PDA

View Full Version : Dear Republican Party members



JDogger
03-20-2010, 12:19 AM
OK. So let's say that in 2010 the Republicans regain a majority in the congress.
Then in 2012, your messiah, (maybe Palin) wins the Presidency...

What change and hope will come to pass? Will come to pass??? Come to pass????

Remember now, it's not a football game. Merely having your team on the field may not be enough.

Opposition and obstruction will come to them from all corners. From both friend and foe alike. Some will champion their efforts, and some will not.

Maybe it is just a game after all, and we're all just spear carriers in someone else's movie.

F'n depressing, huh?

JD

Geez, I'm startin' to sound like Pete!

BonMallari
03-20-2010, 05:30 AM
the failure and inept Presidency of Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan....the ineptness and failure of the economy of GHW Bush gave us the Clinton Years.... GW Bush and his ineptness gave us BHO and a Democrat majority,what will the Obama administration give us...

people say that Bush 43 was polarizing.....that almost seems tame compared to the radioactive polarity of BHO

will we ever see a POTUS in our lifetime that isnt hated by the opposite party...I seriously doubt it

M&K's Retrievers
03-20-2010, 09:15 AM
Will we ever see a POTUS as hated as this one is/will be?

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 10:24 AM
Sure, the last one. It only seems different now because you are the one doing the hating. I look at the last administration and see a group that violated every norm of our political process to bankrupt our country both morally and financially. It's all a matter of perspective. Right now, Obama's popularity is comparable to Reagan's at the same point in his presidency. It might go up or down from here depending primarily on what happens with the economy.

road kill
03-20-2010, 10:27 AM
Sure, the last one. It only seems different now because you are the one doing the hating. I look at the last administration and see a group that violated every norm of our political process to bankrupt our country both morally and financially. It's all a matter of perspective. Right now, Obama's popularity is comparable to Reagan's at the same point in his presidency. It might go up or down from here depending primarily on what happens with the economy.
So......it's more about getting even than what is right???



rk

luvmylabs23139
03-20-2010, 10:29 AM
OBUMMA is destroying this country!!!! When will he be as he deserves charged with treason and when convicted as he should be by law given the ultimate penalty for the charges?

Can't be soon enough!!!!!!

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 10:42 AM
So......it's more about getting even than what is right???



rk
Where did that come from? Bush's failures as a President and his successes belong to Bush. Obama's failure or success belong to Obama. Bush did some good things as President but destroyed our economy and our credibility in the world. Obviously there were accomplices, but the overwhelming bulk of the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the President. Obama has so far improved our relations with the rest of the world and made some decisions that have helped stimulate growth in our economy. However, he is also doing things that I believe will damage our economy further over the long term if not reversed. I think the record of his Presidency is still incomplete and evolving, while Bush's record is now a matter of history. There is nothing about getting even in any of it. For the sake of our future, someone has to pull us back from the destruction wrought by the Bush administration. Hopefully Obama will succeed. If not, his successor will have an even more difficult and potentially impossible job. A difficulty is that the primary cause of our bankruptcy was the tax reduction package pushed through in 2001 and 2003. Unless those cuts are essentially reversed, we will not emerge from the disaster that they caused.

zeus3925
03-20-2010, 11:00 AM
OBUMMA is destroying this country!!!! When will he be as he deserves charged with treason and when convicted as he should be by law given the ultimate penalty for the charges?

Can't be soon enough!!!!!!

Come on, Luver. What has he done to destroy the country? Not very much. If you are speaking about the stimulus program, remember it was initiated by "W". If you are talking about the big hole in the country's pocket, there isn't any better way create it than starting a war on two fronts and then give big tax cuts to the Fortunate Few. Obama didn't do that, did he?

Yeah, the economy is in a world of hurt. How did it get that way? The "Smaller Government" folks promoted the withdrawal of oversight and the brokers and bankers went wild creating financial fictions that brought down the house. Now there is a cry to do something to prevent a similar future collapse. Is Obama opposed to it? No, it is Mitch McConnell and his constipated minions.

