Alaska Darin Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 I think you'd like Steve Laffey, who's running for in a Senate primary against Linc Chaffee (R(-INO)) in R.I. I can live with Republicans, and I might even vote for them again, if they govern rather than preach morals. I've watched him over the years and I mostly find myself saying "%$^& YEAH!" whenever he's on TV. He's the mayor in one of the bigger cities, took over when they were in the red by so much it wasn't even funny; cleaned it up and pissed off a lot of people b/c he cut off the gravy train and did things that made fiscal sense. The city is the better for it and they're getting back on track. Problem is, it would be one voice in 100. 446799[/snapback] Elect Laffey
/dev/null Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 If only we had a Republican revolution to replace these reckless spenders with financially responsible politicians. Oh, wait. We did. If you're a true conservative, and you support the GOP, please reconsider. 446460[/snapback] The "Republican Revolution" did an adequate job reigning in spending during the 1990s, mostly due to the stalemate with Clinton caused by the inability/unwillingness on both sides to reach any comprimises. Neither side could get what they wanted, so nobody got anything. But now that the Republicans have had control of the White House, House, and Senate for such a long time, they've started to enjoy controlling the purse strings. Its true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and now they are no better than the Democrats. GOP = DNC = RJ
Mickey Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Line item veto. 446544[/snapback] Yeah, so the President can cut the pork of the opposition. Presidents are just as hungry for ham as your average senator.
Ghost of BiB Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Yeah, so the President can cut the pork of the opposition. Presidents are just as hungry for ham as your average senator. 446928[/snapback] I still think the line item veto is a good idea. It would probably extend the passage time for spending bills, because each individual cut would have to be lobbied, but I still think in the long run it's one of those rare things that would make the system more honest. I know what you are saying about cutting the pork of the opposition - but that would be geared more towards protecting voting blocks, not any proprietary causes in most cases. For that reason, I doubt many Presidents want it either. Perhaps it can be re-introduced in a different form to make it through the SC. Everybody says they want change, but whenever a mechanism for change is suggested most jump up and shout no, for whatever reason. Getting rid of an administration you don't like and installing your warm fuzzy feeling of choice doesn't guarantee nor even imply any changes in the process. The Patriot Act comes to mind. Flawed in ways, but everyone wanted more security and when this popped up (looked at by many people who know why security is flawed) the masses screamed "NOOOOOOO". Why? It affects a perceived change of the individual right to do whatever we want, and that isn't even the issue. It's not just "Bush" or "Clinton", it's supposedly the people's government, and most people don't do much more than TIVO and complain.
Wacka Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 I can name a few things off the top of my head to cut.: The whole education dept, PBS, national endowment for the arts.
Terry Tate Posted September 19, 2005 Author Posted September 19, 2005 I think you'd like Steve Laffey, I think you're right.
KRC Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Yeah, so the President can cut the pork of the opposition. 446928[/snapback] Which is a step in the right direction.
Mickey Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 No need to stop there. Include the farm subsidies, NCLB, Medicare rx's, etc. etc. And that sums up why neither Republicans or Democrats will get my vote from now on. 446623[/snapback] Who does that leave, martians? Or at least, they sound like martians to me anyway. Libertarians maybe? I don't know, they seem to have a lot of crazies and to have too many divided factions.
Mickey Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Which is a step in the right direction. 447575[/snapback] Naaaah. Because at the same time he'll take what he cuts from them to feed his own pigs a bigger pile of slop. We deserve the leaders we get. The problem is that everyone sees their share of pork as vital and necessary, good for the whole country, noble even. Everyone else's pork is the wasteful kind. Any politician who has ever tried to run against that current has been quickly swept away. Look at the reaction to the base closings. That senator from SD, the guy who beat Daschle, was practically on his hands and knees trying to get their big base restored. All that politicking and pulling out all the stops worked, they got their base back. His constituents wept tears of joy at the news because they were able to save their own ox while someone else's got gored.
KRC Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Naaaah. Because at the same time he'll take what he cuts from them to feed his own pigs a bigger pile of slop. We deserve the leaders we get. The problem is that everyone sees their share of pork as vital and necessary, good for the whole country, noble even. Everyone else's pork is the wasteful kind. Any politician who has ever tried to run against that current has been quickly swept away. Look at the reaction to the base closings. That senator from SD, the guy who beat Daschle, was practically on his hands and knees trying to get their big base restored. All that politicking and pulling out all the stops worked, they got their base back. His constituents wept tears of joy at the news because they were able to save their own ox while someone else's got gored. 448347[/snapback] Which is why you vote for KRC for President. Campaign promises: -I will not submit a budget unless it contains a surplus. -I will not sign a budget unless it is at least balanced. If someone wants their precious base, they need to cut something else from their side. It forces the politicians to prioritize. They only have a certain amount of money to play with. If you run out of money, oh well. Sucks to be you. You want that rain forest in Indiana? Fine. What else are you going to cut from your state to pay for it?
