Can we start a bipartisan effort here?

[EVAY]

I have been away from the board for the last two weeks more or less.

Not much has changed, huh?

How about if we start a bipartisan effort right here, right now, saying what we are willing to change in the federal budget to reduce deficits?

1. Cuts in defense spending programs that are suggested by the current Secretary of Defense, Gates. These include outdated weapons programs and specific military expenditures that the pentagon no longer wants, but that members of both political parties continue because the defense contractors have cleverly put building programs in virtually every state in the union. Thus, to vote against the continued expenditure is to vote for unemployment in your own state.

Count me as one vote.

2. Changes in entitlement programs that will involve some form of means-testing for both medicare and medicaid, as well as social security payments.

Count me as one vote.

3. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts for earners making more than $500,000 per year in income. All other tax cuts continue.

Count me as one vote.


How many votes could we get for each of these? In this combination, everybody's sacred cows get gored, at least a little bit. Can the folks on this forum agree that some compromise is necessary to get the deficits under control, and actually vote for something that they don't want to happen in order to save the economy?

Forget party ties and talking points. Can we get the votes?

[spursncowboys]

Change in entitlements. Some specifics. Until there is real budget cuts, why raise taxes? It just shows that the conservatives are the only ones who have to give up something.

[EVAY]

Regarding entitlements: What I was really after was trying to get some agreement that entitlements need to be modified. That is why I was not specific regarding the actual means test to be employed.

I could give an example that would say "Social Security Payments should not be paid out to citizens currently earning more than X amount". What is the X amount? I don't know. Maybe the same $500,000 that is suggested for those who could still afford to pay more in taxes in the middle of a recession.

Social security was established as a 'safety net' for folks. If you are making X amount of money per year in your retirement, you don't need a safety net, so why take it?

Regarding medicare and medicaid, I don't know what the current levels are of means-testing, but for medicare, as long as you are a certain age, you get it, correct? So, couldn't the same means test be applied for medicare as is applied for Social security (in this scenario)?

I'm afraid of getting too specific because then people will argue about the leaves on the trees rather than the forest.

I just want to know if we would all agree, theoretically, of course, to some basic budgetary modifications if we are serious about lowering the deficit.

[spursncowboys]

Well I am all for that. But I think it is too easy for politicians to say "vote for me, i'll give you things that we can make someone else pay for." Both parties need to start coming up with real budget cuts. Once that starts going through, I would be ok with tax hikes for everyone to pay off our deficit. But, one it should be raising taxes on everyone. Two, it shouldn't be a permanent raise. All taxes too. People shouldn't have to pay 40% of their assets if they die.

[EVAY]

See, I really believe (perhaps naively) that there is more agreement than not on some real budget pain.

I understand that no one wants to bear all of the burden. What I'm trying to figure out is if we are all actually willing to do some things that would be hard if others are also willing to do some things that would be hard. I don't know any current politicians in either party that have the guts to try to really make a dent, but there are some folks who are willing to try to help.

Gates is one. He is not in congress, but he is willing to cut defense costs in certain areas, and I wish we would all let him. Cutting out outmoded weapons systems doesn't mean that you are in favor of unemployment or that you are unpatriotic, but lots of folks will make both of those charges against whichever politician in either party would get behind the suggestions.

In the same vein, changes to entitlement programs HAVE to happen to get the budget under control, and some of the potential changes are pretty common sense, like not paying social security to billionaires. But all the gutless wonders in both parties are afraid of their own bases so much that they won't do anything...so it never gets fixed, by either party at any time.

But if we on this forum are unable/unwilliing to agree to theoretical changes, how we blame the politicians? They are no worse than us, are they?

[Winehole23]

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Veterinarian]

This whole Political forum is a complete waste of time. I sincerely doubt that any Republican has ever converted a Liberal over to their side and vice versa. Its mental masturbation at its finest.

[Winehole23]

This whole Political forum is a complete waste of time. I sincerely doubt that any Republican has ever converted a Liberal over to their side and vice versa. Its mental masturbation at its finest.Welcome back to the forum, Veterinarian.

[EVAY]

Otay.

[EVAY]

It is not, in my humble opinion, a requirement that either side experience a "conversion" moment.

What I am trying to point out is that a conversion may not be necessary if we think about a willingness to compromise before we start the specifics. In other words, focus on the strategy rather than the tactics.