Republicans are just trying to pull a Joe Goebbels with this bile and vile campaign they are on.

Hoosier
03-20-2010, 11:02 AM
Where did that come from? Bush's failures as a President and his successes belong to Bush. Obama's failure or success belong to Obama. Bush did some good things as President but destroyed our economy and our credibility in the world. Obviously there were accomplices, but the overwhelming bulk of the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the President. Obama has so far improved our relations with the rest of the world and made some decisions that have helped stimulate growth in our economy. However, he is also doing things that I believe will damage our economy further over the long term if not reversed. I think the record of his Presidency is still incomplete and evolving, while Bush's record is now a matter of history. There is nothing about getting even in any of it. For the sake of our future, someone has to pull us back from the destruction wrought by the Bush administration. Hopefully Obama will succeed. If not, his successor will have an even more difficult and potentially impossible job. A difficulty is that the primary cause of our bankruptcy was the tax reduction package pushed through in 2001 and 2003. Unless those cuts are essentially reversed, we will not emerge from the disaster that they caused.

I believe the primary cause of our bankruptcy is that we spend to much. Bush did it, and now the Dems are using his over spending as an excuse to do their own. We're taxed enough, time for the government to take a look at reality, and stop spending so damn much.

The Federal government can't grow forever, we've passed the point of it's size being sustainable, and one side or the other has to put a stop to it. You're party is in power at this moment in time, so that responsibility falls on them. After the next election that responsibility will probably fall on the Republicans, and I would hope they take an ax to the budget and try to save us. It's painfully obvious the Dems aren't going to.

luvmylabs23139
03-20-2010, 11:30 AM
Come on, Luver. What has he done to destroy the country? Not very much. If you are speaking about the stimulus program, remember it was initiated by "W". If you are talking about the big hole in the country's pocket, there isn't any better way create it than starting a war on two fronts and then give big tax cuts to the Fortunate Few. Obama didn't do that, did he?

Yeah, the economy is in a world of hurt. How did it get that way? The "Smaller Government" folks promoted the withdrawal of oversight and the brokers and bankers went wild creating financial fictions that brought down the house. Now there is a cry to do something to prevent a similar future collapse. Is Obama opposed to it? No, it is Mitch McConnell and his constipated minions.

Republicans are just trying to pull a Joe Goebbels with this bile and vile campaign they are on.
Gov't needs to get the heck out of our lives and stop stealing money from hard working people,
BUMMA wants to control our lives.
BY the way I have been screwed by both parties trying to buy votes.
We don't have kids and they all give tax breaks for kids and that results in me paying for other peoples kids. I'm sick and tired of it.
I pay double the property taxes as the house next door.
I have zero kids, they have 3.
I pay for their kids. THat is a total pile of crap.
I do not use the services yet I pay out the a@@.
People should pay for the services they use.

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 11:35 AM
I believe the primary cause of our bankruptcy is that we spend to much. Bush did it, and now the Dems are using his over spending as an excuse to do their own. We're taxed enough, time for the government to take a look at reality, and stop spending so damn much.

