Author Topic: New to U.S, plz exxplain (Read 895 times)

capt. apathy · « **Reply #30 on:** September 23, 2002, 12:41:34 PM »

Quote

democrats consist of women, effeminate men and men who think that women will like them if they pretend to be womanly.

wlak into your your nearest union meeting, goto the center of the room and repeat that statement. I bet you don't make it to the door still standing.

10Bears · « **Reply #31 on:** September 23, 2002, 01:45:56 PM »

You really think that the president has omnipotent power to control the economy?

Yes, any administration can greatly effect the economy. Reagan wasn’t lying back in the 80’s when he said his administration created 10 million new jobs. Research and development funding, trade missions, loans for small business startups, keeping interest percentages low all have an effect.

The government can positively influence the economy by tax cuts (like John Kennedy advocated)

It sure can! especially tax cuts targeted to the greatest number of tax payers. Unfortunately the current administration was able to get passed tax cuts that benefit the top tire of tax payers. For the majority of Americans a $90 to $150 a year tax cut doesn’t do much to stimulate the economy.

Alan Greenspan has much greater power to influence the economy than the president or congress does; all he has to say is irrational exuberance, and the stock market takes a dive. Add or subtract a 1/4 point, and see what happens.

You must be referring to what Greenspan said back in ’96, luckily we had four more years of what he calls “irrational exuberance” As it is now, with a deficit of 165 billion and rising, if the Fed cuts interest rates any more you’ll have deflation. It can only go up. Are you old enough to have bought a new car back in the 80s like I did?.

And yes, the president has a pen that he can use to sign or veto the laws that congress writes

And so the question remains --- why didn’t he veto this over bloated budget? His own party sent over a budget for him to either veto or sign-- who in the end of the day takes responsibility?

Republicans = Personal responsibility

Yes this is one of the great Republican mantras. Can you point out an example of these Republicans taking responsibility for anything?

300 billion surplus turns to 165 billion deficit in one year.. Um sorry, Clinton’s fault, the economy started to falter on his watch.
911 could have be prevented if the FBI and CIA hadn’t dropped the ball or anti terrorism proposals shelved. Urm.. so sorry.. Clinton’s fault.. He had a chance to get Bin Ladin back in ’94..
Enron, Duke, Reliant, Worldcom, some of the current President’s financial backers are up to their neck in fraud and corruption. An example is the phony energy crisis in California in which the administration conspired with these thieves. Er not our responsibility Clinton’s fault.. He set the tone back in the ’90s with his dandelions with Lewinsky.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #32 on:** September 23, 2002, 02:20:49 PM »

Lets not forget what Daschel was doing with his "Corporate America" while your posting about corruption, 10bears

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** September 23, 2002, 02:56:43 PM »

"wlak into your your nearest union meeting, goto the center of the room and repeat that statement. I bet you don't make it to the door still standing."

I wouldn't repeat that statement in the middle of a breast cancer convention either. I have no illusions of just how mean either group could be when they have the numbers. Besides... these days.... union meetings have a population of about 50% women anyhow... the remaining "men" are either in touch with their feminine side or are one issue voters.... Like the teachers union... they vote for who they are told to vote for and have no idea why.
lazs

capt. apathy · « **Reply #34 on:** September 23, 2002, 03:00:07 PM »

what union meetings have you been to? not many people like you decribe at my unions meetings.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #35 on:** September 23, 2002, 03:03:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Like the teachers union... they vote for who they are told to vote for and have no idea why.
lazs

This I can confirm.

miko2d · « **Reply #36 on:** September 23, 2002, 03:12:17 PM »

Politics does not work that way. There is no way for a politician to take credit for preventing something - unless he prevents absolutely everything that can be conceived but since many requirements are mutually exclusive, that is even theoretically impossible.

On the other hand if bad thing happens, he cannot be held responcible except not be reelected. Even that is arguable since he can always blame his predecessor, interference of the opposing party in congress/senate or incompetent underlings.

Politicians get much more mileage from fighting bad things that are already there than from preventing them.

Imagine Bush learning about 911 in advance, disrupting it and doing what he did - invading Afghanistan and going after Iraq. How much approval would he have gotten?

Bush senior father lost election to Clinton even though he prevented terrorist acts against US - but he did not prevent slight recession, or ozone hole or myriad other things.

When you hire a processional - say to manage your network, and you know him to be good and networks to be pain to administer - and if nothing major happens in a year, you are sure he did a great job and pay him a bonus - even if he seemed to do little. But of course you have brains if you are in a position to hire a network administrator.
You do not need brains to vote for a politician.

