4. An energy policy. Hellooo. So you don't like Kyoto. Nice. Good for you. What's your answer? Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? That's your answer? Conservation? Nope. Nada. What about getting other forms of energy going? Number of nuclear power plants built since the past 7 years = none.

Yes and you can thank both the democrats and the green weenies for that directly! Between the 2 they have shot down "every" proposed nuke plant. And I "really" think you should re-evaluate your statement, "after" you read this:
Link

1. I'd be curious to see the effect to this cause. I hear this kind of empty rhetoric all the time, then I look around and wonder what the fuss is about. I'm at the low end of the economic ladder in the US, and I'm not seeing the reality of your dismal view.

If you are concerned that the government might not have enough money to spend, remember that most Republicans would be overjoyed if they decided to spend a lot less. The problem is closet socialists on the left and right of congress keep writing bouncing checks regardless of whether the money is there or not.

So, like most people who define their argument by what it opposes, you don't really address the problem, you address the symptom, and suggest we feed the problem. If your kid spends all your money frivolously, you don't get a second job. If your government spends all your money frivolously, you don't lobby to send them more unless you are an idiot.

2. Had a Gore won we would have never even considered invading Afghanistan. Kerry didn't even want to militarily address Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, rather he wanted to "contain" Hussein and his prize collectively. There wouldn't have been expanded intelligence, and unless there was a whitewater or blue dress to distract people from probably wouldn't have been any response at all.

3. Wow, politicians lie? REALLY!!??!? So Dem politicians operate under those rules? Really? Oddly enough from what I read of their hijinks I don't think there's any preponderance of honesty or intent to be forthright on the Left, thanks.

4. We need more oil, so... we want to drill for more oil. Surprise. If we had some sort of infrastructure in place to use lots of new sources of energy maybe we'd do something different. We don't though, so any energy policy has to be based upon the reality of our energy needs. Granted, some people think deserted wasteland that probably won't be adversely effected is somehow more important than the economy they WHINE constantly about...

5. Baited question. Anything I'd put forth as a success you'd call a failure. If I say the economy, you'll continue the myth that it is in bad shape. If I say Iraq you'll make it out to be a failure. If I say our diplomatic stance you'll cry that the people I WANT to distance ourselves from are now distant. Your opinion of the administration colors anything they do, so of course you see nothing of benefit. You're walking around with crap-colored glasses.

Boy, do I miss the trolling button in the forums...

Republicans would be overjoyed if they decided to spend a lot less. - bakerstreet

*ahem*

Rrrrr-ight.

Anyone here overjoyed with the prospect of spending less money? Even while in debt?
How about if it's somebody else's money? What if you were more likely to have your tenure extended by spending someone else's money via down-home pork barrel expenditures?

The problem is closet socialists on the left and right of congress keep writing bouncing checks regardless of whether the money is there or not. - bakerstreet

Probably, but they don't hold the majority in the House, the Senate, or have a guy in the White House. Guess who keeps pushing through spending bill after spending bill and guess who doesn't veto it? You know the answer, and it's not the closet socialists on the left and right - how much domestic spending have you seen rise lately?

"Probably, but they don't hold the majority in the House, the Senate, or have a guy in the White House. Guess who keeps pushing through spending bill after spending bill and guess who doesn't veto it? You know the answer."

Odd then that they can keep "pushing" through all this junk, frankly. If our friends who feel our money is better spent by the government weren't the majority in both parties, the spending bills that pass OVERWHELMINGLY on both sides of the house wouldn't get passed.

You aren't addressing Republicans, Deference, you're addressing Congress. You're spinning it deftly to be about neo-republicanism, but it isn't. It's the same old stealing the taxpayer dollar that's been going on since the beginning. The only problem is when they aren't stealing enough to pay their bills, you support them stealing even more.

If you want to talk about political philosophy, I'm all for it. You can't say that based upon their political philosophy Republicans want to spend our money. If you want to talk about lying politicians though, don't specify a party unless you are brainwashed or blind.

The blogger here says people should fear my political philosophy, when in reality it is just dishonest politics on both sides to blame. It is just the standard election year rhetoric that is sadly swallowed by people who don't remember that it was all the same in previous administrations and congressional majorities.

The only problem is when they aren't stealing enough to pay their bills, you support them stealing even more. - Bakerstreet

Well, I don't. A good man will pass onto his children surplus, not debt. Don't think I'm referencing Bush v. Clinton - Clinton most certainly did not have a 'surplus'; that administration simply paid the deficet down a bit - as you probably know.

I'm certainly not dovetailing anything ejihad has said or joining his chorus, I'm only addressing what you've had to say, Bakerstreet.

