren't so blind.

Democrats have historically tried to play the race card, the class
card, and the gender card when it suits them as a level to achieve
their political goals. If it suits them to accuse republicans of being
racist (Even though it was southern democrats who most opposed the
civil rights bill) they do it. If it suits them (and it seemed to have
worked on you) to demonize the wealthy and successful in this country
as somehow not worthy of the fruits of their labors, and somehow
responsible for the predicament that the poor are in (The flawed
concept that someone cannot be rich, without another person having to
become poor), they will do it. Conservatives who oppose abortion on
the very moral reason that it is killing, are branded as opposing a
woman's right to choose. Yet those same democrats who champion a
woman's right to choose an abortion hypocritically oppose the death
penalty for convicted killers and rapists. These same democrats who
hypocritically champion choice, sit in opposition to the 2nd
amendment's right to bear arms, or a family's right to choose which
public funded school to send their kids to.


Democrats are popular with those who take.
Republicans are popular with those who MAKE.


And you are popular with those who make repetitive moaning sounds
while banging their heads against a padded wall. Seriously, Dave, get
some perspective.

Frank, as is typical with you, when you can't argue the points, you
resort to insult. The one who needs perspective is you. You think that
government should replace God as the savior of your soul and the great
protector of the people (But at the same time oppose their efforts to
better clamp down on domestic terror). You favor safety net dependency
rather than pushing for financial independence and personal
responsibility. You want to keep the government training wheels on
every citizen's bikes, thereby never fully allowing them to truly
achieve anything. For if and when they start to, you also want the
government to increasingly tax them. That's why socialism is a failed
ideology. Socialism promotes mediocrity, by removing incentives to
better one self. If everyone is treated equally, there is little
incentive to advance, as the rewards are greatly diminished.

Frank, you need to get away from the left coast and see how real
people live, and stay away from the "Starbucks liberals"


Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system
-regardless- of who runs the country.

No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a
person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and
they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in
ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals
just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away.
Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn
to stop thinking of themselves as victims.


So -that's- why we invaded Iraq!

Partly. We eventually want the Iraqi people to become totally self
sufficient, and self governing, and no longer under the thumb of a
despotic dictator.


The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?

Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if
given that chance.


Really? Then why have you been saying for months that poor people just
want to kick back and leech from others through welfare checks, food
stamps and other social handouts?

Some poor people do. They've known little else. They were born into
welfare families, so that's what they've been indoctrinated into
thinking is their "career" path.

But the "working poor" truly want to be productive, and will put in a
hard days work. But for whatever reason they chose not to pick a
career path that would return a greater financial reward for those
hours worked.

The ONE social program that I favor is universal education or
vocational training. Provide the tools to everyone so that they can
pull themselves up from their boot straps, and get a "real" job. That
way, anyone who's still flipping burgers or sweeping streets is doing
so by their own actions (or more accurately inactions). Ambitious
people can do it already, but universal education will remove all
remaining excuses for failure.


You are clearly in a state of meltdown.

I could see how your rose colored glasses would show me in that light.
But trust me, it's an illusion that 's strictly in your mind only.

Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have
been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government,
yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has
increased in both size and spending.

Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed
"Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a
republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending,
and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that
"Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the
foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer.


In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


The Democrats forced a few Reps to fold on the balanced budget
in exchange for a little district money because Clinton, unlike Bush,
wasn't afraid to veto a budget bill with higher deficit ceilings and
packed with Republican pork-barrel spending. And if the Reps -really-
wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would have
passed with almost a unanimous vote because the Dems have been pushing
for it for years.

That's a load of crap Frank! Democrats love to spend. In fact, when
the budget surplus was finally realized, the first thing congressional
democrats wanted to do, was create more social programs. Clinton,
always the smooth and savvy strategist, suggested using the surplus to
pay down the debt and bail out social security. His message resonated
with the American people, and the democrats in congress were forced to
back away from their initial spending ideas.

Republicans favor increased spending on military and defense. In most
other areas, republicans favor cuts.


But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with
the spin and stick to the facts, Dave.

As opposed to your relentless left wing spin? You "facts" are just
plain wrong Frank.


You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats,
enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise
taxes to pay for them.