In electing a politician it' more like a stupid guy posting an impossible job and collecting bids to do it. He is guaranteed to get only crooks who will assure him they can do it well even though they know they can't.

miko

senna · « **Reply #37 on:** September 23, 2002, 03:14:38 PM »

Alot of the political agendas are getting old and wearing thin, no matter how hard the polititions try to resurface them as agendas. In the end they never tie the knot on these ideas as they are tools. I think America needs to reaffirm itself and start making some political progress again. IMHO, alot of these ideas and subjects should really have been rather settled and made firm somehow, allowing the generations to adopt them naturally rather than choose. Need to make progress, move forward otherwise the problems just keep dividing themselves and get worse, same dumb basic agendas in 50 years from now. I hope not. The human race can handle its societal problems quite well so far, Im not sure if we can adapt as fast as the problem might grow in the long run? If people dont adapt, alot will be left out. I sound sorta like a Rep but I also believe in some lib ideas of course. Collen Powell for presidente!

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #38 on:** September 23, 2002, 03:34:09 PM »

An example of stereotyping: Republicans tax cuts go to the rich.

I benefitted from last year's tax cut...and I am quite a distance removed from being "rich."

Various government taxes take 1/3 of everything I earn...and I don't earn very much. Any political group that gives part of it back to me has my support.

That's why I haven't voted Democratic in a single election during the last 20 years.

If my sons had not qualified for scholarships, I would have had to have gone deeply into debt to send them to college.

I could use another tax cut. Right now, there is only one political party in the United States that will seriously consider giving me one. I'll vote for their candidates, thank you! The other party will continue to spend my tax dollars to fund government programs that buy the votes of those addicted to government largesse. I will not vote for that party, thank you very much!

Regards, Shuckins

miko2d · « **Reply #39 on:** September 23, 2002, 03:53:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
An example of stereotyping: Republicans tax cuts go to the rich.

Which is true. With our progressive system - and even with a flat tax system, people who make more money pay more taxes. The same people benefit more when taxes are cut.

When you buy a service or hire a bodyguard, they do not charge you based on what you make but on what you use - how much service you use or how many persons to guard.
If you make a lot of money, you either earned it or provided jobs through business. And money are only good if you spend them (providing more jobs, etc), otherwise it's just paper.

With government, you get charged for services like monetary policy or military protection not based on what you use but on how much you make.

It used to be people needed to organise in groups to overwhelm someone by strength of numbers and take their posessions.
Civilisation just made it legal by introducing that "democracy" concept. Saves a lot of effort for all concerned - no need to form mobs and loot, just vote to have people taxed and proceeds distributed.

miko

MrBill · « **Reply #40 on:** September 23, 2002, 04:11:13 PM »

Democrats = 14 sheep and one wolf in sheep's clothing voting on what's for lunch.
Republicans = 14 wolves and one sheep voting on what's for lunch.

Neither vote makes one iota of difference on what's for lunch.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #41 on:** September 23, 2002, 04:14:06 PM »

the sad thing about the democratic party is that while it was intended to represent (and most of it's members are) working people. we are mostly at work. busy lifes and whatnot so the people who are also in the same party (welfare types, activists) seem to have more time to devote to having a louder voice.

narsus · « **Reply #42 on:** September 23, 2002, 04:37:41 PM »

lazs liberitarian all the way woohoo.

I am fairly middle of the isle on many issues I am against abortion with exceptions, for the death penalty (the person will never murder again will he/she). All for right to bear arms, but must have responsibility. Stop taxing me, get rid of the bloated government for something leaner and meaner. I don't blame America first, I believe in common sense, all politicians are scum. etc.

mauser · « **Reply #43 on:** September 23, 2002, 04:54:43 PM »

Yep, I think most of the generalizations here work

I dislike both equally. When the general election comes along, I will vote for Mr. Bu Laia for governor. He is a local comedian who a few years ago liked to walk around with rubber slippers, surf shorts and a tank top, false gap in his teeth, and a natty lookin hairdo. One of his favorite words was "edumacation." Tried to run for governor before but was too young and thus disqualified. Last time I heard he was trying again - and will be under one of the other "independent" parties. Btw, his name is a play on words and eventually translates to "Bull Sh$%@er" I think. When he loses and the status quo in Hawaii remains due to whoever assumes power, I'll get that bumper sticker I saw from years ago before saying "No blame me, I voted for Bu."

mauser

illo · « **Reply #44 on:** September 23, 2002, 05:09:04 PM »

OH... you really have a choice?