Jetstorm, I guess nutjobs are welcome here, since you help run it. For the new poster, name calling is permitted here as long as you are as much a right wing dittohead as Jetstorm is. Otherwise you have to practically say "mister" to every right winger here.
There isnt one common man on the entire capitol hill. They are all dirty and self serving. Party affiliation doesn't make someone crooked. The simply being there is enough.
<There isnt one common man on the entire capitol hill. They are all dirty and self serving. Party affiliation doesn't make someone crooked. The(m) simply being there is enough.> This is in some respects a true statement. Corporate money being waved under a politician's nose is evidently a deal buster when it comes to maintaining one's integrity on capital hill. To infer, however, that there is no difference between the parties and their goals is just not true. Earlier, Jetstorm made a comment that I found particularly misleading. <I'm tired of people in the United States, the country with the strongest workers safety and workers rights protections in the Western world, still saying it's not enough and still fomenting class warfare as a cheap, easy way to hustle votes out of the ignorant poor.> I don't know where he has been hiding, but worker's safety and workers rights protections have had to be fought for tooth and nail during every Republican administration of the last three decades. Worker's rights and salaries have been steadily eroding ever since the Reagan administration with only intermittent respites during the odd Democratic administration. Furthermore, if you want to talk about hustling votes from the ignorant poor, you need to look no further than the Bush tax cut. Bush has bought millions of votes for his party with this gambit. No shopaholic housewife has ever made more long term destructive use of a credit card than Bush has done with this borrow from the middle class to pay the rich scheme, yet he has sold it as a "Tax Cut." In actuality though it is a "Tax Deferral." What he has done is in effect max out the national credit card, then tell everyone that we all just got free money. When most poor and short sighted Americans look at their pitiful tax rebate check as some kind of windfall, they can't help but thank Mr. Bush for looking out for their best interests. I can't think of a sleazier <cheap, easy way to hustle votes out of the ignorant poor.> If you don't like your tax bracket today, don't worry because it is going up tomorrow. The good news, if there is any here, is that you don't have to worry about paying it all back because the spendthrift in the Whitehouse is spending our money so fast that we won't have that opportunity. That responsibility will fall to our children and their children after them. The party of limited government and fiscal responsibility has just enacted a major tax cut for the wealthiest Americans (their actual core constituency, for everyone else the tax cut is minor at best) while plunging us into a war that is costing American lives on a daily basis and is so expensive that they can't even bring themselves to include it in their budget figures. That's right, their current budget has the highest deficit in history without one penny of the multibillion dollar war costs being included. ÒThe Treasury Department said the gap was $374 billion, breaking the previous record of more than $290 billion in the 1992 budget year.Ó ÒAdministration officials warned that the deficit, which they blame on sluggish government revenues and rising expenses related to the war on terrorism, may be even larger in the current 2004 budget year, which began on October 1.Ó The administration blames the deficit not on the govt. windfall for the wealthy but on a sluggish economy, exactly the thing their tax giveaway was supposed to rectify. You can bet that with over 2.2 million jobs being lost since Bush came into office, things arenÕt going to improve anytime soon. http://www.onbusiness.ie/2003/1020/us01.html How did Bush answer for this expose of his horsesh*t approach to fiscal responsibility? He blithely promised the creation of 2.6 million jobs by the end of this year before his handlers came rushing in from the wings to correct him. His response appears to be "I'm not a statistician. I'm not a predictor." Maybe heÕs expecting for that 2.6 million job openings to be in the U.S. military. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.bush.jobs.ap/ IÕm no economist, but doesnÕt this appear to be a rather reckless way to steer this country into a prosperous future? In addition, I think Jetstorm might want to look into the <United States, the country with the strongest workers safety and workers rights protections in the Western world> statement. That may have been true at on time but a strong argument can be made that such is no longer the case. http://www.britainineurope.org.uk/sh_fact.phtml?fid=10
Well, gosh, CB, if you hate it so much and we are just such a cramp on your style, you are free to explore other forums. But I'd say the fact that you haven't been banned yet speaks to how open this forum really is. We'll let you say just almost anything you want to say on this board. Almost. But when you say stuff like, "The only good Republican is a dead Republican," well, gee, that just speaks for itself, doesn't it? And, judging by your past tones and statements, you aren't joking. You are dead serious when you say the de-humanizing things you say to posters who disagree with you. So what the heck do you expect? As long as we keep it clean and it's all in good fun, no problem. A little ribbing is okay. But let's not get personal and de-humanizing with our insults. Everybody has a right to their opinion and everybody's opinion has worth. It's just an Internet message board. Nothing to get worked up over.
