The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Dear Republican Party members

  1. #11
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier View Post
    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 They then rescinded the pay-go law altogether to be able to pass the 2003 cuts.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.

  2. #12
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    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.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  3. #13
    Senior Member J Hoggatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Grand Island, NE.
    Posts
    328

    Default

    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........
    Attributed to Ben Franklin-
    "Don't Argue with Stupid People..... They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!"

    "When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid."

    "Arguing with Idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to sh$t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

  4. #14
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Hoggatt View Post
    ...

    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.

  5. #15
    Senior Member J Hoggatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Grand Island, NE.
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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.
    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......
    Attributed to Ben Franklin-
    "Don't Argue with Stupid People..... They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!"

    "When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid."

    "Arguing with Idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to sh$t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

  6. #16
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    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!!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  7. #17
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    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!
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  8. #18
    Senior Member Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Senior Member K G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    southeast us
    Posts
    5,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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
    I keep my PM box full. Use email to contact me: rockytopkg@aol.com.

  10. #20
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K G View Post
    Got any stats to back this up Jeff or is this one of your SWAGs?

    k g


    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/polit...gan010806.html). His average rating from January 1982 until January 1983 was 43% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ron...ll-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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •