Cost of Chrysler financing

What entitlements are you referring too. Here's a few...

From MSNBC:

"Taxpayers for Common Sense, a bipartisan group favoring less federal
spending, said it found 11,772 projects worth $15.8 billion.
Projects included:

a.. $335,000 to protect sunflowers in North Dakota from blackbird damage.
b.. $60 million for a new courthouse in Las Cruces, N.M.
c.. $225,000 to study catfish genomes at Alabama's Auburn University.
d.. A potential boon for Bush himself, $2 million for the government to
try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold
three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at $9.8
million and are distressed by the provision.
"


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>You can always return your tax cut.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>> spending so
>> that the tax cut is paid for?
>>
>> You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>> saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes to
>> actually cutting spending.
>
> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
> "entitlements."
>
>
> Matt
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>You can always return your tax cut.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
> > spending so
> > that the tax cut is paid for?
> >
> > You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
> > saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes to
> > actually cutting spending.
>
> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
> "entitlements."
>

Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election ya
idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we have
both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
liberals"

If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much chance
to **** up the country.

You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you could do
a better job of running the country than us liberals. Well, now is your
chance to
prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget - and it
was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
a few years ago, mind - then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of the
consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay marriage,
an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.

It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
doers?

Ted

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>You can always return your tax cut.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
> > spending so
> > that the tax cut is paid for?
> >
> > You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
> > saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes to
> > actually cutting spending.
>
> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
> "entitlements."
>

Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election ya
idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we have
both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
liberals"

If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much chance
to **** up the country.

You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you could do
a better job of running the country than us liberals. Well, now is your
chance to
prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget - and it
was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
a few years ago, mind - then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of the
consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay marriage,
an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.

It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
doers?

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>> > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >>You can always return your tax cut.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>> > spending so
>> > that the tax cut is paid for?
>> >
>> > You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>> > saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes to
>> > actually cutting spending.
>>
>> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
>> "entitlements."
>>
>
> Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election ya
> idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we have
> both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
> lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
> liberals"
>
> If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
> helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much chance
> to **** up the country.
>
> You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you could
> do
> a better job of running the country than us liberals. Well, now is your
> chance to
> prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget - and
> it
> was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
> a few years ago, mind - then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
> have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of
> the
> consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay
> marriage,
> an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
> all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.
>
> It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
> doers?
>
> Ted

I think your underwear is on too tight.

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>> > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >>You can always return your tax cut.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>> > spending so
>> > that the tax cut is paid for?
>> >
>> > You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>> > saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes to
>> > actually cutting spending.
>>
>> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
>> "entitlements."
>>
>
> Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election ya
> idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we have
> both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
> lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
> liberals"
>
> If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
> helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much chance
> to **** up the country.
>
> You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you could
> do
> a better job of running the country than us liberals. Well, now is your
> chance to
> prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget - and
> it
> was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
> a few years ago, mind - then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
> have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of
> the
> consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay
> marriage,
> an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
> all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.
>
> It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
> doers?
>
> Ted

I think your underwear is on too tight.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can always return your tax cut.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>>>spending so
>>>that the tax cut is paid for?
>>>
>>>You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>>>saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes to
>>>actually cutting spending.
>>
>>Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
>>"entitlements."
>>
>
>
> Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election ya
> idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we have
> both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
> lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
> liberals"

Yes, we won and you need to get over it. I hear there are support
groups in Florida that may still have some openings. :-)


> If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
> helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much chance
> to **** up the country.
>
> You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you could do
> a better job of running the country than us liberals. Well, now is your
> chance to
> prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget - and it
> was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
> a few years ago, mind - then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
> have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of the
> consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay marriage,
> an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
> all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.

Ha, ha, ha. Teddy, Teddy, Teddy, please take your medication.


> It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
> doers?

A lot will be done, but there is no way to balance the budget and still
do anything, unless major cuts are made to defense, medicare, medicaid
and SS. And no politician who wants to get re-elected is going to do
this, doesn't matter what the party affiliation. I know you all think
Clinton was responsible for a balanced budget for a year or two, but the
fact is that he was the lucky recipient of an economic bubble that was
years in the making and about which he had no involvement (other than
partnering up with Gore who we all know invented the internet that
fueled the telecom bubble).

