If you pay taxes you might want to step inside!

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

does that mean an even greater percentage of my tax dollars go to fund wars i dont support?

Suck it up, I hate Welfare and the EPA but I can't just say, 'no, I don't think my taxes will go there, I want them to go here instaed'. That line doesn't work, so get used to it.

[Ace$nyper]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Suck it up, I hate Welfare and the EPA but I can't just say, 'no, I don't think my taxes will go there, I want them to go here instaed'. That line doesn't work, so get used to it.

very true trust me if we could choose where our txs go it be very diff country.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Cbass

Actually, he didn't propose it, he didn't even vote for it. He supported it, but he didn't actually vote for it.

http://wcco.com/realitycheck/local_story_098160206.html

Ok - lets split hairs.

Well so far, I don't think Bush has been doing a very good job of controlling spending at all. In fact, I think he's increased spending more than any president since LBJ for his own private Vietnam. Of course, Vietnam didn't have any oil that could help balance it's budget.

I can only agree in part. Not enough control of spending. Any money sent to the UN is a waste. Same for handouts to any country.

At the same time cutting taxes for the rich, this results in massive budget shortfalls, more debt, and accordingly more interest. The national debt is like a giant snowball rolling down a hill, the more you add to it, the more momentum it gains. There comes a certain point when you can no longer control it, and it's very momentum increases it's mass uncontrollably.

Any cut in taxes will go to all people. Only the misinformed say its for the rich. I'm not rich, I got a tax cut. The national debt is not a problem yet. It needs to reduce and the only way to to reign in spending. Nobody has ever taxed themselves into prospertity. Kerry sure the heck won't hold the line. So far the best news on this is the memo floating around that Bush wants to hold spending at around 4% his next term. That is good - probably won't be what happens, but it its a hell of a lot better then Kerry will ever think of.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I'm not rich, I got a tax cut.

NOOO!!! That's not possible. Were you able to spend it? Or put it into savings? Either way, it was a waste of money, right?
Truth is the "rich" are 1% of our country and pay, what was the stat? 50% of our taxes and the remaining top 9% an additional 20%. But nobody seems to know or care, if you aren't making money, you aren't paying taxes. Bottom line. The more money you make, the more taxes you pay.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

The national debt is not a problem yet. It needs to reduce and the only way to to reign in spending. Nobody has ever taxed themselves into prospertity. Kerry sure the heck won't hold the line. So far the best news on this is the memo floating around that Bush wants to hold spending at around 4% his next term. That is good - probably won't be what happens, but it its a hell of a lot better then Kerry will ever think of.

No kidding. The guyt never saw a tax he couldn't vote for. John F***ing Kerry is a big-spending liberal.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

What is bad about:

The patriot act.

wow, where to begin, geez. lets talk about the GROSS violation of your constitutional right of protection from un warranted searches and seizures, not to mention the right to a speedy trial with a jury of your peers, and a violation of the writ of habeus corpus, not to mention several others. for further info read "silencing Dissent" by Nancy Chang. a very short, consise read that outlines every article that violates your rights, and how it does this.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Cutting taxes.

essentially, not much. however, since the economy was making a downturn when he took office, Bush could have held off on his tax refund plan, and maintained the surplus as a buffer for when the economy tanked. not to mention, the money for all the programs we enjoy as americans that help raise our standard of living, not to mention educated our children, come from taxes. the more money the government has, the more it can do.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Going to Iraq.

must we really address this again? i mean seriously. show me WMD, show me terrorist ties, show me Iraq was involved in 9-11. then, and only then, will i ever agree that what we did was right.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

His reactions to 9/11 in general.