The Federal government can't grow forever, we've passed the point of it's size being sustainable, and one side or the other has to put a stop to it. You're party is in power at this moment in time, so that responsibility falls on them. After the next election that responsibility will probably fall on the Republicans, and I would hope they take an ax to the budget and try to save us. It's painfully obvious the Dems aren't going to.
Under Clinton, Federal spending actually grew very slowly. Under Bush it grew twice as fast. However, given the tax cuts that were implemented, we would have been bankrupted even if spending had grown at less than the rate of inflation. The only way to finance those cuts would have been massive cuts in discretionary spending, including massive cuts in defense. Instead, the opposite was done. In my mind, tax cuts need to be financed using the same pay-go polices as are used for spending. That was the law under Clinton. Bush and the Republicans opposed the law. They made the 2001 cuts expire in 10 years to get around the law, and simply assumed that there would be separate votes to extend the cuts. They then rescinded the pay-go law altogether to be able to pass the 2003 cuts. The rational thing to do now is to allow the 2001 cuts to expire or force any extensions to be financed by cuts adopted at the same time or by other new taxes. Fiscal responsibility requires that decisions be financed as they are made. You want to increase spending? Then adopt new taxes or offsetting spending cuts as part of the same bill and explain your decision to the voters. You want to cut taxes? Do the same. Make the offsetting cuts as part of the same bill and explain the cuts to the voters. There are valid economic reasons for incurring both deficits and surpluses. However, those reasons have nothing to do with the merits of the programs. Fighting a war, responding to a natural disaster, correcting an inequity, etc., are not justifications for deficit. Fighting a recession is justification for actions that may produce a temporary deficit, but not actions that add to a permanent one.

zeus3925
03-20-2010, 11:43 AM
Gov't needs to get the heck out of our lives and stop stealing money from hard working people,
BUMMA wants to control our lives.
BY the way I have been screwed by both parties trying to buy votes.
We don't have kids and they all give tax breaks for kids and that results in me paying for other peoples kids. I'm sick and tired of it.
I pay double the property taxes as the house next door.
I have zero kids, they have 3.
I pay for their kids. THat is a total pile of crap.
I do not use the services yet I pay out the a@@.
People should pay for the services they use.

Luver-
I bet this state of affairs was already in place in January, 2009, was it not? I guess I don't see Obama prying at the door to control my life. He' d find one stubborn French Canuck if he did.

J Hoggatt
03-20-2010, 11:48 AM
Frankly -

it is all about POWER and Control........... both side ---- very sad...................

NO Leadership...................either party.....

I lean right.......So I have more "dislike" for the left = "Democratic Party"......

The Dems want to count illegal immigrants to change the voting districts to favor their power base --If the succeed -- giving the "have nots" something for nothing...AKA Obama Money - "that is their guy and their party" - solidifying their power base --- and ON and ON it goes..........

It is all about POWER and CONTROL........... -- Far Left - VS Far Right---- The high density areas - vs rural areas.... etc.....

It very well could spin out of control...... I am seeing a ton of "PASSION".........

King of England - and taxes--
Slavery - (South VS North).

are the top two that comes to mind -- Yes I think it is that big........

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 11:57 AM
...

The Dems want to count illegal immigrants to change the voting districts to favor their power base --If the succeed -- giving the "have nots" something for nothing...AKA Obama Money - "that is their guy and their party" - solidifying their power base --- and ON and ON it goes..........

...
If you are talking about the Census, it is required to count all in the country regardless of status. Counting illegal immigrants doesn't give those illegals any rights to vot. However, it does give greater weight to the votes of those from the district who are allowed to vote legally. Who are those people? I ma y be wrong, but I believe the primary beneficiary will be the state of Texas -- not exactly a Democratic stronghold.:rolleyes:

J Hoggatt
03-20-2010, 12:08 PM
If you are talking about the Census, it is required to count all in the country regardless of status. Counting illegal immigrants doesn't give those illegals any rights to vot. However, it does give greater weight to the votes of those from the district who are allowed to vote legally. Who are those people? I ma y be wrong, but I believe the primary beneficiary will be the state of Texas -- not exactly a Democratic stronghold.:rolleyes:

Naming "1" -- California ---

Nebraska will go from 3 congressmen to 2 -- because of this.....


- pick, pick, pick - discredit, discredit discredit--- keep them from focusing on the big picture (power) and they will never see it coming and won't realize it over time.....think about it for a moment -- before you become defensive......

luvmylabs23139
03-20-2010, 12:21 PM
Luver-
I bet this state of affairs was already in place in January, 2009, was it not? I guess I don't see Obama prying at the door to control my life. He' d find one stubborn French Canuck if he did.