The reality is that the American people have gotten so used to the
hand-outs initiated during the "New Deal", that we'll bankrupt the
country before we go back. That is today's reality and no politician is
going to change that as they'll get voted out as soon as they do and the
next politician will undo whatever they did. And this isn't a partisan
issue, it is an American issue.


Matt

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can always return your tax cut.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>>>spending so
>>>that the tax cut is paid for?
>>>
>>>You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>>>saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes to
>>>actually cutting spending.
>>
>>Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
>>"entitlements."
>>
>
>
> Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election ya
> idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we have
> both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
> lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
> liberals"

Yes, we won and you need to get over it. I hear there are support
groups in Florida that may still have some openings. :-)


> If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
> helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much chance
> to **** up the country.
>
> You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you could do
> a better job of running the country than us liberals. Well, now is your
> chance to
> prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget - and it
> was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
> a few years ago, mind - then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
> have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of the
> consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay marriage,
> an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
> all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.

Ha, ha, ha. Teddy, Teddy, Teddy, please take your medication.


> It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
> doers?

A lot will be done, but there is no way to balance the budget and still
do anything, unless major cuts are made to defense, medicare, medicaid
and SS. And no politician who wants to get re-elected is going to do
this, doesn't matter what the party affiliation. I know you all think
Clinton was responsible for a balanced budget for a year or two, but the
fact is that he was the lucky recipient of an economic bubble that was
years in the making and about which he had no involvement (other than
partnering up with Gore who we all know invented the internet that
fueled the telecom bubble).

The reality is that the American people have gotten so used to the
hand-outs initiated during the "New Deal", that we'll bankrupt the
country before we go back. That is today's reality and no politician is
going to change that as they'll get voted out as soon as they do and the
next politician will undo whatever they did. And this isn't a partisan
issue, it is an American issue.


Matt

"Geoff" > wrote in message
icas.hpqcorp.net...
>
>
> Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:10:41 -0500
>> From: Peter A. Stavrakoglou >
>> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler
>> Subject: Cost of Chrysler financing
>>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>You can always return your tax cut.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>> >> > spending so
>> >> > that the tax cut is paid for?
>
> Doublespeak. One does not "pay for" a reduction in income. One *might*
> "reduce spending", or choose to engage in deficit spending. You see,
> "paying for" implies that the government is "giving" us something. It is
> not.
>
> It is being forced, by law, to not *take* as much of what is rightfully
> OURS *from* us. Not that this is a distinction that you'll be able to
> understand, Ted.
>
>
>> >> >
>> >> > You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>> >> > saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes
>> >> > to
>> >> > actually cutting spending.
>
> No, conservatives love to talk about the amount of their *own money*
> they get to keep, as compared to what would otherwise be if you
> socialists were in power. I love my tax cut; I went down an entire
> bracket. I want ANOTHER tax cut, an even larger one. I'd like to see
> my federal income tax somewhere around 5-10%, and my FICA eliminated.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on
>> >> their
>> >> "entitlements."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election
>> > ya
>> > idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we
>> > have
>> > both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
>> > lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
>> > liberals"
>
>
> Republican != conservative, although conservative Republicans are the
> majority
>
> Democrat != socialist, although socialist Democrats are the majority
>
> Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>
> Another fine-line distinction that will doubtless go over your head,
> Ted.
>
>
>> >
>> > If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
>> > helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much
>> > chance
>> > to **** up the country.
>> >
>> > You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you
>> > could
>> > do
>> > a better job of running the country than us liberals.
>
> Trained monkeys could do a better job than you socialists did. Oh, wait
> a minute, Bill Clinton WAS a trained monkey!
>
>
> Well, now is your
>> > chance to
>> > prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget
>
>
> Who says that a "balanced budget" is a goal of today's conservatives? A
> "balanced budget" is a canard, a red herring, a vaporware goal. Nobody
> who's ever had a mortgage has had a "balanced budget". "Deficit
> spending" is a commonly-accepted means to an end, and it is workable and
> manageable. Don't give me this "balanced budget" hooey. I couldn't
> honestly care *less* whether or not the budget is "balanced."
>
>
> - and
>> > it
>> > was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
>> > a few years ago, mind -
>
> If so, it was misguided, and probably an attempt to reign you
> socialists in.
>
> Fortunately, we were able to do so without amending the Constitution
> that time. Regardless, if amending the Constitution is what it takes
> the next time, we'll likely pull it off.
>
>
> then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
>> > have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of
>> > the
>> > consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay
>> > marriage,
>> > an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
>> > all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.
>
> The conservative swing in the US is just getting under way, Ted. We're
> only 10 years in, and if the pattern repeats, there's 30 more to go.
> By the time we're done, there won't BE any liberals as currently
> defined. Heh! I can't wait until all the socialist hippies from the 60s
> are DEAD! :-)
>
>> >
>> > It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
>> > doers?
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> I think your underwear is on too tight.
>>
>>
>>
> I think he's right. Funny, I didn't think you socialists even wore
> underwear.
>
> --Geoff

