You like factcheck and seem to trust it.

What do you think about this?

http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
You like factcheck and seem to trust it.

What do you think about this?

http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html

It's what I said, big but not the biggest when viewed as a % of GDP.
As far as I'm concerned the ONLY ACCEPTABLE deficit is none, regardless of
the President or party.

Could probably be accomplished simply by removing all the crap giveaways and
subsidies.
Do we really need to continue subsidies that were put in place for WWII? I
recall hearing one about subsidizing for those who raised mohair sheep,
which was used in the miltary uniforms of soldiers in that war, who were
allergic to the normal fabrics used. I'm reasonably certain they have
something synthetic that will work just as well. The total savings from
that subsidy would be small, but how many others like are there?

As Everett Dirksen once reportedly said: " A billion here, a billion there,
and pretty soon we're talking about real money."

Here's a link to a partial list:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...ts_pigbook2005

Nobody on either side of the aisle seems to be leading a charge against such
unmitigated crap.

wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

Nobody on either side of the aisle seems to be leading a charge against such
unmitigated crap.

Exactly... both parties suck and rig primaries so we as voters don't
have a choice or a chance.

http://www.publicampaign.org/

It's our only hope for real representative democracy.

ScottW

Mickey, are you still railing about taxes and government and all those
infringements on your precious liberty?

As far as I'm concerned the ONLY ACCEPTABLE deficit is none

I can't help but observe that you don't live in a cave, you make more use
of the power grid and public comm systems than most people, and you reside
in the most heavily welfare-weighted state in the country.


As an aside, I hope you participate as fully as your conscience allows in
our great country's voluntary tax system. Here's a link:

http://www.iwebtool.com/shortcut/1083

Sad to say, the participants in this voluntary tax activity are
overwhelmingly poor. Ironically, the programs that are funded by the
operation are supposed to improve the quality of life of poor people.

From:
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 11:55 am
Email:

It's what I said, big but not the biggest when viewed as a % of GDP.
As far as I'm concerned the ONLY ACCEPTABLE deficit is none, regardless of
the President or party.

A. I agree pork should be eliminated. I do not agree with giving the
President line-item veto powers though, as only opposition pork will
likely be eliminated. The mohair subsidy bothers me less than the
Energy Bill, which gave billions to highly profitable companies.

B. You stated that the republicans were the only ones that ever brought
up deficits as an issue. In the past 25 years, the record deficits have
been during republican administrations. The *only* anomaly during this
time was during a Democratic administration.

Some could argue that this was a result of the republicans taking
control of both houses of Congress in 1994. This argument is not borne
out, however, as for the past 5-1/2 years the republicans have had not
only both houses, but the executive branch as well.

Let's face it: as far as deficits go, Clinton was the best President in
the past 25 (or more) years.

I think the problem that conservatives had with Clinton was that he
spent more on social programs than the military or corporate welfare.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



http://www.iwebtool.com/shortcut/1083

Sad to say, the participants in this voluntary tax activity are
overwhelmingly poor. Ironically, the programs that are funded by the
operation are supposed to improve the quality of life of poor people.



Quit dissing my retirement plan.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 11:55 am
Email:

It's what I said, big but not the biggest when viewed as a % of GDP.
As far as I'm concerned the ONLY ACCEPTABLE deficit is none, regardless of
the President or party.

A. I agree pork should be eliminated. I do not agree with giving the
President line-item veto powers though, as only opposition pork will
likely be eliminated. The mohair subsidy bothers me less than the
Energy Bill, which gave billions to highly profitable companies.

They all bother me.

B. You stated that the republicans were the only ones that ever brought
up deficits as an issue.

No, I said they were responsible for making it an issue long before the Dems
decided it was fashionable.

In the past 25 years, the record deficits have
been during republican administrations.

And what authority does the President have to spend money?
Spending bills originate in Congress which until recently was controlled
by...........

The *only* anomaly during this
time was during a Democratic administration.

Some could argue that this was a result of the republicans taking
control of both houses of Congress in 1994. This argument is not borne
out, however, as for the past 5-1/2 years the republicans have had not
only both houses, but the executive branch as well.

Let's face it: as far as deficits go, Clinton was the best President in
the past 25 (or more) years.


More Kool Aid?

I think the problem that conservatives had with Clinton was that he
spent more on social programs than the military or corporate welfare.

Clinton couldn't spend anything any more than any other President can, only
Congress can do that.

Of course Conservatives are going to be opposed to social programs, it's one
f the things in their favor. Corporate welfare is and always has been
bull**** no matter who is doing it. So far the government has spent
hundreds of billions on welfare with very little result in terms of ending
the cycle of welfare and putting people to work. Having been raised for a
while on welfare, I saw first hand how it dulls initiative. It should be
short term and in any case where one is able bodied, paid back. Make the
payments take as long and be as low as you like but it should be paid back.

Let's face it: as far as deficits go, Clinton was the best President in
the past 25 (or more) years.

More Kool Aid?

I think the problem that conservatives had with Clinton was that he
spent more on social programs than the military or corporate welfare.

Clinton couldn't spend anything any more than any other President can, only
Congress can do that.

Of course. But who presents the budget to Congress and sets the budget
priorities and agenda? (Hint: the President)(Another hint: bushie just
presented one to Congress with (guess what?) more deficits.)

So if, as you say, the President has nothing to do with spending money,
then why have we been dealing with these huge deficits again, given
that the republicans have had the majority since 1994 and are the
allegedly fiscally responsible party?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
Let's face it: as far as deficits go, Clinton was the best President in
the past 25 (or more) years.

More Kool Aid?

I think the problem that conservatives had with Clinton was that he
spent more on social programs than the military or corporate welfare.

Clinton couldn't spend anything any more than any other President can,
only
Congress can do that.

Of course. But who presents the budget to Congress and sets the budget
priorities and agenda? (Hint: the President)(Another hint: bushie just
presented one to Congress with (guess what?) more deficits.)

So if, as you say, the President has nothing to do with spending money,
then why have we been dealing with these huge deficits again, given
that the republicans have had the majority since 1994 and are the
allegedly fiscally responsible party?

Because Congress gave him what he wanted.
You're still not clear on the fact that I'm not a Republican and that I
don't rubber stamp their every action, are you?

There were deficits for a long time before the GOP got control of both
houses and you hardly heard a peep from the left. Deficit spending came
into being under a Democrat President and stayed that way for as long as
they had control of both houses. It wasn't until the Contract With America
or thereabouts, that the Dems decided there was something that could get
them some votes by endorisng paying down the deficit.

The President can ask for things but Congress has to vote for it, if they
don't he gets bupkis.

As a general rule, the GOP is more responsible. Currently there is a battle
going on to end or at least cripple the efforts of Terrorists that is
unprecedented. If we go into a bit of debt becuase of this and it makes the
world a bit safer, it will in the long run, it will be money well spent.
Stopping the pork and the corporate welfare will go a long way toward
reducing the debt.

What specific things did Clinton do that reduced the deficit?

And now for something completely the same as always.....

You're still not clear on the fact that I'm not a Republican and that I
don't rubber stamp their every action, are you?

The way it works in the real world, Mickey, is that we understand what you
*say* to others. What we don't understand are the secrets you guard
jealously. In your history of mouth-foaming about politics on RAO, you
unfailingly attack "liberals" or "Dems" or "Clinton". You never criticize
Dubya and his merry band of crooks. It is this pattern of yammering that
leads some of us in the Rational Camp to believe you are absolutely
enthralled with the do-no-rong Republicans and their fetid, scandal-riddled
form of government.

Of course, if you really don't adore Bush and his cabal, you could give
some examples. But we won't hold our breath on that. It's well established
that you admire Arnii Kroo****'s "debating trade" horror show. We don't
expect any better from the Beast's chief acolyte.

From:
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 5:48 pm
Email:

The President can ask for things but Congress has to vote for it, if they
don't he gets bupkis.

So the republican president asked for huge deficits and the republican
Congress gave them to him, yet they are the fiscally reponsible ones.

Questionable logic to say the least.

As a general rule, the GOP is more responsible. Currently there is a battle
going on to end or at least cripple the efforts of Terrorists that is
unprecedented. If we go into a bit of debt becuase of this and it makes the
world a bit safer, it will in the long run, it will be money well spent.

As a general rule, only Clinton has had surpluses in the past 25+
years.

I'm curious: how much should we spend per head in the US to wage this
fierce battle that we're in? How about per terrorist head to end or
cripple their actions?

I think we're squandering national wealth at an alarming rate chasing
some very few terrorists. Worldwide I wouldn't be surprised if we've
spent 2-3 million per terrorist so far. We're not really any safer IMO.
We haven't captured very many either. And we're no closer to 'winning'
than we were three years ago.

Maybe if we just spend another 3-5 million each we can get them. And
boy, won't Halliburton, Carlyle, and the rest be happy if we do.

This just covers the cost of Iraq:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

We could've sent over 11 million people through an all-expenses-paid
four year college program. Do you realize the cost per person JUST FOR
IRAQ, assuming 280 million US citizens, is approaching $1,000,000.00
EACH? This does not include Homeland Security or other budget issues
related to the 'war' on terror. With that kind of capital expenditure
I'd think we would have made more progress.

I'm just not that ****ing afraid. Do you actually think we can *lose*
this 'war' and have President bin Laden?

Stopping the pork and the corporate welfare will go a long way toward
reducing the debt.

I hate to burst your bubble, nob, but this 'war' on terror *is*
corporate welfare.

What specific things did Clinton do that reduced the deficit?

For starters, he raised tax rates. That increased revenue. Thus the
deficit dropped.

bushie has cut taxes, which has decreased revenue, all the while
spending wildly. Thus the deficits have increased.

Remember, Reagan and the two bushes hold the records for largets
deficits. That's quite a record of responsibility.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



And now for something completely the same as always.....

You're still not clear on the fact that I'm not a Republican and that I
don't rubber stamp their every action, are you?

The way it works in the real world, Mickey, is that we understand what you
*say* to others. What we don't understand are the secrets you guard
jealously. In your history of mouth-foaming about politics on RAO, you
unfailingly attack "liberals" or "Dems" or "Clinton". You never criticize
Dubya and his merry band of crooks.

I never criticize them as crooks, because there is zero evidence of that,
Ihave however ciritcized things I don't approve of that are Bush policy. I
criticize the Dems and Clinton in particular because they represent a form
of evil that tends to go uncallenged all to often.

It is this pattern of yammering that
leads some of us in the Rational Camp to believe you are absolutely
enthralled with the do-no-rong Republicans and their fetid,
scandal-riddled
form of government.


When did anyone in the rational camp ever let you visit there?

Of course, if you really don't adore Bush and his cabal, you could give
some examples. But we won't hold our breath on that.

Have I nver mentioned that I don't approve of their stand on abortion? Of
course I have, so stop lying.

Have I never mentioned how appaled I am about their views on I.D.? Of
course I have, so stop lying.

And of course I've never mentioned that about the only thing to praise
Clinton for was the lifting of the ban on fetal tissue research. Are you
pathological in your lying or just a moron?

It's well established
that you admire Arnii Kroo****'s "debating trade" horror show.

No, it's established that I despise yours and others attempts to continually
make whatever you think he does as worse than it is, and that you lie about
what he, I and others say, whenever it suits you. That I also point out the
hipocrisy of you complaining about somebody when you go out of your way to
be as bad or worse, when you could ignore him or just shut the **** up.

We don't
expect any better from the Beast's chief acolyte.


The beast is not Arny, it is you.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 5:48 pm
Email:

The President can ask for things but Congress has to vote for it, if they
don't he gets bupkis.

So the republican president asked for huge deficits and the republican
Congress gave them to him, yet they are the fiscally reponsible ones.

Questionable logic to say the least.

As a general rule, the GOP is more responsible. Currently there is a
battle
going on to end or at least cripple the efforts of Terrorists that is
unprecedented. If we go into a bit of debt becuase of this and it makes
the
world a bit safer, it will in the long run, it will be money well spent.

As a general rule, only Clinton has had surpluses in the past 25+
years.

I'm curious: how much should we spend per head in the US to wage this
fierce battle that we're in? How about per terrorist head to end or
cripple their actions?

I think we're squandering national wealth at an alarming rate chasing
some very few terrorists. Worldwide I wouldn't be surprised if we've
spent 2-3 million per terrorist so far. We're not really any safer IMO.
We haven't captured very many either. And we're no closer to 'winning'
than we were three years ago.

Maybe if we just spend another 3-5 million each we can get them. And
boy, won't Halliburton, Carlyle, and the rest be happy if we do.

This just covers the cost of Iraq:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

We could've sent over 11 million people through an all-expenses-paid
four year college program. Do you realize the cost per person JUST FOR
IRAQ, assuming 280 million US citizens, is approaching $1,000,000.00
EACH? This does not include Homeland Security or other budget issues
related to the 'war' on terror. With that kind of capital expenditure
I'd think we would have made more progress.

I'm just not that ****ing afraid. Do you actually think we can *lose*
this 'war' and have President bin Laden?

Stopping the pork and the corporate welfare will go a long way toward
reducing the debt.

I hate to burst your bubble, nob, but this 'war' on terror *is*
corporate welfare.

What specific things did Clinton do that reduced the deficit?

For starters, he raised tax rates. That increased revenue. Thus the
deficit dropped.

bushie has cut taxes, which has decreased revenue, all the while
spending wildly. Thus the deficits have increased.

Remember, Reagan and the two bushes hold the records for largets
deficits. That's quite a record of responsibility.


Compared to Clinton's wanton disregard of the American people and their
safety, not to mention his penchant for wiping his ass on teh Constitution
whenever he felt like it, I still prefer the Bushes or Reagan.

The Clinton Justice Department attempted to censor (a) the rights of
peaceful protesters; (b) the views of priests and doctors; (c) radio,
television, and the Internet; and (d) truthful advertisements for lawful
products.

In July 1994, for example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
launched an "investigation" of a married Berkeley couple, Alexandra White
and Joseph Deringer. White and Deringer did not want a hotel in their
neighborhood to be converted into a homeless shelter, so they organized a
fledgling opposition campaign. HUD managers were put off by the citizen
resistance to their "fair housing" initiative.

Not only did President Clinton fail to defend the prohibition of ex post
facto laws; he encouraged the 103rd Congress to violate the prohibition. In
the summer of 1993 he urged Congress to levy a retroactive tax on the
American people. Under the president's initial budget plan, income,
corporate, gift, and estate taxes were to be increased retroactively to
January 1, 1993--20 days before the president assumed office. Never before
in American history had a tax been made retroactive to the time of a prior
administration.

This is one of my favorites:

The warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment, specifying the conditions that
must be met before officials may search a person's home or seize papers and
effects, provides: "no [search] Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." The warrant
clause protects the citizenry from arbitrary searches by requiring law
enforcement personnel to obtain judicial authorization before they demand
entrance to any person's home. The Supreme Court described the
constitutional importance of the warrant application process in McDonald v.
United States (1948).

The presence of a search warrant serves a high function. Absent some grave
emergency, the Fourth Amendment has interposed a magistrate between the
citizen and the police. This was done not to shield criminals nor to make
the home a safe haven for illegal activities. It was done so that an
objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in order to
enforce the law. The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to
the discretion of those whose job is the detection and the arrest of
criminals. Power is a heady thing; and history shows that the police acting
on their own cannot be trusted. And so the Constitution requires a
magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the
privacy of the home.

The Clinton administration repeatedly attempted to play down the
significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton asserted the
power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public
school students, and warrantless wiretapping.

In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang
violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings.
Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were
examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect
particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when
the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the
Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the
Chicago sweeps unconstitutional.

Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be
exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related
shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing
officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments.
Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being
"soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of
the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the
Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to
override it, amend it or subvert it."

The White House response was swift. President Clinton publicly ordered
Attorney General Reno and HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to find a way to
circumvent Judge Anderson's ruling. One month later the president announced
a "constitutionally effective way" of searching public housing units. The
Clinton administration would now ask tenants to sign lease provisions that
would give government agents the power to search their homes without
warrants.

The Clinton administration defended warrantless drug testing programs in
the public schools. In March 1995 the Supreme Court heard arguments on
whether public school officials could drug test student athletes without a
warrant or any articulable suspicion of illegal drug use. The Department of
Justice sided with the school authorities, arguing that the privacy rights
of individual students were outweighed by the interest of the school in
deterring drug use by the student body generally.

The Supreme Court has recognized that electronic surveillance, such as
wiretapping and eavesdropping, impinges on the privacy rights of individuals
and organizations and is therefore subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant
clause. President Clinton, however, asked Congress to pass legislation
that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving
wiretaps" without a court order. Clinton also fought for sweeping
legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more
easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led
ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most
wiretap-friendly administration in history."

This was all in in his first term and is in no sense a complete list of all
the way he tried to rewrite the Consituiton. He attacked almost every
freedom listed in the Bill of Rights in one way or another, so please don't
give me any crap about how great he was or how he gets a raw deal from
Conservatives. He really was as bad as they say and worse when you factor
in his giving N. Korea the ability to nuke us and letting Bin Laden slip
through our fingers after being offered up on a silver platter.

From:
Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 7:26 pm
Email:

LOL!