[edited previous post]



The only problem is when they aren't stealing enough to pay their bills, you support them stealing even more. - Bakerstreet


Well, I don't. A good man will pass onto his children surplus, not debt. Don't think I'm referencing Bush Admin. Economy v. Clinton - Clinton most certainly did not have a 'surplus'; that administration simply paid the deficet down a bit - as you probably know.I'm certainly not dovetailing anything Calor has said or joining his chorus, I'm only addressing what you've had to say, Bakerstreet.





Odd then that they can keep "pushing" through all this junk, frankly. - Bakerstreet



Not at all. This government relies upon audience participation, citizens have been apathetic enough to diminish their hand on the levers of governmental action(s) such as spending.



Our current foreign policy makes fiscal conservativism unattainable. The people to blame are all of those that have voted for military appropriations for the last seven years. To what degree they will be held accountable should and will contribute to their constitution; possibly suffering eligibility for re-election.



It is just the standard election year rhetoric that is sadly swallowed by people who don't remember that it was all the same in previous administrations and congressional majorities.



Then let's make this the best throw-away-vote election ever and vote against the status quo. All of 'em.

"Then let's make this the best throw-away-vote election ever and vote against the status quo. All of 'em."

With that I can agree. People who make our political brainfreeze about Republicanism or their polar opposites are either deluded, or actively perpetuating the delusion. The problem is ineffectual and self-serving government out of control.

One wonders, in that light, why people would have a problem with cutting taxes and removing all the fuel for that fire that we can. Oddly, the people with the biggest beef about our government seem to be the ones who constantly rally voters to elect people who will steal more fuel for the fire.

With that I can agree. People who make our political brainfreeze about Republicanism or their polar opposites are either deluded, or actively perpetuating the delusion. The problem is ineffectual and self-serving government out of control. - Bakerstreet

I haven't seen much 'Republicansim' goin' on lately. I'm anti-tax-and-spend, pro-life, pro-conservative social values, pro-defense, pro-limited-government, but I don't see any of that being offered excepting empty pandering.

Of course, you are correct about it not being a single party issue. I mostly blame 'Republicans' because they are the majority, but, you know, Democrats have voted with them most of the time.


One wonders, in that light, why people would have a problem with cutting taxes and removing all the fuel for that fire that we can. Oddly, the people with the biggest beef about our government seem to be the ones who constantly rally voters to elect people who will steal more fuel for the fire. - Bakerstreet

I'm guessing it is a part of that 'detachment' from voter to elected official. But, no, you're talking about 'starving the beast' (maybe) - killing government spenditures by removing funding in the most concrete fashion - cutting funding of it by limiting citizen donation. This is the wrong way to tame the beast - we must first petition our representatives and make them understand their space and title is always temporary to allow ourselves the leverage currently lacking.

A vigilant public can tame the beast. Starving the beast just drives us into more national debt, as is evident by the Reagan administration, devoid of all positive opinion concerning the effects of Voodoo Economics. I really believe we only see a dull response to public whim today, and yesterday, and any day previous to the early 1900's. I also think that argument grows stronger the closer one gets to the present date.

1... While the deficit boomed, Republicans provided the wealthiest 1% with a massive tax cut. Yes, it was technically across the board. But the richest who pay the most got a huge windfall even as the deficit grows. Who gives tax cuts in a time of war? The rich did well in the 90s with the "high" tax rates.

Having read reports recently that tax revenue was significantly up and that the 'rich' were actually paying more in taxes as a result of the lowered rates, I'm curious how that translates to a 'massive tax cut'.

Although the tax rate was cut, the taxes collected were not reduced. More taxes paid does not equal "massive tax cut".

wtf is up with posts like #11? It's odd that these cut-and-pasters seemed to suddenly show up about the same time the new forums appeared. Are more of the forums like 'politics', etc., showing up on other Stardock sites now, instead of just 'internet', etc.?

I don't know Baker, but some of these posters have been a thorn in my side for the last few weeks. Most of the cut'n'paste kiddies are anonymous posters.


Get Rid of Anonymous Posters
Link

When your income does not equal your spending only a FOOL cuts their income while increasing spending. That has been the policy of Bush and the GOP. They have increased spending more then the Democrats and then have cut taxes for those that did not need a tax cut and made the deficit larger.

Had Bush listened to Buffet and Gates when they told Bush not to cut taxes for the Rich because the country needed the tax revenue FAR more then the Rich needed a tax cut, we would NOT be passing as much debt to our children.

Tax the rich....tax successful people. Just admit what you really want col.

"When your income does not equal your spending only a FOOL cuts their income while increasing spending."

And an equally foolish person blames their lack of income when they waste a great deal of what they make. A smart person cuts their spending to match their income. Unfortunately 60 years of closet socialism on the part of Democrats has left us with a large percent of the population we have to support.