Hmm,
Stubborn French Canuck. Why did you leave? I know why my English speaking relatives got the heck out of Montreal and moved to Ontario in the early 80's.
You still have a great looking Lab that can do it all who could come live with me any day!!;)

zeus3925
03-20-2010, 12:34 PM
Hmm,
Stubborn French Canuck. Why did you leave? I know why my English speaking relatives got the heck out of Montreal and moved to Ontario in the early 80's.
You still have a great looking Lab that can do it all who could come live with me any day!!;)

Actually I'm of French Canadian descent. My ancestry goes back to 1635 in Canada and in the US during the height of the Revolution. My relatives did not come here to throw a punch and cookie party for the British.

Thanks for the compliment. Titan is one sweet heart--a real teddy bear. However, he snores!

Hoosier
03-20-2010, 12:47 PM
Under Clinton, Federal spending actually grew very slowly. Under Bush it grew twice as fast. However, given the tax cuts that were implemented, we would have been bankrupted even if spending had grown at less than the rate of inflation. The only way to finance those cuts would have been massive cuts in discretionary spending, including massive cuts in defense. Instead, the opposite was done. In my mind, tax cuts need to be financed using the same pay-go polices as are used for spending. That was the law under Clinton. Bush and the Republicans opposed the law. They made the 2001 cuts expire in 10 years to get around the law, and simply assumed that there would be separate votes to extend the cuts. They then rescinded the pay-go law altogether to be able to pass the 2003 cuts. The rational thing to do now is to allow the 2001 cuts to expire or force any extensions to be financed by cuts adopted at the same time or by other new taxes. Fiscal responsibility requires that decisions be financed as they are made. You want to increase spending? Then adopt new taxes or offsetting spending cuts as part of the same bill and explain your decision to the voters. You want to cut taxes? Do the same. Make the offsetting cuts as part of the same bill and explain the cuts to the voters. There are valid economic reasons for incurring both deficits and surpluses. However, those reasons have nothing to do with the merits of the programs. Fighting a war, responding to a natural disaster, correcting an inequity, etc., are not justifications for deficit. Fighting a recession is justification for actions that may produce a temporary deficit, but not actions that add to a permanent one.

What about the supposed "biggest tax cut in history" that the current administration is crowing about http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Tax-Cut ? It seems to me that your guy is doing a hell of a lot of spending that doesn't seem to be getting offset.

We can't continue to by votes at the expense of our country's future, which is what both sides are doing.

K G
03-20-2010, 01:37 PM
Right now, Obama's popularity is comparable to Reagan's at the same point in his presidency.

Got any stats to back this up Jeff or is this one of your SWAGs?

k g

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 01:55 PM
Got any stats to back this up Jeff or is this one of your SWAGs?

k g
http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-all.gif

You'll note that Reagan's popularity sank throughout the first three years of his first term, only beginning to climb as elections approached. His popularity was below 50% for about two years. On January 22, 1983, he hit 42% approval. He then climbed as the economy improved and tanked again at 44% in 1987 with Iran-Contra (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/poll_reagan010806.html). His average rating from January 1982 until January 1983 was 43% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx).

During his second term, Reagan was much more popular, although his average popularity, at about 55%, trailed well behind Clinton's second term popularity of 60.6%. Clinton was actually the most popular second term President since WWII, but was a relatively unpopular first term President, as was Reagan. The myth of Reagan's popularity does not stem from his popularity while he was President, but from the growth in his popularity since leaving office.

Hoosier
03-20-2010, 01:57 PM
Why don't you walk next door and shoot your neighbors, that would solve your problem.

Or we could all just take care of our own family, and quit looking for a handout.