So that's why Medicaid spending grew 13.2 percent in 2002, the
steepest rate of growth since 1992? Because Democrats were at the
helm? I really think you got your facts backwards, Dave.

That's one of the things that I am very much disgusted with Bush on,
and that's the expansion of the medicare prescription program. That's
going to cost an arm and a leg, and illustrates why sensible people do
not want the government involved in paying for healthcare.

I believe that Bush did it simply to remove it as a platform item for
democrats. A strictly political move. A bad one IMHO.


Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for
Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT!

It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Reagan spent jillions on
the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before,
even during wartime.

And the economy recovered from "Stagflation" and when it rebounded
the deficit recovered.

There is no evil in deficit spending, when you understand how it
works. But it seems like you don't.


Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some
decent economic advisors that bailed out the country.

Clinton was a very skilled and savvy leader. He knew how to manipulate
people to get what he wanted. He was also a skilled orator, and could
make his case to the American people like no other since Reagan. But
Clinton know that (After 1994) that he would have a fight in congress,
so he coopted many republican ideals. Things like welfare reform, and
trimming government spending were all republican initiatives. Clinton
successfully co-opted them and managed to take the credit for them



And now Baby
Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red.

And like the Reagan years, when the economy fully recovers, the
deficit will shrink (again!).


Yet you think
Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs?

That's pretty much their standard modus operandi. Look into a little
history. Preferably history that was written before the liberals
started trying to rewrite it. Books published before the 1970's should
be safe.


You are TOTALLY
CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education!

All you accomplish Frank is to illustrate just how obviously biased
you truly are.

High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they
vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash
and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief,


"Read my lips...."

No new taxes. Unless of course the democratically controlled congress,
forces me into a no-win situation......


and cut the budget.


HA! What a load of horse-hooey! So what year did the Republicans cut
the budget, Dave?.... aw, the heck with it. You want proof? Here you
go:


Reagan/Bush:
The Federal deficit jumped from $73.1B in 1980 to $237.9B in 1986. The
Federal debt jumped from $711.9B to $1,740.6B in that same time frame.
By the time he left office the Federal debt was $2,051.6B. By the time
Daddy Bush left office it was $2,999.7B and the deficit had risen to
$340.4B. Just a quick summary:

1980.....Deficit = $73.1B.....Debt = $711.9B
1992.....Deficit = $340.4B.....Debt = $2999.7B
----------------------------------------------
Change...Deficit ^ $267.3B.....Debt ^ $2287.8B

Both increased more that 400%!!!

The national debt is separate from the government budget. Don't tell
me you are one of those people who think that the budget surplus that
we had in 2000 also meant that the national debt was also erased?


Clinton:
By 2000, and for the first time in over 50 years, there had been a
budget SURPLUS for not just one but TWO YEARS. Clinton left office
with a SURPLUS of $86.3B, and was in the process of reducing the
Federal debt. He had also halted the increases in discretionary
spending, one of the hallmarks of the Republican party.

Bush had to deal with a democratically controlled congress. Clinton
had to deal with a republican controlled congress. Which ultimately
has more power in passing spending budgets?

Bush Jr:
Since Baby Bush took office (as of the end of 2004), discretionary
spending has almost doubled, program spending has increased by almost
half, the surplus went bye-bye and was replaced with a deficit of
$567.4B (an increase of more than -twice- the deficit at the end of
the Reagan/Bush years) and the debt had increased to an all-time high
of..... are you ready for this?..... $4,295.5B!!! Just the INTEREST on
the debt is $160.2B.

And when the value of the dollar increases, and the economy turns
around, that number will shrink almost like magic.


Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


Then people start to bitch that they want this program and
that program, and accuse the republican administration of being
"insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and
they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon,
but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle
repeats.

This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been
ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were
recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash
at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two
wars. Those are not normal circumstances.


The circumstances are -never- normal, Dave -- except that people like
you will always come up with excuses and spins and lies to defend your
profound ignorance.

You mean in the way you have been all this time?


It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when
you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the
credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and
save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the
money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money
to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit
cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different
things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'.

You've just described historically typical democratic spending
policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at
the helm?

Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can.....


Can you read the Federal Register? Congressional voting records?
Budget resolutions? Domestic economic policy statements? Federal
Reserve economic analyses? The Wall Street Journal? The National
Enquirer? Anything in a library? I doubt it.....