Well, I'm glad you guys set me straight by telling me, in effect; -all corporations are evil. -all tax cuts are bad. -Democrats are far more fiscally responsible than Republicans. All three are generalizations that are more often false than true. The fact of the matter is, while W is far from a perfect fiscal steward or a Reagan-style budget cutter, there is nothing you can say he did that compares to, say, what Democrats did to the state of California's fiscal shape (basically destroyed it). I'll give ya'll one thing; it was unwise of Bush to cut taxes without also cutting spending. This is just a fact of life if you run a govt. I think our govt. would run a lot more efficiently and we would have less problems if we mandated balanced budgets for our federal govt. But that ain't happenin' anytime soon. Both parties have gotten addicted to pork. Only a few voices of sanity on both sides of the aisle cry out for fiscal justice for the taxpayers, but no one hears them. Yet I can't help but think that this "Oh, the awful budget deficit, Bush is spending us into oblivion" is nothing more than a red herring argument for our left-of-center friends, who seem to want the govt. to pay for all kinds of social programs (the rise of the "Mommy State"). So let's throw it out there then. We're what, $521 billion in the red? Okay folks, cut half a trillion from the federal budget. Keeping in mind; 1) Cuts to defense spending and intelligence and law enforcement are not an option. Like it or not, 9/11 changed the world and America has enemies that must be kept at bay. 2) Repealing the Bush tax cuts will pretty much bring our economic recovery to a screeching halt, as all the disposable income out there gets sucked up by Uncle Sam. What are you gonna cut? Now, I, being a cold, calculating, balanced budget kind of Republican, would brutally slash pork projects and (GASP!) social programs. But I gather ya'll don't want to do that. And I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that, if W coasts to re-election this November and steps to the podium in January to tell us we've got to balance the budget by dismantling Social Security, slashing farm subsidies, abolishing the federal Dept. of Education, etc., etc., the same guys here complaining about the deficit would be on here howling with rage about how evil W is going to starve the poor and throw old folks out of nursing homes with his terrible budget cuts. So which is it? And for me, just shrugging your shoulders, taking all my money and saying "High taxes are the price we must pay to live in a great nation" is not an acceptable option. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop with W, but even if it doesn't, he's a heck of a lot better than Kerry or Edwards simply on issues of national security. Budgets and economies always cycle out and get better. But the dangers out there are not going to just go away. To answer your question about labor standards Phatcat, name one thing Great Britain has for their workers that we don't. The only thing I can think of is a comprehensive trade agreement that gets work for Americans in foreign countries. Big whoop. They needed that because, for all their "protections," British workers can't find jobs. We have overtime pay. We limit how much overtime someone can work (last I checked, a manufacturing laborer can work 16 hours, then must go home for at least 8 hours) So the UK has a lower threshold than us. Since our unemployment rates are lower than the UK's, I'd say we're doing just fine. We have FMLA, just like them. We have a 40 hour work week, just like them. We have the same paid holidays that they do, just different national holidays. We get much shorter vacation time than they do, two weeks on average in America compared to four in UK. This is a good thing. We like our workers over here to actually WORK and be productive. We have maternity leave, just like them. We do not treat part time workers as the equal of full time workers. This is a good thing. If you were a full time worker, wouldn't you think you were entitled to benefits above and beyond what the 20 hour a week guys get? Again, the U.S. paved the way for labor standards in the Western world. Many of Europe's labor laws were modeled after ours. Unfortunately, socialist and trade-union sponsored govts. went way too far in most European countries, granting benefits like month long holidays and full benefits to part-timers. That is why unemployment in the U.S. hasn't been over 10% in years, while most European nations suffer from chronic double digit unemployment. And keep in mind, one of the greatest champions of fair labor standards and workers safety was a REPUBLICAN president, Teddy Roosevelt, who prevented an attempt by mining companies to put down a strike by force and fought for safer working conditions and higher wages for miners and meat packers, among other occupations. So don't say Republican presidents resisted workers rights. Some indeed did, but it was the Democrats who were resisting labor unions early on.
seriously though, I have to say that it's nice to see someone who can take a joke. As for a serious response, here you go... Fundamentally, the best thing for every American is more freedom. Liberals want to take away every economic freedom out there and maximize social freedom while Conservatives want to minimize the social ones and maximize the economic ones. IMO, economic freedom is more important than social freedom, so I vote Republican unless the race is a foregone conclusion, then I vote Libertarian. You seem to think that social freedom is extremely important while economic freedom is evil. You're wrong, but that, as they say, is not my dog. As for foreign policy, the multilateral, speak loudly and don't carry a stick foreign policy that many on your side advocate has been an unmitigated disaster that has put us into the situation we're in. When all is said and done, this country is safer today than it was 3 years ago.