Never heard of the government subsidized underwear program?

"Geoff" > wrote in message
icas.hpqcorp.net...
>
>
> Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:10:41 -0500
>> From: Peter A. Stavrakoglou >
>> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler
>> Subject: Cost of Chrysler financing
>>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>You can always return your tax cut.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>> >> > spending so
>> >> > that the tax cut is paid for?
>
> Doublespeak. One does not "pay for" a reduction in income. One *might*
> "reduce spending", or choose to engage in deficit spending. You see,
> "paying for" implies that the government is "giving" us something. It is
> not.
>
> It is being forced, by law, to not *take* as much of what is rightfully
> OURS *from* us. Not that this is a distinction that you'll be able to
> understand, Ted.
>
>
>> >> >
>> >> > You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>> >> > saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes
>> >> > to
>> >> > actually cutting spending.
>
> No, conservatives love to talk about the amount of their *own money*
> they get to keep, as compared to what would otherwise be if you
> socialists were in power. I love my tax cut; I went down an entire
> bracket. I want ANOTHER tax cut, an even larger one. I'd like to see
> my federal income tax somewhere around 5-10%, and my FICA eliminated.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on
>> >> their
>> >> "entitlements."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election
>> > ya
>> > idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we
>> > have
>> > both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
>> > lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
>> > liberals"
>
>
> Republican != conservative, although conservative Republicans are the
> majority
>
> Democrat != socialist, although socialist Democrats are the majority
>
> Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>
> Another fine-line distinction that will doubtless go over your head,
> Ted.
>
>
>> >
>> > If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
>> > helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much
>> > chance
>> > to **** up the country.
>> >
>> > You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you
>> > could
>> > do
>> > a better job of running the country than us liberals.
>
> Trained monkeys could do a better job than you socialists did. Oh, wait
> a minute, Bill Clinton WAS a trained monkey!
>
>
> Well, now is your
>> > chance to
>> > prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget
>
>
> Who says that a "balanced budget" is a goal of today's conservatives? A
> "balanced budget" is a canard, a red herring, a vaporware goal. Nobody
> who's ever had a mortgage has had a "balanced budget". "Deficit
> spending" is a commonly-accepted means to an end, and it is workable and
> manageable. Don't give me this "balanced budget" hooey. I couldn't
> honestly care *less* whether or not the budget is "balanced."
>
>
> - and
>> > it
>> > was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
>> > a few years ago, mind -
>
> If so, it was misguided, and probably an attempt to reign you
> socialists in.
>
> Fortunately, we were able to do so without amending the Constitution
> that time. Regardless, if amending the Constitution is what it takes
> the next time, we'll likely pull it off.
>
>
> then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
>> > have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of
>> > the
>> > consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay
>> > marriage,
>> > an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
>> > all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.
>
> The conservative swing in the US is just getting under way, Ted. We're
> only 10 years in, and if the pattern repeats, there's 30 more to go.
> By the time we're done, there won't BE any liberals as currently
> defined. Heh! I can't wait until all the socialist hippies from the 60s
> are DEAD! :-)
>
>> >
>> > It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
>> > doers?
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> I think your underwear is on too tight.
>>
>>
>>
> I think he's right. Funny, I didn't think you socialists even wore
> underwear.
>
> --Geoff

Never heard of the government subsidized underwear program?