Sure I can (and have), and the facts support my claims.


You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way
too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future,
to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something
of themselves.

You were right then. What happened?

Then I got a look at the -real- world.

No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal.

It just doesn't work that way, Dave.

Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with
marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said
the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a
path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course.


When are your parents ever going to kick you out of their trailer,
garage, basement, or whatever emotionally secure little fortress of
social isolation you have built around yourself?

Ah, more ad-hominem (Another logical fallacy by the way), attacks in
lieu of countering the points (Which you can't).


Isn't it about time
you light a fire, haul your fat ass out that chair and into the -real-
world so you can actually learn something about it instead of making
wild speculations, adopting internet fantasies, and making up excuses
why you can't experience it firsthand?

I think you spent way too much time in that back room minding that
radio transmitter and getting exposed to high levels of RF radiation.
I am not the one who lives in a fantasy Frank, you are. Travel
somewhere east of the rockies and live with real people (Preferably
not in a major city) for a while and see what is really going on.


You claim to live in the real world yet you know
nothing about it.

According to you, a self professed "child prodigy" in college, master
of electrical engineering, logic, psychology and economics, who
curiously works as a bartender in one of the most liberal areas in the
country.


And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to
you.

Because you can't. You have no life experiences save for your
reluctant service in the military. You have had no serious
relationships, prefer to be a loner, and consider people with a
healthy family life to be some sort of psychologically defective
"co-dependant" relationship. You have renounced God, accept the
existentialism concept of "This is all there is", and are pretty much
ready to just cash in the chips. I'd say you need some therapy Frank.



You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you
want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality.

I live, interact, and more importantly, work in a field that is very
much in touch with the needs and wants of the consumer. THAT is
reality Frank. You probably don't know it, but you likely have
something in your house (or shack) that I had a part in the
development of.

Frank, I live in the real world,

No you don't. You don't have any idea what happens in the real world,
just like you don't have any idea what is taught in college, or how
economics works, or how the government works, or any of the other
dozen or so claims you have proven are nothing but lies.

Because YOU disagree with me? YOU who thinks that the 1st amendment
of the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state in
all government dealings. Even though in no place do those words ever
appear.


You may get
to the store if you take an extra dose of Paxil, and you might have a
driver's license, but your mind is existing in it's own little fantasy
land devoid of facts or social interaction. That's why you can't break
away from your codependent relationship with your mommy -- life is
just too hard for you to make it on your own, isn't it? Poor baby.
It's sure a good thing that your neocon brothers are there to change
your diaper and powder your bottom, ready to hand you a pacifier every
time some liberal gets you all upset. Just like a Baby Bush clone.

As you continue to sling insults to cover the fact that you have
nothing but you own bias to counter any of my points. You've lost and
you are lost Frank. Get over it and move on.



Well, take a nap, Baby Bush clone, because it's time for me -- the
big, ugly ex-Marine who risked his life and gave up four years of it

So you could earn the money to go to a second rate engineering
school.


just so you could be coddled in adulthood by your mommy, the engineer
who is educated at a level that you think you can fake with info from
the internet,

And earn a handsome paycheck from an employer who is much more
demanding and harder to fool than you are....


the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for
several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the
news,

In a part of the country known to be one of the most liberal.


the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of
social, ethnic and cultural issues,

Yea, I guess you have to know how to say "That'll be $3.50" in
Spanish..... Or "Would you like Chips with that"?

the guy who has never drawn a
single dollar of unemployment benefits or a welfare check (assuming
such benefits were available to an able-bodied male such as myself,
which they aren't, or hadn't you ever thought of that?)

Are you suggesting that Welfare is only available to "certain" people?



, the newsgroup
junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility

In your own mind. But a true intellectual, of any prominence, or
status, would have just ignored the rantings of someone who they felt
inferior. But you just keep coming back. Like a moth to the flame. You
have something to prove, a battle to win. And you know what? You still
do.



for you
and your posterity -- to go earn a living.

Say Hi to Cliff and Norm for me.....

Maybe some day you can earn
a living, too.

Yea, I just love that money tree I planted in the back yard. But don't
tell my neighbors.....