I posit that all americans on this forum want what is best for our country, regardless of their political persuasion. Given that premise, and given that our legislative system requires some form of compromise, I further posit that we could agree on some broad outlines of things that would be required in order to advance our nation's economic security.

Maybe that is mental masturbation. What, then, would you call the verbal attacks that people of opposite political persuasions make toward one another?

[Winehole23]

Scoreboard:

EVAY and WH23, aye.

SnC seemed to agree for a moment that taxes might have to go up at some point to pay down debt, and exhibited a normal and healthy interest in hearing a bill of particulars re: reforming "entitlements."

It's slow going, EVAY, but the conversation has at least started. :tu

[spursncowboys]

Scoreboard:

EVAY and WH23, aye.

SnC seemed to agree for a moment that taxes might have to go up at some point to pay down debt, and exhibited a normal and healthy interest in hearing a bill of particulars re: reforming "entitlements."

It's slow going, EVAY, but the conversation has at least started. :tu
Reforming is too gentle of a definition for what I would like to do to the Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Winehole23]

It is not, in my humble opinion, a requirement that either side experience a "conversion" moment.

What I am trying to point out is that a conversion may not be necessary if we think about a willingness to compromise before we start the specifics. In other words, focus on the strategy rather than the tactics.Good point. It used to be commonsensical. Now people look at you like you're from Mars when you say things like that. If you don't cheat, you obviously don't care very much about winning, right?

I posit that all americans on this forum want what is best for our country, regardless of their political persuasion.I would agree with this, but sometimes people actually prefer bickering and name-calling to making some vague promise to play fair beforehand, and then actually trying to play fair, and then actually "doing a deal" with friends, political opponents and everyone in between who are all, after all fellow Americans.

And on top of all that seeking to treat them with the courtesy and respect commensurate with your stated opinion on the matter, as well as their status as fellow citizens.

Actually taking pains occasionally not to piss them off needlessly?


How ridiculous, right?


Old fashioned consensus making works but you have to make it work. And you have to pay attention. People have to care.

There's precious little of that to be had around here, as perhaps reflected in the page count/reply ratio. Maybe consensus is way too boring a concept to hold people's attention anymore.

But hey, you gotta start somewhere. :tu


Given that premise, and given that our legislative system requires some form of compromise, I further posit that we could agree on some broad outlines of things that would be required in order to advance our nation's economic security. It might be interesting to see how many people you could get to sign a very simple list of politically acceptable remedies for a fiscal condition such as ours.

In all candor, EVAY, I very much doubt you have chosen the right vehicle to launch it. You can do much much better than this. But that wasn't such a bad start.

A dry run, let's call it. :lol:toast


Maybe that is mental masturbation. What, then, would you call the verbal attacks that people of opposite political persuasions make toward one another?Authoritatively struck.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/26/2680/ZNZUD00Z.jpg

[Winehole23]

A quibble about the headline. The word bipartisan might tend to push out a lot of extra-systemic (new, occasional, untraditional) interest at a time when the institutional prestige of both major parties is at (or very near) historic lows.

Trans-partisan? Non-partisan? Extra-partisan?

Why bipartisan?

In a world of monistic tribal prescriptions about the excellence and desirability of the USA, why limit the ice cream shop of political accommodation to only two flavors? Just curious.

[Winehole23]

Reforming is too gentle of a definition for what I would like to do to the Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid.Loud and clear.

[SnakeBoy]

I guess I'd vote for them if that was my only choice. I'd prefer...

1.) Greater cuts in military spending. Perhaps a 5 year freeze on new military weapons systems since we are far ahead of any potential enemies. As well as at least a 20% reduction in our foriegn military bases.

2.) That's a tough topic and I'm not sure means testing is the way to go. We need to completely overhaul those programs. I don't pretend to have all the answers to fixing our entitlement programs.

3.) That's fine but it's really only a symbolic jesture. The effective income tax rates are too low from the middle class brackets on up.

[Winehole23]

2.) That's a tough topic and I'm not sure means testing is the way to go. We need to completely overhaul those programs. I don't pretend to have all the answers to fixing our entitlement programs.Agree 100%, and reflecting from the vantage of this post I'm not so sure I'm sold on mean-testing either, but I lack any ready riposte.

[Winehole23]

3.) That's fine but it's really only a symbolic jesture. The effective income tax rates are too low from the middle class brackets on up.I hadn't thought of that, either. You could be right.

[EVAY]

I guess I'd vote for them if that was my only choice. I'd prefer...

