This is for the liberals out there...

[BiggestBest]

Originally Posted by scorpio31

Qualified candidates that have no history of owing some lobbying group, and certainly not you!

No reason to get personal again.

Give one example. Someone you would put in Washington who doesn't owe some "lobbying group".

[Guest090920]

Originally Posted by BiggestBest

No reason to get personal again.

Give one example. Someone you would put in Washington who doesn't owe some "lobbying group".

To use your words, "stop trolling".

[john_galt]

What constititutes compromise? Two people standing near a cliff with a drop of 300 feet. One person wants to throw the other off the cliff. They push at each other back and forth for hours. They find themselves 20 feet from the cliff and the one that just wants to be left alone is facing AWAY from the cliff (his back is to the cliff). The pusher says lets compromise. I want to throw you off the cliff and you don't want to go. Why don't we get 10 feet closer to the cliff. That way neither of us is happy so both of us are happy. Let's compromise. The other guy is tired so he agrees just to get some peace. After a few minutes the pusher jumps up and starts pushing the other guy towards the cliff again. After a couple of fruitless hours (they are pretty evenly matched) the pusher once again appeals for compromise. Let's go back to the five foot mark. You know that neither one of us will be satified so it is a good compromise. Once again, in order not to be called an obstructionist, the other guy agrees to go to the five foot mark. They have a nice meal and suddenly the pusher jumps to his feet again. Hoping to find an advantage he is able to push the victim back a couple of feet but fails to get him over the cliff. After a couple more hours of endless struggle the prospective murderer demands a compromise and the crowd that has gathered is shouting at the victim "don't be such a party pooper, compromise". You see where this is going and the problem of how you define compromise.
We conservatives want freedom from government and to be left alone to run our own lives. Liberals keep coming back saying let us compromise and you give up some freedoms in the name of mutual peace.

[CuteOldGuy]

This country abdicated its Constitution in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the enactment of the income tax, and instituting the popular election of Senators. We have been sliding toward totalitarianism ever since then. We are just getting closer to the end, which is why things are changing faster now. If there was a way to stop the decline, I'd be all for it, but I don't see anything, or anyone in power interested in stopping it. The goal for both sides is to be the ones in power when the end finally comes.

Not being cynical, just realistic. The key is to determine to be happy regardless. This crap will drive you nuts if you focus on it. So I don't.

[BiggestBest]

Originally Posted by scorpio31

To use your words, "stop trolling".

Trolling is to "post to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose".

I am just making a point:

You won't propose a candidate to replace one of the "bums" you want to throw out, because it is easier to take a negative action (complaining about the "bums") than to take a positive action (proposing a viable replacement).

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by BiggestBest

It is easy to jump on the "throw the bums out" bandwagon.

The question is who are you going to put in their place?

I have posed this same question in the past. Apparently some live in a fantasy land where there is a list of future politicians that are just waiting to do good for the people (of course good is only relative to that person's political views). Any new congressmen will become as jaded, corrupt, and beholden to special interests as our current politicians. There is no more governing of the people, by the people and for the people.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by john_galt

We conservatives want freedom from government and to be left alone to run our own lives. Liberals keep coming back saying let us compromise and you give up some freedoms in the name of mutual peace.

Seems as if someone conveniently forgot that Bush enacted the Patriot Act and its warrantless wiretaps, which Obama extended. Seems no one wants for us to have our freedom.

[dirty dog]

But Papa, it should be pointed out and this is a source of irritation for me personally, but many assume that a anti Obama sentiment on a subject in some way means that the person was pro Bush. It doesnt and it is frustrating to here it. Its not secret that Bush was more a progressive than a conservative as he loved to spend and loved to grow the size of government.

[Omahan]

BiggestBest, Scorpio, you both need to quit jabbing each other. The topic is not the two of you.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

I have posed this same question in the past. Apparently some live in a fantasy land where there is a list of future politicians that are just waiting to do good for the people (of course good is only relative to that person's political views). Any new congressmen will become as jaded, corrupt, and beholden to special interests as our current politicians. There is no more governing of the people, by the people and for the people.

My point exactly. The answer is to love your children, drink beer, and hobby. Nothing else we do will make any difference.

[lacrew_2000]

"You want lower budget deficits? End the wars. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, or end them now"

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of tax policy. Tax receipts went up[ after the tax cuts - it can be
Googled.

2000

2,025,457

2001

1,991,426

2002

1,853,395

2003

1,782,532

2004

1,880,279

2005

2,153,859

2006

2,407,254

2007

2,568,239

2008

2,524,326

The Tax relief act was signed in 2003. If there is any causal relationship between tax cuts and tax receipts, it is reverse of what is claimed...the cuts actually increase revenue.