Initially, nothing. In his first speech after the events of 9-11, i'll admit that i was very hopeful for the way our government was going to handle things. even invading afganistan wasnt too bad (could have dealt with less civilian casualties, but hey) but then, we went off the deep end. everyone we didnt like was aterrost threat, not to mention his administration told the nation that their neighbors, friends, and family were helping aide the terrorists by protesting the Iraq invasion. not only is that blatanly wrong, its just not something you allow as president.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

His action taking in general. (has he sat on his ass or done what he said?)

actually, he has sat on his ass. he's logged more vactaion time than any other president in history. and sure, he does what he says he'll do. but that doesnt make his actions any more noble or right. for example, i say im gonna bust out all the windows in your car...then i do it. just because i follwed my words with actions, doesnt make my actions right.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

FINALLY doing something with Medicare, whether it's enough or not.

not quite sure what he's done with medicare. so i cant address this one.

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

the more money the government has, the more it can do.

Yeah, I know, I'll get to the rest in a minute, but this one had to be responded to fast to stop the ignorance before it was too late. (not being an asshole, it's just a lack of foresight on this one particular subject here).

While it's a good thing to fund government programs properly, a lack of control of the funding sent will do nothing but cuase another lack of money in the next fiscal year, since all the excess from the year before will have been spent on new bullshit that wasn't needed, but now is percieved as being needed and requiring new funds. The spending only goes up, not down, with the methods used now. Throwing more money at a program makes it worse, it doesn't help it, controlling the money the program gets, shows results.

Sorry, just had to amend that one, on with the comments...

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

wow, where to begin, geez. lets talk about the GROSS violation of your constitutional right of protection from un warranted searches and seizures, not to mention the right to a speedy trial with a jury of your peers, and a violation of the writ of habeus corpus, not to mention several others. for further info read "silencing Dissent" by Nancy Chang. a very short, consise read that outlines every article that violates your rights, and how it does this.

M'kay, that's not a bad read, but 'beyond a reasonable doubt' might cover that little grey area about searches and seizures. It's been used before by the BATF for guns, so why not terrorists? Where exactly in the patriot act does it say that if you're suspected of terrorism that you'll be sent to prison without trial?

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

essentially, not much. however, since the economy was making a downturn when he took office, Bush could have held off on his tax refund plan, and maintained the surplus as a buffer for when the economy tanked. not to mention, the money for all the programs we enjoy as americans that help raise our standard of living, not to mention educated our children, come from taxes. the more money the government has, the more it can do.

Whether it helped or not, the economy is on the rebound, so it hasn't done all that bad, many states have been forced to trim some fat that they didn't need because of this. Besides, with a fiscal year budget method, the government isn't allowed to save money really, they just dole it out to local government and they spend all of it until the next year comes around. I truly believe that if the states had been given all that excess in block grants, I would have been seeing Cal-trans, (the infamously lazy-assed road workers here in California), re-paving the same roads again, maybe a few others, but not too many. (What that means is, in order to spend all the money they get, a lot of government agencies will re-do stuff they've already done or spend it on stuff they don't need, such as the fire department here buying six washing machine-dryer sets and putting them in an open storage yard to rust in the rain, or Cal-trans paving the same road every year.)
[/quote]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

Initially, nothing. In his first speech after the events of 9-11, i'll admit that i was very hopeful for the way our government was going to handle things. even invading afganistan wasnt too bad (could have dealt with less civilian casualties, but hey) but then, we went off the deep end. everyone we didnt like was aterrost threat, not to mention his administration told the nation that their neighbors, friends, and family were helping aide the terrorists by protesting the Iraq invasion. not only is that blatanly wrong, its just not something you allow as president.

I'll admit that I didn't like him alienating a few countries, (except France, I wish Bush himself had said, "Fuck off and die" to them while visiting their country. I think I might actually worship him if he'd have done that...) but there weren't as many countries as you think that were alienated, I think you're thinking more along the lines of alienating the U.N. 'The world' and 'The U.N.' are two different things entirely.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

actually, he has sat on his ass. he's logged more vactaion time than any other president in history. and sure, he does what he says he'll do. but that doesnt make his actions any more noble or right. for example, i say im gonna bust out all the windows in your car...then i do it. just because i follwed my words with actions, doesnt make my actions right.

But at least you'd be doing something other than talking and would show that you're serious about what you say. As for the vacation time, when is he never a phone call away? I'll bet he conducts business on his cell phone or lap top when he's taking a shit. Reagon spent almost all of his time at his own ranch, not the white house, but he still did a good job.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

not quite sure what he's done with medicare. so i cant address this one.