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 02:11 PM
What about the supposed "biggest tax cut in history" that the current administration is crowing about http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Tax-Cut ? It seems to me that your guy is doing a hell of a lot of spending that doesn't seem to be getting offset.

We can't continue to by votes at the expense of our country's future, which is what both sides are doing.
The difference is that the tax cut in the stimulus plan was temporary, as it should have been, while the Bush cuts were either permanent or lasted ten years.

K G
03-20-2010, 02:35 PM
Who made the graph, Jeff?

k g

Buzz
03-20-2010, 03:23 PM
Gov't needs to get the heck out of our lives and stop stealing money from hard working people,
BUMMA wants to control our lives.
BY the way I have been screwed by both parties trying to buy votes.
We don't have kids and they all give tax breaks for kids and that results in me paying for other peoples kids. I'm sick and tired of it.
I pay double the property taxes as the house next door.
I have zero kids, they have 3.
I pay for their kids. THat is a total pile of crap.
I do not use the services yet I pay out the a@@.
People should pay for the services they use.

Well, I have kids and don't get any tax advantage out of it because I make too much money. Woe is me.:rolleyes:

pat addis
03-20-2010, 03:48 PM
i have just one question are you better off now or before obama came to power?

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 03:58 PM
Who made the graph, Jeff?

k g
Sorry. I thought I have included the reference. It came from a left wing, The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html)

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 04:02 PM
i have just one question are you better off now or before obama came to power?
Certainly looking like a better year than 2008.

zeus3925
03-20-2010, 05:05 PM
i have just one question are you better off now or before obama came to power?

A lot better under Obama. My retirement savings have nearly recovered from "W's" disaster.

Marvin S
03-20-2010, 05:11 PM
Maybe it is just a game after all, and we're all just spear carriers in someone else's movie.

Unless you get involved, at this parade you are the person with the wheelbarrow & the shovel :).


A difficulty is that the primary cause of our bankruptcy was the tax reduction package pushed through in 2001 and 2003. Unless those cuts are essentially reversed, we will not emerge from the disaster that they caused.

You need a little more analysis, taxes do not cause overspending, overspending is it's own problem. That Bush didn't wield his veto pen more often was a portion of the problem. That's what the country gets when they elect a "Country Club Republican" & the D's candidate is even worse.

Contrary to what people say, IMO the root cause of the problem was Barney, Chris, Chuck, the cronies at FNM & Freddy Mac, & all who were accepting donations from the people who were making money from the phony credit instruments :confused:.

You need to explain where keeping your money & cutting spending is bad. We are already donating from the niggardly interest rates paid on our savings & we are not happy about that. & specifically, who benefits when taxes are high & those with wealth decide it is not worthwhile to create jobs for those with no vision?




We don't have kids and they all give tax breaks for kids and that results in me paying for other peoples kids. I'm sick and tired of it.
I pay double the property taxes as the house next door.
I have zero kids, they have 3.
I pay for their kids. THat is a total pile of crap.
I do not use the services yet I pay out the a@@.
People should pay for the services they use.

You need to take a Civics class so you can differentiate between the various tax collectors ;-).

K G
03-20-2010, 05:13 PM
Certainly looking like a better year than 2008.

Tell that to the millions and still growing unemployed and under-employed.....they're still waiting on the "change" with all the "hope" they can muster.....

k g

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 05:17 PM
...

You need a little more analysis, taxes do not cause overspending, overspending is it's own problem. That Bush didn't wield his veto pen more often was a portion of the problem. That's what the country gets when they elect a "Country Club Republican" & the D's candidate is even worse.