First, you really should give proper attribution to those whose words
that you heist.

You just gave a stunning condemnation of bushie's policies. Except, I'm
sure, in your 'mind' this is true:

Clinton bad for warrantless roving wiretaps and searches.

bushie good for warrantless roving wiretaps and searches.

Gang violence not terrorism.

Terrorism is terrorism.

Ergo, warrantless searches OK for terrorism, not OK for gang violence.

To sum up, bushie good, Clinton bad.

Never before in American history had a tax been made retroactive to the time of a prior
administration.

And never before, under numerous republican Presidents and later under
a complete republican majority, had the US budget been balanced. It
actually had a surplus for four years.

The past three republican administrations have had record deficits.

He attacked almost every
freedom listed in the Bill of Rights in one way or another, so please don't
give me any crap about how great he was or how he gets a raw deal from
Conservatives.

And let's not hear any crap about how poor bushie is being treated
unfairly by the liberals then, either.

Unless you want to publicly admit that you're a hypocrite, that is.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 7:26 pm
Email:

LOL!

First, you really should give proper attribution to those whose words
that you heist.



You just gave a stunning condemnation of bushie's policies. Except, I'm
sure, in your 'mind' this is true:

Clinton bad for warrantless roving wiretaps and searches.

Context?

bushie good for warrantless roving wiretaps and searches.

Context?

Gang violence not terrorism.

Terrorism is terrorism.

Ergo, warrantless searches OK for terrorism, not OK for gang violence.


Nice to see you don't like to keep things in context and that you still
don't get it that I'm not a rubber stamp for Bush or the GOP.

To sum up, bushie good, Clinton bad.

No, Bush better, Clinton scum of the earth.

Never before in American history had a tax been made retroactive to the
time of a prior
administration.

And never before, under numerous republican Presidents and later under
a complete republican majority, had the US budget been balanced. It
actually had a surplus for four years.

The past three republican administrations have had record deficits.

He attacked almost every
freedom listed in the Bill of Rights in one way or another, so please
don't
give me any crap about how great he was or how he gets a raw deal from
Conservatives.

And let's not hear any crap about how poor bushie is being treated
unfairly by the liberals then, either.

Unless you want to publicly admit that you're a hypocrite, that is.

My defense of Bush is limited to things I think he gets unfair treatment on.
I also like to see a bit of context. The reality seems to be that since
Bush took office he's been opposed at almost every turn for everything, with
the apparent goal to keep him from getting absolutely anything done. A few
exceptions to be sure, but overall complete opposition.

No matter what you think about the other Bush or Reagan, they were willing
to work with the other side and try to give the country what it needed and
somnetimes what it wanted even if it wasn't the right thing to want.

wrote:

The reality seems to be that since
Bush took office he's been opposed at almost every turn for everything, with
the apparent goal to keep him from getting absolutely anything done. A few
exceptions to be sure, but overall complete opposition.

Possibly because every single policy he has is wrong.

nob, you keep arguing both sides. I pointed out some time ago how
Clinton sought compromise in Supreme Court nominees by seeking the
cousel of Orrin Hatch. You dismissed that out-of-hand.

No matter what you think about the other Bush or Reagan, they were willing
to work with the other side and try to give the country what it needed and
somnetimes what it wanted even if it wasn't the right thing to want.

I presume that you're referring to Bush I. Do you see any difference
with how Bush II handles working with the other side?

Nice to see you don't like to keep things in context and that you still
don't get it that I'm not a rubber stamp for Bush or the GOP.

But you are, based on what you say.

So you're arguing that roving wiretaps are OK because apparently
Clinton tried to do it, or are you arguing that the hot water bushie is
in is Clainton's fault?

My defense of Bush is limited to things I think he gets unfair treatment on.
I also like to see a bit of context. The reality seems to be that since
Bush took office he's been opposed at almost every turn for everything, with
the apparent goal to keep him from getting absolutely anything done. A few
exceptions to be sure, but overall complete opposition.

No, his opposition is that many, many people disagree with the track
bushie and crew are taking us down, and their representatives are doing
their jobs opposing it. Otherwise, why are even republicans beginning
to distance themselves from him and his policies?

I remember when the Dems were in the majority. Gingrich, et al, called
themselves the 'loyal opposition.' Now the opposition is considered
treasonous or obstructionist.

Bull****.

Apparently you would not have a problem with having a monarchy.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
\

Apparently you would not have a problem with having a monarchy.


Queen Jenna?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access