"Geoff" > wrote in message
icas.hpqcorp.net...
>

> > >> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually
cutting
> > >> > spending so
> > >> > that the tax cut is paid for?
>
> Doublespeak. One does not "pay for" a reduction in income. One *might*
> "reduce spending", or choose to engage in deficit spending. You see,
> "paying for" implies that the government is "giving" us something. It is
not.
>
> It is being forced, by law, to not *take* as much of what is rightfully
> OURS *from* us. Not that this is a distinction that you'll be able to
understand, Ted.
>

I understand this but it really has no bearing on anything. If you want to
play these kinds of games then I'll remind you that WE the people CHOSE the
representatives and government officials that created the government
programs
that the government spends money on. WE approved these programs and
WE are responsible for paying for them. WE chose to spend our money on
everything from Social Security to buying the Sequoia yacht

Where I am annoyed is that while I may be responsible for choosing to spend
my money on these programs - via taxes - unlike you I happen to want the
expenditures on these programs cut down to the point that the government
isn't deficit spending to pay for them.

Choosing to engage in deficit spending - is that how you put it - is not a
viable
long term method of funding anything. I suggest if you think so that you
quit your
job and run all your credit cards up to the maximum and see what happens.

I am perfectly willing to go with a reduction in many of the programs in
order
to produce a surplus so that we can have a big tax cut, this is as
responsible
a fiscal policy as the previous one was, as both result in a balanced
budget.

I am not willing to see even more spending and increases in programs
at the same time as a big tax cut, as not only is it first of all
irresponsible to
increase the spending in the first place, since no money was budgeted for
it to begin with, and second of all it is irresponsible to cut taxes without
cutting spending so the budget stays balanced.

You apparently seem to think it is OK to increase spending when there is
no money to support it. I don't. Returning my tax cut doesen't solve
anything
because I didn't want to see the increased spending to begin with. Why
support it with more tax money?

> No, conservatives love to talk about the amount of their *own money*
> they get to keep, as compared to what would otherwise be if you
> socialists were in power. I love my tax cut; I went down an entire
> bracket. I want ANOTHER tax cut, an even larger one. I'd like to see
> my federal income tax somewhere around 5-10%, and my FICA eliminated.
>

Good, no problem with that - as long as you are perfectly willing to cut the
spending in accordance. If you are willing to give up your Social Security,
and
you are willing to stop throwing money into trying to prosecute doctors that
are following state law, then no problem - let's see, how much is it going
to
cost us when John Asscroft on his way out the door filed a court challenge
of
Oregon's D.w.D?

>
> Republican != conservative, although conservative Republicans are the
> majority
>
> Democrat != socialist, although socialist Democrats are the majority
>
> Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>

Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
good...

> > >
> > > You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you
could
> > > do
> > > a better job of running the country than us liberals.
>
> Trained monkeys could do a better job than you socialists did. Oh, wait
> a minute, Bill Clinton WAS a trained monkey!
>

Great, then the Republicans in control of the government don't have to work
very hard to make the grade.

>
> Well, now is your
> > > chance to
> > > prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget
>
>
> Who says that a "balanced budget" is a goal of today's conservatives? A
> "balanced budget" is a canard, a red herring, a vaporware goal. Nobody
> who's ever had a mortgage has had a "balanced budget".

A mortgage is nothing like what the US government is doing today. When the
US government's budget was balanced back in the late 90's, at that time
a portion of the budget was going into paying interest and principle on
the national debt. (mostly interest) This was equivalent to a household
that maintains a mortgage on a balanced budget.