My closing word for you to mull over:

pa·thet·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-thtk) also pa·thet·i·cal
(--kl)
adj.
1. Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion:
“The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic”
(John Galsworthy).

2. Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity.


You seem to fit number 2 quite well......

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home/ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.


Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave.


snip
You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the
point.


snip
A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?


No exceptions allowed, Dave. And maybe you forgot about Panama and
Grenada. If you count military expeditions then you have a whole
different ball of ear wax.


snip
In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of
several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the
Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr.


If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere?


snip
It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much
controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress
unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't
happened in decades. The historical trends of the budget follow the
leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that
Congress has more control over the budget than the president is
nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat
achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures.


snip
Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave?


snip
Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet
looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal
budget information? Do I have to do -everything- for you? Well, I
won't. You look it up for yourself since you are so adept at finding
out the "truth". And when you do, post the link -- the info there is
more damaging to your position than what little I pulled from it. But
I -will- give you a hint: the URL for the homepage ends with ".gov".


Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and
the deficit never exceeded $27.7B. In fact, at the height of the war
in 1969 it hit a low of $0.5B that wasn't bettered until Clinton
pulled a surplus out of his cigar box. That's data from the same
source as before. Find it. In fact, I -dare- you to find it!






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:01:02 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.


Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave.

The end result is all that matters.


snip
You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the
point.

No, the point is that there is no institution anywhere in this country
that denies anyone the "ability" to vote. Despite your insinuation
that this happens and championing this as your main excuse for why
your side lost the last election.


snip
A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?


No exceptions allowed, Dave.

There were still more wars headed by democratic presidents than
republican ones.

And maybe you forgot about Panama and
Grenada.

Or the flubbed rescues attempt in Iran?

The Balkans? Kosovo?

None of which were "wars" in the truest sense.


If you count military expeditions then you have a whole
different ball of ear wax.

But we're not.


snip
In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of
several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the
Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr.

But many of your loonie left conspiracy buddies believe that the
Lewinsky scandal was a republican "payback" for what happened to
Newt.

If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere?

Sure, if you look for it.


snip
It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much
controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress
unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't
happened in decades.

No, it's not that easy or clear cut. The president can propose all
sorts of bills, but if the congress shoots them down, they never see
the light of day. Similarly, the congress can approve a bill and the
president can veto it, and it normally dies there. The point is that
in order to move past this partisan deadlock, it requires some
compromise. And that is exactly what George H.W. Bush was forced to
do, when he allowed democratically sponsored tax increases to pass
through along with measures that he wanted. It was all part of the
deal.


The historical trends of the budget follow the
leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that
Congress has more control over the budget than the president is
nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat
achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures.

Which is exactly what happened. Democrats are known (By everyone
except you apparently) as the ones who tax and spend. Republicans
normally slash and cut. The president can "propose" anything he wants,
but if he doesn't have congressional buy-in, it goes nowhere. That's
the wonderful thing about our government's checks and balances.

Clinton was a master spokesman, and a skilled negotiator. Once
republicans gained control of congress, he knew he was in for a fight.
Consequently, his policies moved from the left (Gays in the military,
universal healthcare) in the beginning of his term, to much more
centrist (Balanced budget, tax cuts, welfare reform) and closer
aligned with those points which republicans also champion. Clinton
took something like a balanced budget and welfare reform away from the
republicans when he claimed them as his own. Republicans were not
about to shoot down bills which were ideologically appealing to them,
so they passed. Clinton won a psychological and tactical victory by
being able to claim victory, even though the groundwork had lamented
for years with republicans in congress. He took an idea that
republicans could never get passed (Since they didn't have control of
congress until Clinton was in office), called it his own, and managed
to take credit for it. That bought him some political capital, and
allowed him to leverage that capital to successfully oppose congress
when it shut down over a budget impasse, and successfully managed to
blame republicans in the eyes of the people for his refusal to budge.

When you have such a stalemate, perception is everything. If the
people perceive that the president is at fault (Especially when he's
looking at re-election), then his support dies. The same is true if
the congress is perceived to be at fault.

Clinton, with his smooth talking demeanor managed to do just that. But
it was the hard work of republicans that brought these issues to
light.

snip
Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave?

No, it's not. But in this case it's true.


snip
Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet
looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal
budget information?

