Buftex Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 and mostly because you idiots continue to waste your energy pretending there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. 370485[/snapback] In the end, it everything comes down to that, huh AD? Your signature zinger! You make great arguments, but often they have nothing to do with the argument at hand...
Buftex Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Newsflash: $6,000 per citizen per year is entirely too much money to run ALL government entities - yet that's just what the behemoth that is Washington DC is spending annually regardless of who is running the show - and mostly because you idiots continue to waste your energy pretending there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. But let's keep repeating the horseshit about how there was a surplus. 370485[/snapback] Hey, I conceded your point about plenty of money being spent on the war effort. My point was, if we are really spending that much, where is it going, and what is it being spent on? Oh, so there was no surplus during the Clinton administration, that was all just a misconception that anyone as "plugged in" as you saw through all along? You should run for office, you are truly enlightened...
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Hey, I conceded your point about plenty of money being spent on the war effort. My point was, if we are really spending that much, where is it going, and what is it being spent on? Oh, so there was no surplus during the Clinton administration, that was all just a misconception that anyone as "plugged in" as you saw through all along? You should run for office, you are truly enlightened... 371131[/snapback] Sorry, I have integrity and less than zero interest in having to listen daily to mouthbreathers who refuse to deal in reality (also known as "constituents"). I can read a balance sheet. Stealing money from Social Security and dropping an IOU in a box is not a surplus (even friggin' Al Gore understood this). Not publically admitting there are off budget expenditures totalling hundreds of billions of dollars in addition to what's known is not a surplus. You can keep throwing the "plugged in" thing back at me, but it shows what you are. Just another mindless, soundbyte repeating drone who is part of the problem.
Buftex Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Sorry, I have integrity and less than zero interest in having to listen daily to mouthbreathers who refuse to deal in reality (also known as "constituents"). I can read a balance sheet. Stealing money from Social Security and dropping an IOU in a box is not a surplus (even friggin' Al Gore understood this). Not publically admitting there are off budget expenditures totalling hundreds of billions of dollars in addition to what's known is not a surplus. You can keep throwing the "plugged in" thing back at me, but it shows what you are. Just another mindless, soundbyte repeating drone who is part of the problem. 371136[/snapback] You ooze integrity AD!
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 You ooze integrity AD! 371147[/snapback] Ooh, you got me. I'm just crushed. I guess there's no way I'm gonna get all the way across the monkey bars at recess now.
Buftex Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Ooh, you got me. I'm just crushed. I guess there's no way I'm gonna get all the way across the monkey bars at recess now. 371151[/snapback] You can always kill a cat to take out your frustrations!
SilverNRed Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 You can always kill a cat to take out your frustrations! 371156[/snapback] That's what I'm saying......
Buftex Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 That's what I'm saying...... 371161[/snapback] "Mom, dad, we are worried about SilverNRed....."
Buckey Posted June 29, 2005 Author Posted June 29, 2005 Sorry, I have integrity and less than zero interest in having to listen daily to mouthbreathers who refuse to deal in reality (also known as "constituents"). I can read a balance sheet. Stealing money from Social Security and dropping an IOU in a box is not a surplus (even friggin' Al Gore understood this). Not publically admitting there are off budget expenditures totalling hundreds of billions of dollars in addition to what's known is not a surplus. You can keep throwing the "plugged in" thing back at me, but it shows what you are. Just another mindless, soundbyte repeating drone who is part of the problem. 371136[/snapback] If there was no surplus then what the F did Bush give us that bribe... uh tax cut with? If there was no surplus (I'ts your money) then Bush is even more incredinly irresponsible that I thought. BTW, I agree with AD (hate to say it) but there are massive amounts off money in debts and hidden costs not included in the phoney budget we see.
Buckey Posted June 29, 2005 Author Posted June 29, 2005 "Mom, dad, we are worried about SilverNRed....." 371174[/snapback] There's no hope son, we've done all we could.
Reuben Gant Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 There's no hope son, we've done all we could. 371187[/snapback] and the doctors think that the internet will soothe his nerves.
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 You can always kill a cat to take out your frustrations! 371156[/snapback] Shoot, I do that before each post. You're going to have to do better if you think you're going to help.
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 If there was no surplus then what the F did Bush give us that bribe... uh tax cut with? If there was no surplus (I'ts your money) then Bush is even more incredinly irresponsible that I thought. BTW, I agree with AD (hate to say it) but there are massive amounts off money in debts and hidden costs not included in the phoney budget we see. 371183[/snapback] The tax cuts weren't fiscally irresponsible. The increase in spending was. There isn't a country in recorded history that taxed its way to prosperity from recession and about the only way to keep the US government in check is to give them ALOT less money to spend in a discretionary manner and to demand they stay within those limits. You can keep repeating the Dummycrat talking points but they're not any more lucid the 512,349,788th time around.