Uh oh, Jetstorm hasn't been doing his homework... <Well, I'm glad you guys set me straight by telling me, in effect;> <-all corporations are evil.> Nope, never said it. <-all tax cuts are bad.> Nope, never said that either. <-Democrats are far more fiscally responsible than Republicans.> You know, I donÕt remember saying that, but I should have. <All three are generalizations that are more often false than true. The fact of the matter is, while W is far from a perfect fiscal steward or a Reagan-style budget cutter, there is nothing you can say he did that compares to, say, what Democrats did to the state of California's fiscal shape (basically destroyed it).> Once you do your homework and know WTF you are talking about, your previous statement should read Òthere is nothing you can say the Democrats did that compares to, say, what Republicans did to the state of California's fiscal shape (basically destroyed it)Ó http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/energy.html http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.22C.Enron.Manipulated.htm http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0A1EF6355E0C778DDDA10894DA404482 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10911FA3E5D0C778EDDA00894DA404482 and on and onÉ This isnÕt over with yet, and throughout the next nine months and beyond you can be sure that the courts will again be involved in this and the Bush White House along with their henchmen at Enron will have a lot of Òsplainin to do.Ó <Yet I can't help but think that this "Oh, the awful budget deficit, Bush is spending us into oblivion" is nothing more than a red herring argument for our left-of-center friends, who seem to want the govt. to pay for all kinds of social programs (the rise of the "Mommy State"). So let's throw it out there then. We're what, $521 billion in the red? Okay folks, cut half a trillion from the federal budget. Keeping in mind;> Uh... No thank you. This Budget Deficit Problem was created by you Republicans, so I hope you donÕt mind if we sit back and watch yÕall solve it. When the Democratic administration left office in 2000, there was a surplus, now the International Money Fund has recommended that ÒU.S. policymakers will need to lift taxes and cut spending to balance the federal budget, which has swung from a surplus of 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2000 to a deficit of just under 4 percent in 2003.Ó http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/01/08/us.imf/index.html <1) Cuts to defense spending and intelligence and law enforcement are not an option. Like it or not, 9/11 changed the world and America has enemies that must be kept at bay.> The world has had terrorists since before recorded history. Is it really necessary to issue Depends to all Americans because terrorists had a successful attack on this country? It doesnÕt take a massive build up of the U.S. military to stop a few rag heads from hijacking airliners. That is only needed for defending our own shores from attacking armies from outside the country or for invading other countries. <2) Repealing the Bush tax cuts will pretty much bring our economic recovery to a screeching halt, as all the disposable income out there gets sucked up by Uncle Sam.> The economic boom of the 90s was not fueled by tax cuts but by lowering the deficit thereby getting the massive interest payments off the economyÕs back. The recession that Bush is trying to address with his tax cut was caused in large part by corporate greed manifesting itself in the form of failed dot coms and corporations that went belly up costing investors billions due to voodoo accounting procedures, like President Bush's buddies over at Enron for example. <And for me, just shrugging your shoulders, taking all my money and saying "High taxes are the price we must pay to live in a great nation" is not an acceptable option. > Like it or not living in the greatest country on earth is a privilege that does not come for free. IÕm fairly certain that the rest of the world is doing their best to keep from crying their eyes out over the financial lot of wealthy Americans. <I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop with W, but even if it doesn't, he's a heck of a lot better than Kerry or Edwards simply on issues of national security. Budgets and economies always cycle out and get better. But the dangers out there are not going to just go away.> True, especially if we keep invading countries with our army over there in the terrorist incubator that is the middle east. If the stationing of 5000 troops in Saudi Arabia was the reason given by bin Laden for his attack on 9/11, then what do you suppose those maniacs think about the 180,000 that are over in their cat box today? Whether you like it or not, every 10 year old boy over there now dreams of being the next hero who strikes a blow against his countyÕs invaders. <To answer your question about labor standards Phatcat, name one thing Great Britain has for their workers that we don't.> Thanks but I donÕt have to as youÕve already named three on my behalf. <The only thing I can think of is a comprehensive trade agreement (1) that gets work for Americans in foreign countries. Big whoop. They needed that because, for all their "protections," British workers can't find jobs.> I see. That doesnÕt affect you so itÕs not important. I travel all over in my work, but I am unable to work in Canada because of restrictive Canadian and American labor agreements aimed at Americans. <We get much shorter vacation time than they do, two weeks on average in America compared to four in UK (2). This is a good thing. We like our workers over here to actually WORK and be productive.