1.) Greater cuts in military spending. Perhaps a 5 year freeze on new military weapons systems since we are far ahead of any potential enemies. As well as at least a 20% reduction in our foriegn military bases.

2.) That's a tough topic and I'm not sure means testing is the way to go. We need to completely overhaul those programs. I don't pretend to have all the answers to fixing our entitlement programs.

3.) That's fine but it's really only a symbolic jesture. The effective income tax rates are too low from the middle class brackets on up.

Truth is, I don't know what the answer to means testing is either. I'm not opposed to a complete overhaul of these programs. I just think it more likely in this hyper-partisan environment that we could more likely 'tinker around the edges' and accomplish something than we could propose massive overhauls and go nowhere.

Re: income taxes. I might agree that we, as a people, are not overtaxed by wrold-wide standards. But getting agreement on a tax increase for the middle class is a political non-starter. You are correct, I think, that raising the rates on the uppr-upper class is symbolic in that it won't be a significant contribution to deficit reduction. The value in it, to me, is in getting all of us used to the notion of sacrifice.

The deficits aren't going to get reduced without sacrifice by everybody
, and no politician seems to have the balls to call for sacrifice. Granted, a 4% increase in the top rate for the wealthiest is not gonna be much of a sacrifice for them, but it would show that we are asking for contributions from everybody, not just the poor stiffs whose FICA payments go up every 15 minutes.

Similarly, the estate tax (which doesn't exist this year) really is not gonna make or break the deficit, and I am personally opposed to it (I mean, how many times are you really gonna tax an asset earned, anyway?), but I would be willing to have it taxed for purposes of compromise. The only thing taxing it would accomplish would be another full-employment act for tax and estate lawyers, but I'd be willing to do it.

[EVAY]

A quibble about the headline. The word bipartisan might tend to push out a lot of extra-systemic (new, occasional, untraditional) interest at a time when the institutional prestige of both major parties is at (or very near) historic lows.

Trans-partisan? Non-partisan? Extra-partisan?

Why bipartisan?

In a world of monistic tribal prescriptions about the excellence and desirability of the USA, why limit the ice cream shop of political accommodation to only two flavors? Just curious.

How 'bout post-partisan? No? Okay, how 'bout "citizen-initiated"?

No? Okay, how 'bout "Real Americans for Deficit Control" ( doesn't that sound like the title given to some of the bogus grassroots movements that pay for political advertisements on tv, but are really nothing more than the campaign for whichever candidate or movement being advanced?

[EVAY]

I mean, think about how much fun one could have accusing anyone who opposed your deficit reduction plan as not being real Americans.

[Winehole23]

How 'bout post-partisan? No? Okay, how 'bout "citizen-initiated"?Both better, IMO.


No? Okay, how 'bout "Real Americans for Deficit Control" ( doesn't that sound like the title given to some of the bogus grassroots movements that pay for political advertisements on tv, but are really nothing more than the campaign for whichever candidate or movement being advanced?It does, but branding is important, and people seem to be fed up with both major [political] brands. There might not be any better time to make an American consensus, if people can possibly be persuaded to put away the nettles and vinegar.

[Stringer_Bell]

If we have nothing to argue over and agree to compromise, then we have to share the spoils of victory.

So, no. :)

PS: Bipartisan is the shittiest word in politics. Yuck.

[Winehole23]

I mean, think about how much fun one could have accusing anyone who opposed your deficit reduction plan as not being real Americans.Identifying agreements beyond party tribalism can't be a bad thing, but impugning the patriotism of those who disagree could be counter-productive. It's already been done to death, and will be again. (But I do see your point: anyone who hoists the fortunes of his own party over that of his/her country has a screwed up sense of loyalty.)

[EVAY]

Identifying agreements beyond party tribalism can't be a bad thing, but impugning the patriotism of those who disagree could be counter-productive. It's already been done to death, and will be again.

It was offered tongue-in-cheek, WH. Sorry for not being clearer.

[Winehole23]

I suspected as much, but without smilies humor and malice can be easily mistaken.

[EVAY]

mea culpa.:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm in.


I would add that other dept. heads be told to look to Gate's example.
How much waste do you think might be in the Dept. of Agriculture? Hint a few years ago, an audit revealed something like 25 billion in unaccounted spending. It was spent...by somebody...for something...but who knows who or what?

I also think taxes, overall, are just too low...but I have a hard time getting behind a tax increase when so much is being wasted. It's almost counter-intuitive to continue to pour water into a bucket with no bottom.