Buftex Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 The tax cuts weren't fiscally irresponsible. The increase in spending was. There isn't a country in recorded history that taxed its way to prosperity from recession and about the only way to keep the US government in check is to give them ALOT less money to spend in a discretionary manner and to demand they stay within those limits. You can keep repeating the Dummycrat talking points but they're not any more lucid the 512,349,788th time around. 371313[/snapback] Chicken and egg! If the tax cut was not fiscally irresponsible, yet the administrations increased spending was (I know, you are going to tell me that is a myth too), aren't they both, together, ultimately fiscally irresponsible? Or at the very least, indicating a lack of understanding of how the economy works? If the president promises tax cuts, gives them, then goes and spends money like it is about to plummet in value (ha-ha!), what does that tell you? It has nothing to do with Dummycrats or Repulsivos, and everything to do with this specific president...
/dev/null Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Chicken and egg! If the tax cut was not fiscally irresponsible, yet the administrations increased spending was (I know, you are going to tell me that is a myth too), aren't they both, together, ultimately fiscally irresponsible? Or at the very least, indicating a lack of understanding of how the economy works? If the president promises tax cuts, gives them, then goes and spends money like it is about to plummet in value (ha-ha!), what does that tell you? It has nothing to do with Dummycrats or Repulsivos, and everything to do with this specific president... 371344[/snapback] Chicken and egg? Is that a variety of HotPockets®
EC-Bills Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Shoot, I do that before each post. You're going to have to do better if you think you're going to help. 371310[/snapback] Note to self: Never invite Darin over to house. Always meet in public place. Protect the kitties at all cost.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Chicken and egg? Is that a variety of HotPockets® 371362[/snapback] After reading his post, I'm not even sure he knows what the analogy means...
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Chicken and egg! If the tax cut was not fiscally irresponsible, yet the administrations increased spending was (I know, you are going to tell me that is a myth too), aren't they both, together, ultimately fiscally irresponsible? Or at the very least, indicating a lack of understanding of how the economy works? If the president promises tax cuts, gives them, then goes and spends money like it is about to plummet in value (ha-ha!), what does that tell you? It has nothing to do with Dummycrats or Repulsivos, and everything to do with this specific president... 371344[/snapback] Try learning how the government works. The Administration doesn't control the purse strings, Congress does (though it is laughable that the President made it through an entire term without a veto to his credit). Both parties are guilty and pretending it's the work of just one evil man is as abhorrent as it is misguided. It says alot about you and how easy it is to push you around mentally. I don't know what planet you are on but I have pretty much zero love for this administration, especially on the domestic policy side of the house. The tax cut didn't go far enough and they haven't done anywhere near enough to reign in the government. That's the biggest issue I have with the Republicans - they campaign like libertarians and govern like liberals, giving their base a crumb every once in awhile with something like "the Flag Burning Amendment." Jerks. As far as "chicken and egg", that's a terrible analogy for the situation. The landing from the recession was about as soft as it could be, so the tax cut worked in that regard, as well as giving the government even more money to spend (amazing how that works). The reverse would have lengthened the pain of the populous quite a bit.
EC-Bills Posted June 29, 2005 Posted June 29, 2005 Try learning how the government works. The Administration doesn't control the purse strings, Congress does (though it is laughable that the President made it through an entire term without a veto to his credit). Both parties are guilty and pretending it's the work of just one evil man is as abhorrent as it is misguided. It says alot about you and how easy it is to push you around mentally. I don't know what planet you are on but I have pretty much zero love for this administration, especially on the domestic policy side of the house. The tax cut didn't go far enough and they haven't done anywhere near enough to reign in the government. That's the biggest issue I have with the Republicans - they campaign like libertarians and govern like liberals, giving their base a crumb every once in awhile with something like "the Flag Burning Amendment." Jerks. As far as "chicken and egg", that's a terrible analogy for the situation. The landing from the recession was about as soft as it could be, so the tax cut worked in that regard, as well as giving the government even more money to spend (amazing how that works). The reverse would have lengthened the pain of the populous quite a bit. 371377[/snapback] You can try to woo me all you want with your smooth talking ways on government stuff, but I am still not inviting you over to shoot my cats!
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 You can try to woo me all you want with your smooth talking ways on government stuff, but I am still not inviting you over to shoot my cats! 371388[/snapback] By making me reply, you've added one more to today's pile. Hope your conscience is clear.
Recommended Posts