> I find this statement to be confusing to say the least. You see I am under the impression that from the workerÕs point of view it is a good thing to have an extra two weeks of paid vacation a year. Just for the record, how many weeks of paid vacation do you get per year? <We do not treat part time workers as the equal of full time workers. (3) This is a good thing. If you were a full time worker, wouldn't you think you were entitled to benefits above and beyond what the 20 hour a week guys get?> Once again look at things from the workersÕ point of view. Do you honestly think any full time employee is going to get his nose out of joint because part time employees are not getting screwed by their common employer? Try if at all possible to think about this from the workersÕ or anyone elseÕs point of view for that matter. It might not be a bad idea if you practiced that mental exercise on a regular basis, actually. There are other Americans who live in this democracy and as it turns out, itÕs NOT all about you. <Again, the U.S. paved the way for labor standards in the Western world. Many of Europe's labor laws were modeled after ours. Unfortunately, socialist and trade-union sponsored govts. went way too far in most European countries, granting benefits like month long holidays and full benefits to part-timers. That is why unemployment in the U.S. hasn't been over 10% in years, while most European nations suffer from chronic double digit unemployment.> So European labor laws are stronger than <the United States, the country with the strongest workers safety and workers rights protections in the Western world> then right?? <And keep in mind, one of the greatest champions of fair labor standards and workers safety was a REPUBLICAN president, Teddy Roosevelt, who prevented an attempt by mining companies to put down a strike by force and fought for safer working conditions and higher wages for miners and meat packers, among other occupations. So don't say Republican presidents resisted workers rights. Some indeed did, but it was the Democrats who were resisting labor unions early on.> DonÕt you find it in the least bit ironic that you had to go back over one hundred years to find an example of a Republican who championed fair labor standards? I personally find it interesting that after Roosevelt left office the Republican candidate who followed him, William Howard Taft, was so conservative and anti labor and environment that Teddy felt compelled to form his own Progressive third party to try to defeat them in 1912.
Re: Uh oh, Jetstorm hasn't been doing his homework... Is this just a bad cut and paste job? Even when I agree with you, I find myself having a hard time believing your thoughts are actually your own, this cut and paste fiasco sort of proves it. There is a good book on Enron you should read called The Smartest Guys in the Room. Its longer than your average post at a left-wing website and I doubt you can cut and paste the entire tome, but it is interesting reading.
Mea Culpa <Is this just a bad cut and paste job?> Sorry, mom, but look at what I had to work with. <Even when I agree with you, I find myself having a hard time believing your thoughts are actually your own, this cut and paste fiasco sort of proves it.> LOLÉ ThatÕs so sweet of you to say. Just whoÕs thoughts do you suppose I am channeling if I may be allowed to ask? Am I to assume you are working on some sort of metaphysical explanation for AmericaÕs new fastest growing sport of Bush Bashing? <There is a good book on Enron you should read called The Smartest Guys in the Room.> Thank you, but I think IÕll wait and read the court transcripts, thank you. You make it sound like the book is some kind of vindication of Kenny Boy and his gang of super crooks. Here is a review of the book. WeÕll see how smart those guys actually turn out to be after the courts are through with them and they are being introduced to their respective cellmates. "Like its subject, The Smartest Guys in the Room is ambitious, grand in scope, and ruthless in its dealings. Unlike Enron, the Texas-based energy giant that has come to represent the post-millennium collapse of 1990s go-go corporate culture, it's also ultimately successful. Penned by Fortune scribes Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, the 400-page-plus chronicle of the scandal digs deep inside the numbers while, wisely, maintaining focus on the "smart guys" deep-frying the books. The likes of paternal but disengaged CEO ( and soon to be arrested ) Ken Lay (dubbed "Kenny Boy" by George W. Bush, one of many prominent public figures with whom he rubbed shoulders), cutthroat man-behind-the-curtain Jeff Skilling, ( already arrested ) and ethically blind numbers whiz Andy Fastow ( yep, he's been arrested too ) vividly come to life as they make a mockery of conventional accounting practices and grow increasingly arrogant and bind to their collective hubris. They're not a likable lot, and the writers find it difficult to suppress their astonishment and revulsion with the crew who rapidly went from golden boys and girls of the financial world to pariahs when the bill finally came due. The authors' unrepressed sarcasms are more than often unnecessarily given the scope of the outrage. Enron's leading lights were for a time celebrated for their ability to concoct nearly unfathomable business schemes to hide mounting shortfalls, and keeping track of their machinations can be a chore, but by sticking hard to the story behind the fall, McLean and Elkind have reported and written the definitive account of the Enron debacle." --Steven Stolder Ouch! Not another phatcat cut and paste job! That rotten %&#@& !
