I don't look at generalizations as specifically about "me"......that's not the problem here. But those generalizations are made all the time around here to basically refute anything said that is not in line with the Tea Party/GOP viewpoint that predominates this board. If that generalization is good for you......how can you take offense to any generalization I make about the right? Seems pretty fair to me.
Yours was not a generalization but pointed straight at JO'Co. Like I said, do it any way you want, it's non my credibility at stake.
It's the "unlike some others on the right"....not Jim.... who are having generalizations made about them by that statement. And I stand by those generalizations.
Stand by anything you want, you took an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Jim and at the same time again show us your bias.
Actually, I think Dave is referring to me and has lumped himself in with the the folks I was talking about. To clarify, I object to those who say juvenile things like "we have got to tax the rich" because "rich" to them means anyone who they perceive as successful. They view income re-distribution as a means of leveling the playing field of life through forced legislation. They assign no value to hard work, education, initiative, risk taking and self sacrifice. It is simply " he's got it and I want it". I am decidedly not rich but I still object to such childish thinking. You can take whatever money I have left and give it to some guy who is chronically out of work, in trouble, uneducated and good at only fathering children and I still will come out on top because he will piss away the freebies and still be a worthless shmoe and I will come back because I have the skills and drive to make it. That line of thinking bothers Dave.
George, I don't want anyone to have to pay more taxes. My contention has been that the U.S. Treasury is down in revenues significantly due to the recession and Bush tax cuts and if we need more revenue to help fight the national debt then we get it from those that have it to give. I don't have it.....you don't have it......but some people.....as Warren Buffet said this week.....do have it to give.
Not one more dime until they gut this budget of all the ridiculous frivolous spending. Why would you give them any more to piss away? Are you expecting them to somehow exhibit common sense and restraint. They buy votes with your tax dollars.... you haven't figured that out?
Therein lies the great fallacy.....revenues are not down significantly, it ain't a revenue problem. The deficit equation contains two variables, revenues and expenditures. Your contention is that the deficit has been fueled by significantly lower revenues and ignores the expenditure problem and as a result focuses on increasing taxes to "raise revenue". Since Obama has taken office, the most recent federal budget data shows the deficit has risen by $672 billion.....of that total $33 billion or 5% is due to lower revenues......$639 billion or 95% is due to higher expenditures......so here is the logic of the lib/dem/socialists if I may...... Our country has a massive problem. 95% of our problem is due to balooning central government expenditures. Let's spend our energies on the 5% of the problem.....therefore we must take more money away from those that have earned it and fix the problem...... Clearly, by any rational measure, that is not the most effective or efficient way to address the problem. Cutting central government expenses is clearly more likely to alienate the political base even, by any rational measure, if it represents the most effective solution and therefore the best interest of the nation. Taking money from the wealthy clearly represents the best political path...... The lib/dem/socialists have opted not to expend their energies and political capital to pursue the most effective approach to address the national interest in favor of the easiest political path thereby jeopardizing the country's current world standing and the future of our society for generations to come......it is abundantly clear that these people are interested only in getting re-elected even if it comes at the expense of the national interest......and the Tea Party is a terrorist scumbag organization? Seriously? Is it any wonder these people can't run a lemonade stand? Because they have no interest in running the lemonade stand....their sole interest lies in standing behind the sign and waving at cars as they go buy......
BT....you have a good grasp of actual data....I know that. So.....how much of that 639 billion can be directly attributed to stimulus money/bailouts spent toward rescuing our economy from the deepest recession since the Great Depression? And how much if any......can be attributed to an increase in defense spending?
Do you really want me to answer that? I think not..... I will say this, of the $639 billion, the President that pledged to bring home the troops from Iraq, close Gitmo and begin to wind down the Afghan involvement after the stirring success of his surge strategy will spend $130 billion more or 20% more than any sitting president before him and is now waging war on the Libyans.... Of the remaining measly "half a trillion" or the remaining 80% of the hole, you tell me which of distorted expansions of already inflated federal bureaucracies were necessary and vital to "rescuing our economy" and I'll play along..... Then we can decide how much of that was helpful and worthy of continued investment.....in my view based upon it's effectiveness, stunning achievements and laser-like focus on the core issues of job creation and economic growth, I'm thinking we could put a pretty big dent in the measly "half a trillion" left over..... In truth my Gator friend, the lasting legacy of the "stimulus" package put forth by this administration and passed by the prior congress will be as one of the greatest examples of fiscal mismanagement and failures of leadership in the history of our country....I truly wish it weren't so, but I fear that it is and we are paying a horrific price........
I would be interested to see some itemization of the increase in expenditures since Obama took office. Some detail that shows 100 friends are new millionaires because of appointments, etc.... That sort of detail rooted in truth.....not in one big jellyroll of rhetoric.
just an FYI... I would stake it that, socially, I am the most liberal person on this board.. and I may well be the least compassionate. I would be far more apt to be accepting of government programs and assistance if they had nothing to do with your race, gender or sexual preference. There are plenty of people who need help, being brown, or gay or a woman has nothing to do with it. The fact that people still see those items as 'handicaps' without having the sand to admit that is why they are using those terms is just one of many reasons why we're so lost as a nation. Until people are willing to admit that those personal items that we use to identify ourselves by (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation) have f*ck all to do with actual policy, we're screwed.. just screwed.
The New Jersey State Police. Chronically understaffed to the point that my son's south Jersey barracks' now has three troopers servicing a 350 square mile sector. Because of budgetary restrictions they have not had an academy class in years. The state, buckling to federal pressure that the police force does not have enough minorities on staff began dumbing down the testing a few years ago. After many "adjustments" in the questions, they have succeeded in making the tests simple enough that the current class of 200 applicants chosen one year ago had 70 blacks included. But wait.... Since that time 50 of the AA candidates have withdrawn from the class. Now it is a class of 150 with 20 blacks. But wait.... A background investigation showed that 16 of the remaining 20 candidates have committed crimes in the past year. So they were dismissed. Now it is a class of 130 with 4 AAs. Because the academy itself is so challenging they will be lucky to net out 80-90 new troopers. The academy started last week.
... and people ask why I carry a gun. Because of budgetary concerns, police departments in general are stretched farther and farther every year. Response times have been and will continue rising due to fewer and fewer officers. As this happens, the criminals are taking advantage of the situation. Upper management once asked me: "To what do you attribute your success rate in the classroom?" My response was simply one word: "Preparation" I am now insuring success against the criminal element via the same method... preparation.
It's public information my friend.....here is one source. There are many others..... http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf
Taxing the rich <r><URL url="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv"><s></s><LINK_TEXT text="http://www.cns...fett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv</LINK_TEXT><e></e></URL></r>
Buffett can afford to talk big. He's got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel and $40B in his pocket.