Taro T Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Which is why you vote for KRC for President. Campaign promises: -I will not submit a budget unless it contains a surplus. -I will not sign a budget unless it is at least balanced. If someone wants their precious base, they need to cut something else from their side. It forces the politicians to prioritize. They only have a certain amount of money to play with. If you run out of money, oh well. Sucks to be you. You want that rain forest in Indiana? Fine. What else are you going to cut from your state to pay for it? 448363[/snapback] Are you including the social security surplus to get to a surplus or are you doing something that hasn't been done in decades and actually proposing a budget surplus? I never did figure out why no one (or very few) made mention of the fact that the late '90's surpluses weren't true surpluses. The government had a surplus if the SS money was thrown in, but considering that money has been earmarked for future spending, I don't really see how they could claim they had a surplus with a straight face. It's like somebody making $50,000 in a year, taking out a 2nd mortgage for $1,000,000, and spending $1,040,000 but claiming they MADE $10,000. Duh, looks good to me! I just don't want to be around next year when the mortgage payments begin to come due and the salary hasn't gone up any! Dave.
Alaska Darin Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Are you including the social security surplus to get to a surplus or are you doing something that hasn't been done in decades and actually proposing a budget surplus? I never did figure out why no one (or very few) made mention of the fact that the late '90's surpluses weren't true surpluses. The government had a surplus if the SS money was thrown in, but considering that money has been earmarked for future spending, I don't really see how they could claim they had a surplus with a straight face. It's like somebody making $50,000 in a year, taking out a 2nd mortgage for $1,000,000, and spending $1,040,000 but claiming they MADE $10,000. Duh, looks good to me! I just don't want to be around next year when the mortgage payments begin to come due and the salary hasn't gone up any! Dave. 448388[/snapback] I've said that about 3000 times here - but it falls on mostly deaf ears. Nothing more than creative accounting and media frenzy.
KRC Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 Are you including the social security surplus to get to a surplus or are you doing something that hasn't been done in decades and actually proposing a budget surplus? 448388[/snapback] A true budget surplus, not a phoney one. My goal is to pay down the debt. You can only accomplish this by having a true surplus. Unlike the current crop of politicians, I do not look at it as funny money. I have a separate program for Social Security.
KRC Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 I've said that about 3000 times here - but it falls on mostly deaf ears. Nothing more than creative accounting and media frenzy. 448405[/snapback] Bush Bad.
Ghost of BiB Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 A true budget surplus, not a phoney one. My goal is to pay down the debt. You can only accomplish this by having a true surplus. Unlike the current crop of politicians, I do not look at it as funny money. I have a separate program for Social Security. 448406[/snapback] Just stay away from my TDY money. I have some good trips planned.
EC-Bills Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 Which is why you vote for KRC for President. Campaign promises: -I will not submit a budget unless it contains a surplus. -I will not sign a budget unless it is at least balanced. If someone wants their precious base, they need to cut something else from their side. It forces the politicians to prioritize. They only have a certain amount of money to play with. If you run out of money, oh well. Sucks to be you. You want that rain forest in Indiana? Fine. What else are you going to cut from your state to pay for it? 448363[/snapback] Hey, wait a minute! Where's your communist agenda?!? I feel so misled
EC-Bills Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 Bush Bad. 448407[/snapback] Well that is what Comrade Stallin would say if he were alive today...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 Well that is what Comrade Stallin would say if he were alive today... 448536[/snapback] You said Hitler...almost.
Terry Tate Posted September 21, 2005 Author Posted September 21, 2005 Who does that leave, martians? Or at least, they sound like martians to me anyway. Libertarians maybe? I don't know, they seem to have a lot of crazies and to have too many divided factions. 448339[/snapback] No, Mickey. Crazy is when you keep voting for the same parties over and over again, expecting a different result.
Terry Tate Posted September 21, 2005 Author Posted September 21, 2005 Naaaah. Because at the same time he'll take what he cuts from them to feed his own pigs a bigger pile of slop. We deserve the leaders we get. The problem is that everyone sees their share of pork as vital and necessary, good for the whole country, noble even. Everyone else's pork is the wasteful kind. Any politician who has ever tried to run against that current has been quickly swept away. Look at the reaction to the base closings. That senator from SD, the guy who beat Daschle, was practically on his hands and knees trying to get their big base restored. All that politicking and pulling out all the stops worked, they got their base back. His constituents wept tears of joy at the news because they were able to save their own ox while someone else's got gored. First you tell me there's no one else left on earth to vote for, then you give a perfect example of why they shouldn't get my vote anymore. Flip-flop, flip-flop.
Recommended Posts