Art Laffer has a famous graph, the Laffer curve. It shows that tax revenue would be $0 at a 0% rate...fairly obvious. It also shows $0 at a 100% rate. Again obvious - who would work for nothing. Somewhere in the middle is the 'sweet spot' where revenue is highest. Were taxes too high or too low before the Bush cuts? Well, seeing as revenue went up after they were cut, it seems logical that they were on the high side of the curve. It also seems logical to expect revenue to fall if the tax cuts expire.

When I oppose higher taxes, its not because it affects me. I'm small fry...I'm not in the top rate. But it quite simply will reduce receipts to the treasury, and generally slow economic activity (which equals opportunity for class mobility).

And of all the things I disagree with this president about, his reflexive disdain for big business and personal wealth bugs me the most. He will let the cuts expire (and so will congress), and we will be told our taxes haven't gone up. Well, I plan to change my w-4 to plan for it, so I don't pay an underpayment penalty...so it will sure seem like my taxes have gone up.

As much as I hate the debt we are accumulating, I was actually for the stimulus package. We could grow our way out of our debt. Unfortunately, it is being spent on temporary positions in police departments, instead of hard infrastructure like was done in the 30's...for the most part, so I am disappointed with it. But ask the question: what is the difference between the stimulus and lowering taxes? Not mmuch really. Both are designed to put more money into the economy....just in a different way...so why are we suddenly so averse to keeping the tax cuts? Especially when it appears letting them expire will decrease revenue.

[dirty dog]

"the thing is dirty you & everybody else wants to keep calling me a lib thats what makes me mad if nothing else I am a indy i make enough money & am happy that really left or right don't really bother me what ever they do in dc wont change what I make or what I do."

Well as long as your happy right, unfortunately I employee 5 Managers and 60 employees. They make a good wage and are happy to, but see the things they do in DC affect me, when it costs me more to operate it brings me one step closer to losing a buiness and putting people out of work. See that affects me cheaper, I got familys that count on me to make good decisions. So issues that raise taxes, raise costs. I know, I know, if you own a business your rich right, well no wrong, all my money is tied up in Leases, utilities, inventory, taxes. So I am glad you make enough money and your happy, it warms my heart actually, if you want to stop being called a liberal then dont subscribe to a liberal belief, there is no such thing as an "indy" when it comes to your ideology, your either liberal, moderate or conservative. Indepent or "indy" denote your party affiliation. I know its easy for you guys that have it made to think that because someone objects to paying more taxes is just because were greeding SOB's, that just want to keep the money. Maybe if you actually ran a business and knew the costs that doing so entails and the amount of money you pay in taxes whether they be income, coperate, payroll when you do that if you can still tell me that you make enough then I take my hat off to you.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

DD I like what I said previously so much I will repeat part of it:

It takes two sides, with conversation, cooperation and contribution instead of vitriol, accusation and false piousness.

To partially quote Gunnery Sgt Tom Highway from Heartbreak Ridge " this doesn't mean we'll be taking warm showers together until the wee hours of the morning." LOL

Bart, ole buddy, I know your trying to paint the picture that this partisan politics thing is new, I sure dont remember the democrat congress the last two years of Bush being the model of cooperation and contribution. The point to my response to your initial post is you see what you perceive. If the person in office is someone you hate the amount of negative attacks that will register to you will not seem as great, if the person is someone you like than you will be hypersensative to it. For every situation you named I named a liberal/democrat equivelent. Both sides are the same, it just depends on your prespective.

I am now going to bow out of this conversation and leave it to you fine gentlement to bicker over LOL.

[BiggestBest]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

... Maybe if you actually ran a business and knew the costs that doing so entails and the amount of money you pay in taxes whether they be income, corporate, payroll when you do that if you can still tell me that you make enough then I take my hat off to you.

Most people are surprised to learn that 10 out of 11 new businesses close within the first 3 years (unless it is a restaurant, then it's 19 out of 20 - that's no joke). And those were the numbers BEFORE the economy got worse.

Those closed businesses almost always represent someone who thought they knew what it takes to run a business.

[Cheaper2buyit]

dirty I told you I am self employed & ok off topic but really on topic I am tough on def I am for lower taxes, I might feel that the people who have jobs that I wont do but need to be done need a little help like heath care. oh & I will keep my guns. I do believe that you have to have some gov over site on big corps but that don't make a lib