EC-Bills Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 By making me reply, you've added one more to today's pile. Hope your conscience is clear. 371397[/snapback]
Buftex Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 (though it is laughable that the President made it through an entire term without a veto to his credit). 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] Well, if my analogy was terrible, it was response to your assertion that the tax cut was not fiscally irresponsible, yet government overspending was. If the tax cuts helped through the recession, and gave the government more money to spend, does that mean that it has to be spent? If congress is responsible, who has the power to stop them?
VABills Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 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] Do you consider Jefferson, John Adams or John Q. Adams to be good presidents? How about Harrison, Taylor, Filmore, or Garfield? What about Washington, Monroe or Van Beuren?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Do you consider Jefferson, John Adams or John Q. Adams to be good presidents? How about Harrison, Taylor, Filmore, or Garfield? What about Washington, Monroe or Van Beuren? 371424[/snapback] Well, that all depends on if you mean "good presidents", "presidents he likes even though they're not good", or "presidents he likes regardless of whether or not they're good presidents, just so they're good presidents despite his liking/not liking them"... Daddy Daycare, huh...?
VABills Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Well, that all depends on if you mean "good presidents", "presidents he likes even though they're not good", or "presidents he likes regardless of whether or not they're good presidents, just so they're good presidents despite his liking/not liking them"... Daddy Daycare, huh...? 371434[/snapback] No my point was Jefferson, both Adams, Harrison, Folmore, Garfield and Taylor never had a veto either. Monroe had one. Washington and Van Beuren each had two. So vetoing something doesn't make it good or bad. Bush has had the opportunity to work things out and tell Congress what to send over since he has had a completely republican house and senate. Therefore, nothing should get vetoed as he can control what hits his desk by working within ihis party and not making either himself or congress look bad by sending a sh-- bill over.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 No my point was Jefferson, both Adams, Harrison, Folmore, Garfield and Taylor never had a veto either. Monroe had one. Washington and Van Beuren each had two. So vetoing something doesn't make it good or bad. Bush has had the opportunity to work things out and tell Congress what to send over since he has had a completely republican house and senate. Therefore, nothing should get vetoed as he can control what hits his desk by working within ihis party and not making either himself or congress look bad by sending a sh-- bill over. 371438[/snapback] That's actually a very good point. And everything was spelled right, too...
VABills Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 That's actually a very good point. And everything was spelled right, too... 371440[/snapback] I know the whole facts thing. I like to use them, unlike some folks around here.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 He spent all day looking it up in his government job.
VABills Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 He spent all day looking it up in his government job. 371454[/snapback] No, any moron knows that Jefferson never vetoed a bill. The rest were easy enough to look up.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 No, any moron knows that Jefferson never vetoed a bill. The rest were easy enough to look up. 371455[/snapback] I'm not any moron. I work very hard, every day to be a specific kind of moron. You dissing me? I'm not sure, since I'm a moron.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 He spent all day looking it up in his government job. 371454[/snapback] After he got his booster seat back so he could reach the keyboard...
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Well, if my analogy was terrible, it was response to your assertion that the tax cut was not fiscally irresponsible, yet government overspending was. Giving money back to the people means there is at least a chance that someone will create wealth. Giving more money to the government guarantees that won't happen. Try thinking. It can be painful but if you do it often enough even that subsides. If the tax cuts helped through the recession, and gave the government more money to spend, does that mean that it has to be spent? Uh, no. But when was the last time Congress was fiscally responsible? If congress is responsible, who has the power to stop them? Their constituents but they ain't the least bit interested, nor apparently all that informed - there's always something more entertaining on television. *Note the proper use of quotes. Multiple times even.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Uh, no. But when was the last time Congress was fiscally responsible? Their constituents but they ain't the least bit interested, nor apparently all that informed - there's always something more entertaining on television. 371488[/snapback] It's not Congress, dummy. It's Bush's fault. Like when the next defense budget comes out at well over $400 billion...that'll be Bush's fault, too. Even though Congress is giving the Pentagon more than the White House has asked for...it's still Bush's fault.
Buftex Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Giving money back to the people means there is at least a chance that someone will create wealth. Giving more money to the government guarantees that won't happen. Try thinking. It can be painful but if you do it often enough even that subsides.Uh, no. But when was the last time Congress was fiscally responsible? Their constituents but they ain't the least bit interested, nor apparently all that informed - there's always something more entertaining on television. *Note the proper use of quotes. Multiple times even. 371488[/snapback] Seriously, AD, you have made the same point three times, and I have been essentially agreeing with it, but you keep arguing it, as if you are saying something different. If the president gives a tax break, to create a "chance that someone will create wealth", and then turns around and spends money (I know, it is congress that spent all the money, but the president has the power of veto, which he does not exercise) like it is going out of style, the benefit of the tax break is minimized. I really am trying to understand. You probably shouldn't try to explain it again, I am a mental midget, and would hate to think a cat is killed each time you have to respond to one of my posts.... *Note on your note on the proper use of quotes. I post, qutie often, from an ancient Mac, and it simply not compatable with some of the functions on this message board, without crashing or freezing up. I appreciate the kindly advice though, old sage!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 *Note on your note on the proper use of quotes. I post, qutie often, from an ancient Mac, and it simply not compatable with some of the functions on this message board, without crashing or freezing up. I appreciate the kindly advice though, old sage! 371589[/snapback] Note on ancient Macs: that lameass excuse only works if your ancient keyboard's missing the 'Q'... "For your information, I can't type ' ' because I have an old computer..." Please...
Buftex Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Note on ancient Macs: that lameass excuse only works if your ancient keyboard's missing the 'Q'... "For your information, I can't type '(QUOTE)' because I have an old computer..." Please... 371591[/snapback] Lame as it may be, it is true my little crap thrower! And, my "Q" button works just fine!
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Lame as it may be, it is true my little crap thrower! And, my "Q" button works just fine! 371631[/snapback] Gee, lookie there you can quote. Neato.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Gee, lookie there you can quote. Neato. 371747[/snapback] No he can't. He has an old Mac, it doesn't support it. You're seeing things again.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 No he can't. He has an old Mac, it doesn't support it. You're seeing things again. 371756[/snapback] LOL...
John Adams Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 No my point was Jefferson, both Adams, Harrison, Folmore, Garfield and Taylor never had a veto either. Monroe had one. Washington and Van Beuren each had two. So vetoing something doesn't make it good or bad. Bush has had the opportunity to work things out and tell Congress what to send over since he has had a completely republican house and senate. Therefore, nothing should get vetoed as he can control what hits his desk by working within ihis party and not making either himself or congress look bad by sending a sh-- bill over. 371438[/snapback] Sorry I didn't use the veto. As you may recall though, the federal government actually understood its limitations a little better back when I was in charge.
Recommended Posts