Contrary to what people say, IMO the root cause of the problem was Barney, Chris, Chuck, the cronies at FNM & Freddy Mac, & all who were accepting donations from the people who were making money from the phony credit instruments :confused:.
.
If you keep tax rates unchanged and spending goes up so fast that it creates a deficit, then spending is out of control and you have a deficit caused by overspending. If you cut tax rates and keep spending constant in real dollars, resulting in a deficit, then you have a deficit caused by a tax cut. If you cut tax rates and increase spending at two time the rate of inflation, you have a spend and borrow Republican in the White House and are headed for disaster.:rolleyes:

Buzz
03-20-2010, 05:34 PM
If you keep tax rates unchanged and spending goes up so fast that it creates a deficit, then spending is out of control and you have a deficit caused by overspending. If you cut tax rates and keep spending constant in real dollars, resulting in a deficit, then you have a deficit caused by a tax cut. If you cut tax rates and increase spending at two time the rate of inflation, you have a spend and borrow Republican in the White House and are headed for disaster.:rolleyes:

He did have a little help from his friends. It bugs me that there is so much discussion about the prospect of spending on healthcare, but so little debate about the cost of fighting two wars. I wonder what the true cost of a barrel of oil would be if you counted the cost to the federal budget of keeping it flowing from under the feet of people who hate us?

Marvin S
03-20-2010, 05:54 PM
If you keep tax rates unchanged and spending goes up so fast that it creates a deficit, then spending is out of control and you have a deficit caused by overspending. If you cut tax rates and keep spending constant in real dollars, resulting in a deficit, then you have a deficit caused by a tax cut.

I believe that to be called Overspending. A tax cut creates an incentive for those willing to work to create more. Taxes other than those spent on necessary infrastructure rarely add value to the system. & while the POTUS gets the blame who is in charge of Appropriations?



If you cut tax rates and increase spending at two time the rate of inflation, you have a spend and borrow Republican in the White House and are headed for disaster.:rolleyes:

The present occupier is not an R in case you need to be brought up to date :). What say you about the present occupier of that residence?

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 06:02 PM
He did have a little help from his friends. It bugs me that there is so much discussion about the prospect of spending on healthcare, but so little debate about the cost of fighting two wars. I wonder what the true cost of a barrel of oil would be if you counted the cost to the federal budget of keeping it flowing from under the feet of people who hate us?
Good or bad, Presidents always have help. My view is that the Federal surplus or deficit is a reflection of fiscal policy. If productive resources are approaching capacity, growth is abut 4%, and inflation is around 2%, the Federal budget should be in balance. If growth and inflation are edging higher, the budget should be in surplus, and if capacity usage and/or growth is heading south, we should be looking at a budget deficit. What we do with our resources -- how much we tax and what we spend our money on -- within those general economic parameters is basically a political decision.

If we ever do a full accounting for the wars, I suspect that the price will be closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion. Put in economic terms, that is more than our total spending on energy for a year.

Clay Rogers
03-20-2010, 06:05 PM
Gov't needs to get the heck out of our lives and stop stealing money from hard working people,
BUMMA wants to control our lives.
BY the way I have been screwed by both parties trying to buy votes.
We don't have kids and they all give tax breaks for kids and that results in me paying for other peoples kids. I'm sick and tired of it.
I pay double the property taxes as the house next door.
I have zero kids, they have 3.
I pay for their kids. THat is a total pile of crap.
I do not use the services yet I pay out the a@@.
People should pay for the services they use.

First of all, I dont think you pay higher property tax than your neighbor because they have kids. Its probably because your house is worth twice what theirs is. I think that is how property tax works, kinda based on tax value, may be wrong, but dont think so. Second, you don't pay for my kids, I pay for my kids. And if it bothers you so much, have some darn kids.

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 06:08 PM
I believe that to be called Overspending. A tax cut creates an incentive for those willing to work to create more. Taxes other than those spent on necessary infrastructure rarely add value to the system. & while the POTUS gets the blame who is in charge of Appropriations?
The evdence to support that assertion is easier to find in chicken bones than in the economy. That is especially true for the GWB cuts.