Actually I'm not quite sure either, but I know that he proposed something about it because it's been in the news. I think it's supposed to get medicare to start covering more prescription drugs or something... ?? Anyways, I think more needs to be done about that situation, but it's a start at least.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

M'kay, that's not a bad read, but 'beyond a reasonable doubt' might cover that little grey area about searches and seizures. It's been used before by the BATF for guns, so why not terrorists? Where exactly in the patriot act does it say that if you're suspected of terrorism that you'll be sent to prison without trial?

glad you took the time to read it. but the fact that they can tap my phone without telling me, that alone bugs the shit outta me. and any suspected terrorist can be sent to jail, and held for an indefinate period, prior to trial, while the prosecution "collects evidence for trial". at least this is what the were citing when they were detaining every muslim in america for months on end.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Whether it helped or not, the economy is on the rebound, so it hasn't done all that bad, many states have been forced to trim some fat that they didn't need because of this. Besides, with a fiscal year budget method, the government isn't allowed to save money really, they just dole it out to local government and they spend all of it until the next year comes around. I truly believe that if the states had been given all that excess in block grants, I would have been seeing Cal-trans, (the infamously lazy-assed road workers here in California), re-paving the same roads again, maybe a few others, but not too many. (What that means is, in order to spend all the money they get, a lot of government agencies will re-do stuff they've already done or spend it on stuff they don't need, such as the fire department here buying six washing machine-dryer sets and putting them in an open storage yard to rust in the rain, or Cal-trans paving the same road every year.)

here's where we partly agree, at least based on what i can see from your first post. our government needs a serious audit of its spending habits. and a serious re-appropriation of its funding. really, id rather see good highways, good education, and good health care than the most ludicrisly funded military in the world.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

I'll admit that I didn't like him alienating a few countries, (except France, I wish Bush himself had said, "Fuck off and die" to them while visiting their country. I think I might actually worship him if he'd have done that...) but there weren't as many countries as you think that were alienated, I think you're thinking more along the lines of alienating the U.N. 'The world' and 'The U.N.' are two different things entirely.

i really dont understand this general hatred of the french. just because they called us out to the world. if it wasnt for them, we'd still be british. and actually, the UN is, essentially, the world. how many countries outside of the UN do we trade with? how many countries are there actually outside of the UN? how many of these countries do we actually give a fuck about?

Originally Posted by justacruiser

But at least you'd be doing something other than talking and would show that you're serious about what you say. As for the vacation time, when is he never a phone call away? I'll bet he conducts business on his cell phone or lap top when he's taking a shit. Reagon spent almost all of his time at his own ranch, not the white house, but he still did a good job.

so bombing countries is better than not bombing countries? i still dont see how backing up my words with with actions makes either right

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Actually I'm not quite sure either, but I know that he proposed something about it because it's been in the news. I think it's supposed to get medicare to start covering more prescription drugs or something... ?? Anyways, I think more needs to be done about that situation, but it's a start at least.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/medi22_20040322.htm

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

glad you took the time to read it. but the fact that they can tap my phone without telling me, that alone bugs the shit outta me. and any suspected terrorist can be sent to jail, and held for an indefinate period, prior to trial, while the prosecution "collects evidence for trial". at least this is what the were citing when they were detaining every muslim in america for months on end.

That's the catch isn't it? How are they going to prosecute someone without evidence, and how are they going to get evidence if the person they're looking for conducts business in person or by phone and not on paper? You have to give something to recieve something and if you're not doing anything wrong, they can't do anything to you... as for the 'detaining' them, I guess I would have reservations about that, if it weren't for so many of them just hopping the border on bail when they're arrested and awaiting trial. If your going to do anything to them, they kinda need to be within your grasp you know...

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

here's where we partly agree, at least based on what i can see from your first post. our government needs a serious audit of its spending habits. and a serious re-appropriation of its funding. really, id rather see good highways, good education, and good health care than the most ludicrisly funded military in the world.