Sure. But many sites spin the numbers to suit their agenda.

Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and
the deficit never exceeded $27.7B.

And I paid $.27 a gallon for gasoline in 1970 too. The house I sold
for $110,000 in 1999 was only worth about $28,000 in 1970. The numbers
don't tell the whole story, unless all the conditions are also known.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:26:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:01:02 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.


Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave.

The end result is all that matters.


Oh, NOW I get it..... you refuse to accept this simple statistical
fact because -you- have been divorced! You, like so many others,
couldn't keep the vows you made before God, and now you have to
justify your failure! LOL!


snip
You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the
point.

No, the point is that there is no institution anywhere in this country
that denies anyone the "ability" to vote. Despite your insinuation
that this happens and championing this as your main excuse for why
your side lost the last election.


Quit using the last election as the scapegoat for your dysfunctional
understanding of the Constitution, Dave -- the fact is that the right
to vote is NOT protected. Any state can -indeed- prevent people from
voting for any reason -EXCEPT- for reasons based on race or sex.


snip
A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?


No exceptions allowed, Dave.

There were still more wars headed by democratic presidents than
republican ones.

And maybe you forgot about Panama and
Grenada.

Or the flubbed rescues attempt in Iran?

The Balkans? Kosovo?

None of which were "wars" in the truest sense.


None of those military actions were intended to overthrow a standing
government. But I didn't forget them, nor did I forget the many
countries that were overthrown (or that we attempted to overthrow)
through indirect support and/or covert (CIA) operations. But then you
have to factor out those wars where the US was attacked first since
they were started by someone else. Add it all together and -then- tell
me which way the scales tip, Dave.


If you count military expeditions then you have a whole
different ball of ear wax.

But we're not.


But you just did.


snip
In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of
several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the
Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr.

But many of your loonie left conspiracy buddies believe that the
Lewinsky scandal was a republican "payback" for what happened to
Newt.


I guess that makes -you- one of my "loonie left conspiracy buddies".


If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere?

Sure, if you look for it.


Ok, then quote it.


snip
It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much
controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress
unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't
happened in decades.

No, it's not that easy or clear cut. The president can propose all
sorts of bills, but if the congress shoots them down, they never see
the light of day. Similarly, the congress can approve a bill and the
president can veto it, and it normally dies there. The point is that
in order to move past this partisan deadlock, it requires some
compromise. And that is exactly what George H.W. Bush was forced to
do, when he allowed democratically sponsored tax increases to pass
through along with measures that he wanted. It was all part of the
deal.


First, the president doesn't propose bills.

Second, a bill doesn't die just because it gets a presidential veto;
usually it gets sent back to Congress for more negotiations. If those
negotiations fail then either the bill gets shelved or they move for a
continuing resolution (depending on the issue).

Third, Daddy Bush was "forced" to increase taxes because he refused to
scale back spending in a no-growth economy (for example, pork-barrel
spending DOUBLED from 1989 to 1991). And while he was being "forced"
to increase -individual- income taxes, he threatened to veto any
increase of -corporate- income taxes. In fact, revenue from corporate
income taxes -dropped- during the Bush I administration. But if your
crystal ball says that those tax increases were "forced" by the
Democratic Congress then it must be true.

Also, revenue from corporate income taxes dropped to a near all-time
low of 1.2% of GDP in 2003, the average being 2.5% and the lowest
being 1.1% (Reagan, 1983). This reduction was 68% -greater- than the
reduction of individual income taxes during the same time period.
These tax cuts were made during wartime by a Republican administration
-and- a Republican Congress. It's clearly the Republican's fault, but
I'm sure you'll find someone else to blame.....


The historical trends of the budget follow the
leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that
Congress has more control over the budget than the president is
nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat
achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures.

Which is exactly what happened. Democrats are known (By everyone
except you apparently) as the ones who tax and spend. Republicans
normally slash and cut.


You have things a little mixed up here, as usual: BOTH Democrats AND
Republicans spend like crazy. The differences are where that money
comes from and where it's spent. The Democrats prefer to get their
revenue from taxes while the Republicans like to max out the Federal
credit card. The Democrats use the money to pay the bills and meet the
government's obligation to all those retired citizens who payed into
the Social Security system for most of their lives. The Republicans
like to spend our -future- income on warmongering.