Today, the US government is STILL paying interest on the national debt,
AND they are ADDING to it. The situation is equivalent to a household
that had a mortgage that they were successfully paying the monthly payments
on, suddenly going on a home buying spree and buying a new home a
month, and assuming yet another mortgage every month. It is in short, a
giant Ponzi scheme.

> "Deficit
> spending" is a commonly-accepted means to an end,

means-to-an-end do you really know what that phrase actually means?
Ever wonder about that small word "end" that is a part of it?

What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
run up?

Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.

And you think your better off with that tax money? Well let me tell you
this - in 1999, before any tax cutting, I personally was in an industry
where there was a shortage of workers, and if I had wanted to make
more money I could have walked out of my job and within a month
had another one in my industry that paid me more.

Today, well I'm still in that industry, still working that job, still making
the same money I was in 1999. But, what has changed is that now
the depression has destroyed most of the other positions that were out
there, and there's a glut of workers in my industry. So I can no longer
go out and just move to another employer and get a big raise as a
result. So on one hand I have a tax cut, on the other I don't have any
leverage when review time comes round to demand more money.
And prices have gone up in the last 5 years, too. Overall I would have
been better off with a healthy job market and no tax cut, than what
we have now which is a tax cut and a crappy job market. And most
other professional people I know are the same way. Wages simply
do not rise very fast when there's an oversupply of workers in the
market, that is basic supply and demand.


> and it is workable and
> manageable. Don't give me this "balanced budget" hooey. I couldn't
> honestly care *less* whether or not the budget is "balanced."
>

Well, thanks at least for proving to everyone that you are a complete fool.
For
an explanation as to why this kind of economic system is impossible, refer
to
"Economics and Politics in the Weimar Republic" by Theo Balderston.

>
> - and
> > > it
> > > was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
> > > a few years ago, mind -
>
> If so, it was misguided, and probably an attempt to reign you
> socialists in.
>

What a recommendation for political advice - you don't even know
obvious things about political history and you think you know what's
going on? Unbelievable.

> Fortunately, we were able to do so without amending the Constitution
> that time. Regardless, if amending the Constitution is what it takes
> the next time, we'll likely pull it off.
>

Please do. I would love an amendment requiring a blanced budget.

>
> then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
> > > have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end
of
> > > the
> > > consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay
> > > marriage,
> > > an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
> > > all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.
>
> The conservative swing in the US is just getting under way, Ted. We're
> only 10 years in, and if the pattern repeats, there's 30 more to go.
> By the time we're done, there won't BE any liberals as currently
> defined. Heh! I can't wait until all the socialist hippies from the 60s
are DEAD! :-)
>

The conservative swing started in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.
What happened with President Carter's handling of the Iran hostage incident
was the end result of many years of political correctness, and how this kind
of thing could be driven to an extreme. The American public realized then
that, Sorry, when bad people do bad things, innocent people are going to
get killed when you take the steps to punish the bad people, and there's
nothing
that can be done about it.

The Iran hostage situation was probably the most collosal mishandling of
hostage taking that has happened since WWII. The number of subsequent
people who have died simply because mid east terrorists decided as a
result of this that taking hostages was a profitable endeavor, surely dwarfs
the number of hostages in the American Embassy. This event crystalized
how misguided an untraliberal approach is in government, and started the
pendulum swinging to the conservative side.

On reflection, I really feel sorry for you. Quite obviously you are either
young
and have had a ****-poor education, or you are older and just plain ignorant
and happy to be so. You simply cannot understand politics without
understanding
political history, and you don't even understand that.

The conservative swing is getting very close to the end. I give it maybe 10
years
more, tops. What has happened is that now the conservatives have finally
gotten
what they have been fighting for since 1980, - control of the executive and
legislative branches of the federal government. The smarter people in the
conservative
movement know that now is a very delicate time, it is crucial to tread
carefully
so as not to provoke a backlash. But, as has always happened in American
political
history, the radical elements in the party who have been pouring
their blood sweat and tears into pushing the movement, now they finally got
what
they want and they are going to run hog-wild. The same thing happened with
President Carter when he booted Ford out of office. The idiot ultraliberals
in the
Democratic party wern't restrained and Carter got booted.


Ted