Well, partially I guess. I believe in a strong military, but not in the way that most people think. If we could stop being so damned oil dependent then we wouldn't really need the number of soldiers to spread around the world as we do right now. However, I still think spending should be done on weapons and equipment development, that stuff is required to keep us ahead in the game.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

i really dont understand this general hatred of the french. just because they called us out to the world. if it wasnt for them, we'd still be british. and actually, the UN is, essentially, the world. how many countries outside of the UN do we trade with? how many countries are there actually outside of the UN? how many of these countries do we actually give a fuck about?

I've hated the French for much longer than this shits been happening. I won't go off on that because I've been bitched out about it before. As for the U.N., the U.N. is not the world, the U.N. is a crutch that the rest of the world tries to use to get at the G7 countries, and that the G7 countries use to get at each other. Nothing more. 'The world' also inlcludes more countries than are in the U.N.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

That's the catch isn't it? How are they going to prosecute someone without evidence, and how are they going to get evidence if the person they're looking for conducts business in person or by phone and not on paper? You have to give something to recieve something and if you're not doing anything wrong, they can't do anything to you... as for the 'detaining' them, I guess I would have reservations about that, if it weren't for so many of them just hopping the border on bail when they're arrested and awaiting trial. If your going to do anything to them, they kinda need to be within your grasp you know...

i think our country, as a whole, is slipping further and further into the mentality of guilty until proven innocent, and thats a damn shame.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Well, partially I guess. I believe in a strong military, but not in the way that most people think. If we could stop being so damned oil dependent then we wouldn't really need the number of soldiers to spread around the world as we do right now. However, I still think spending should be done on weapons and equipment development, that stuff is required to keep us ahead in the game.

but this much? we already spend more on our military than the next five biggest spenders combined. i think our government needs to take a quality over quantity approach to the military. perhaps our military could start producing its own weapons? maybe that would keep costs down?

Originally Posted by justacruiser

I've hated the French for much longer than this shits been happening. I won't go off on that because I've been bitched out about it before. As for the U.N., the U.N. is not the world, the U.N. is a crutch that the rest of the world tries to use to get at the G7 countries, and that the G7 countries use to get at each other. Nothing more. 'The world' also inlcludes more countries than are in the U.N.

wont attack your oppinion on the french. and yes, the UN isnt the whole world, but it does contain the majority of the world, and the vast majority of the people we do business with. therefore we should care.

lets here it for calm rational arguement amongst two people who dont agree. woot.

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

but this much? we already spend more on our military than the next five biggest spenders combined. i think our government needs to take a quality over quantity approach to the military. perhaps our military could start producing its own weapons? maybe that would keep costs down?

Yeah I know, but I think it's that we have so many soldiers that is mostly the cause of that, (who must maintain a certain level of training, and therefore must go on a certain number of training ops once in a while, which cost big bucks). The operational costs of so many warships is pretty high too, (although those are our most powerful weapons of course). I agree with the quality over quantity approach, that's why I think we should spend more on R&D than we should on actual production, (until they were imminently necessary of course.) As for the production itself... having the military make it wouldn't be a bad idea, (especially since it would locate our manufacturing here in the U.S. and not allow for foreign production contracts). However, the military is a U.S. government organization... say it with me now, 'cost overruns and low production nubmers', because that's all there would be. :/

Anyways... how about that? I had a conversation without going off on liberals once... I think I need to go to the doctor, something must be wrong with me...

[2strokebloke]

Any money sent to the UN is a waste. Same for handouts to any country.

Such as money and aid sent to a country, for say the reason of overthrowing a scumbucket dictator?

[fordesigner]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

glad you took the time to read it. but the fact that they can tap my phone without telling me, that alone bugs the shit outta me.

Actually, they can tap your phones as often and as much as they like. They just can not use it in court unless they get a warrent.

Watergate happened because it was done for political gain, not part of a "criminal" investigation.

[lazysmurff]

im well aware of that, they just dont have to inform me that they got a warrant either.

pretty scarey either way man