The present occupier is not an R in case you need to be brought up to date :). What say you about the present occupier of that residence?
What he has done s far falls well within my parameters of when it is okay to incur a deficit. However, that is much less likely to be true in another year. His budget projections assume that deficits will decline but not go away. I think they need to go away once the economy is solid. If he pursues a massive deficit policy despite growth, he will sit on the alter with Reagan and Bush as a great bankrupter.

luvmylabs23139
03-20-2010, 07:58 PM
First of all, I dont think you pay higher property tax than your neighbor because they have kids. Its probably because your house is worth twice what theirs is. I think that is how property tax works, kinda based on tax value, may be wrong, but dont think so. Second, you don't pay for my kids, I pay for my kids. And if it bothers you so much, have some darn kids.

The majority of my propery taxes go to the school system, which I do not use!!!!!
Yes my house has a higher value, bigger house and more land. The point is they are using the schools X3 yet I pay for their kids.
THey should just make people pay per kid in school!!!
Me paying for their kids is a THEFT OF MY MONEY!!!!!!!

JDogger
03-20-2010, 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by JDogger http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=586408#post586408)
Maybe it is just a game after all, and we're all just spear carriers in someone else's movie



Unless you get involved, at this parade you are the person with the wheelbarrow & the shovel :).


We recently had our county and municipal elections. Being in an anti-incumbent frame of mind, I campaigned and voted for all the challengers regardless of party, and against all incumbents.

Surprise, surprise! 100% of incumbents were retained or re-elected.:(

I'm very afraid that the local outcome will be mirrored this fall and in 2012.

At the state and national level, I might have at the least a few third party candidates to throw support to.

I suspect though, that the R&D candidates coming our way will be, (as Julie puts it) the same stinking crock of jenkem.

JD

Marvin S
03-20-2010, 10:04 PM
What he has done s far falls well within my parameters of when it is okay to incur a deficit. However, that is much less likely to be true in another year. His budget projections assume that deficits will decline but not go away. I think they need to go away once the economy is solid. If he pursues a massive deficit policy despite growth, he will sit on the alter with Reagan and Bush as a great bankrupter.

Even for you, that's pretty lame. Someone forwarded me a group of cartoons from around the world, your guy is real fodder :o.


We recently had our county and municipal elections. Being in an anti-incumbent frame of mind, I campaigned and voted for all the challengers regardless of party, and against all incumbents.

Surprise, surprise! 100% of incumbents were retained or re-elected.:(

I'm very afraid that the local outcome will be mirrored this fall and in 2012.

At the state and national level, I might have at the least a few third party candidates to throw support to.

I suspect though, that the R&D candidates coming our way will be, (as Julie puts it) the same stinking crock of jenkem.

JD

Good for you! Keep it up! :cool:

JDogger
03-21-2010, 12:09 AM
I'll make a note on my calendar.

03/20/2010 Marv gives JDogger a pat on the back.

Who'd a thunk?

OSHR's,

JD

YardleyLabs
03-21-2010, 08:04 AM
The majority of my propery taxes go to the school system, which I do not use!!!!!
Yes my house has a higher value, bigger house and more land. The point is they are using the schools X3 yet I pay for their kids.
THey should just make people pay per kid in school!!!
Me paying for their kids is a THEFT OF MY MONEY!!!!!!!
My kids are long grown and out of the nest. However, I would rather help pay to educate my neighbors' children to be economically productive tax payers than pay to keep them on welfare or in jail.

Clay Rogers
03-21-2010, 11:47 AM
The majority of my propery taxes go to the school system, which I do not use!!!!!
Yes my house has a higher value, bigger house and more land. The point is they are using the schools X3 yet I pay for their kids.
THey should just make people pay per kid in school!!!
Me paying for their kids is a THEFT OF MY MONEY!!!!!!!

Get a smaller house. I have two kids that go to private school and still have to pay property tax, get over it. Do you have septic tank or sewer system, do you have a well or county water? If you have sewer system and county water, I pay for you to take a bath and take a crap. You need to get a better arguement.