The president can "propose" anything he wants,
but if he doesn't have congressional buy-in, it goes nowhere. That's
the wonderful thing about our government's checks and balances.

Clinton was a master spokesman, and a skilled negotiator. Once
republicans gained control of congress, he knew he was in for a fight.
Consequently, his policies moved from the left (Gays in the military,
universal healthcare) in the beginning of his term, to much more
centrist (Balanced budget, tax cuts, welfare reform) and closer
aligned with those points which republicans also champion.


You've got bats in the bellfry, Dave -- Congress doesn't control
Executive policy decisions. It's called "seperation of powers",
another little tidbit that's defined in the Constitution. Oh, but
that's right, you know the Constitution front to back......LOL!


Clinton
took something like a balanced budget and welfare reform away from the
republicans when he claimed them as his own.


.......oh brother


Republicans were not
about to shoot down bills which were ideologically appealing to them,
so they passed. Clinton won a psychological and tactical victory by
being able to claim victory, even though the groundwork had lamented
for years with republicans in congress.


On what planet? Zeta Reticuli?


He took an idea that
republicans could never get passed (Since they didn't have control of
congress until Clinton was in office), called it his own, and managed
to take credit for it. That bought him some political capital, and
allowed him to leverage that capital to successfully oppose congress
when it shut down over a budget impasse, and successfully managed to
blame republicans in the eyes of the people for his refusal to budge.


Holy conspiracy theories, Batman!


When you have such a stalemate, perception is everything. If the
people perceive that the president is at fault (Especially when he's
looking at re-election), then his support dies. The same is true if
the congress is perceived to be at fault.

Clinton, with his smooth talking demeanor managed to do just that. But
it was the hard work of republicans that brought these issues to
light.


Earth to Dave..... Earth to Dave..... check your oxygen supply!


snip
Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave?

No, it's not. But in this case it's true.


Thus sayeth the Crystal Ball.


snip
Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet
looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal
budget information?

Sure. But many sites spin the numbers to suit their agenda.


It stands to reason that you might think the Congressional Budget
Office would spin the numbers -- after all, you still think Kerry's
honorable discharge is a Pentagon hoax.


Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and
the deficit never exceeded $27.7B.

And I paid $.27 a gallon for gasoline in 1970 too. The house I sold
for $110,000 in 1999 was only worth about $28,000 in 1970. The numbers
don't tell the whole story, unless all the conditions are also known.


Alright, we'll do this as a percentage of GDP, year by year:

Year Deficit(-) Debt
----------------------
Johnson:
1965 -0.2 37.9
1966 -0.5 34.9
1967 -1.1 32.9
1968 -2.9 33.3

Nixon:
1969 0.3 29.3
1970 -0.3 28.0
1971 -2.1 28.1
1972 -2.0 27.4
1973 -1.1 26.0
1974 -0.4 23.9

Ford:
1975 -3.4 25.3
1976 -4.2 27.5

Carter:
1977 -2.7 27.8
1978 -2.7 27.4
1979 -1.6 25.6
1980 -2.7 26.1

Reagan:
1981 -2.6 25.8
1982 -4.0 28.7
1983 -6.0 33.0
1984 -4.8 34.0
1985 -5.1 36.3
1986 -5.0 39.5
1987 -3.2 40.6
1988 -3.1 40.9

Daddy Bush:
1989 -2.8 40.6
1990 -3.9 42.0
1991 -4.5 45.3
1992 -4.7 48.1

Clinton:
1993 -3.9 49.4
1994 -2.9 49.3
1995 -2.2 49.2
1996 -1.4 48.5
1997 -0.3 46.1
1998 0.8 43.1
1999 1.4 39.8
2000 2.4 35.1

Baby Bush:
2001 1.3 33.0
2002 -1.5 34.1
2003 -3.5 36.1
2004 -3.6 37.2

It should now be painfully obvious that the budget trends follow the
executive administration, -not- the congressional majority, and -not-
because of any war. It's also obvious that Clinton did a =monumental=
job of trying to un**** Reagan's mess, and that Baby Bush is ****ing
it up all over again -- with a -Republican- majority in Congress.


I await your next batch of excuses......







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----