[Winehole23]

Solid point, TB.

[Winehole23]

I would add that other dept. heads be told to look to Gate's example. How much waste do you think might be in the Dept. of Agriculture? Hint a few years ago, an audit revealed something like 25 billion in unaccounted spending. It was spent...by somebody...for something...but who knows who or what? That's a lot of money, but it's small change compared to the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon lost track of before the War on Terror commenced in earnest:

OTwCRuwJc34

[boutons_deux]

"hoists the fortunes of his own party over that of his/her country has a screwed up sense of loyalty"

aka, Repugs who are prolonging/increasing the pain of unemployed Americans and America in general for political advantage in November.

[EVAY]

I'm in.


I would add that other dept. heads be told to look to Gate's example.
How much waste do you think might be in the Dept. of Agriculture? Hint a few years ago, an audit revealed something like 25 billion in unaccounted spending. It was spent...by somebody...for something...but who knows who or what?

I also think taxes, overall, are just too low...but I have a hard time getting behind a tax increase when so much is being wasted. It's almost counter-intuitive to continue to pour water into a bucket with no bottom.

See, I agree wholeheartedly with this, but the farmers and big agra are not motivated to support a politician who pledges to cut the agriculture budget unless somebody convinces them that they need to 'sacrifice' along with all other americans to get this thing done.

It would be nice to see a leader (of either party) who would have the stature and the guts to make the call to sacrifice and have people fall in line. Shortly after 9/11 it could have been done because the country was united. Since the Iraq war, not so much.

[boutons_deux]

"the farmers and big agra are not motivated to support a politician"

half false. The number of "farmers" is minuscule. The $$$Power of BigAgra/BigFood to suck in the farm/ethaonl/biodiesel subsidies by buying politicians FAR outweighs the votes a few farmers.

[EVAY]

"the farmers and big agra are not motivated to support a politician"

half false. The number of "farmers" is minuscule. The $$$Power of BigAgra/BigFood to suck in the farm/ethaonl/biodiesel subsidies by buying politicians FAR outweighs the votes a few farmers.

Fair enough...from a descendant of generations upon generations of small farmers.

[Wild Cobra]

1. Cuts in defense spending programs that are suggested by the current Secretary of Defense, Gates. These include outdated weapons programs and specific military expenditures that the pentagon no longer wants, but that members of both political parties continue because the defense contractors have cleverly put building programs in virtually every state in the union. Thus, to vote against the continued expenditure is to vote for unemployment in your own state.

Count me as one vote.

Yes, if your stated information is true.


2. Changes in entitlement programs that will involve some form of means-testing for both medicare and medicaid, as well as social security payments.

Count me as one vote.

Medicaid is already means tested. Nobody who can afford better wants medicare. Although social security is treated like a tax, it is an insurance. It's not fair to make people pay into it, then tell them they make too much to collect any.


3. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts for earners making more than $500,000 per year in income. All other tax cuts continue.

Count me as one vote.

No. All tax payers should pay the same percentage.


How many votes could we get for each of these? In this combination, everybody's sacred cows get gored, at least a little bit. Can the folks on this forum agree that some compromise is necessary to get the deficits under control, and actually vote for something that they don't want to happen in order to save the economy?

Forget party ties and talking points. Can we get the votes?

Well, I'm only on board with the first one. Your second one is very leftist. The only fair taxes are those equally distributed. Equal suffrage. All tax payers should pay the same percentage. The rich pay enough more than the poor that way already. Simply eliminate all write-off. Make the tax code simple. The only way to make taxes non partisan is to make the poor pay some also. I would prefer everyone pay a strait 16% +/-(?) from the first dollar. Any increases or decreases the politicians promise affect everyone, else it is partisan and not fair. That way every time some politician wants to create another program, the poor also ask how much will it cost them. As it stands, the poor don't care how much more taxes increase, because they don't pay any.

No compromise is needed. Start by seeing what is needed and required by the constitution, then scrutinize all other programs for reduction and/or elimination. Eliminate the entire Department of Education for starters. We Our children, without doubt, were better educated without it before it was formed. Means test all social programs that use tax payer dollars and require able bodied people to work at these jobs Americans don't want, else they cannot collect. Make it impossible for illegal residents to find employment, so they return home and stop draining our social system. Only allow emergency spending on illegal residents. Require documentation of a legal right to reside here for all other social benefits.

Back to taxes. I would be OK with giving the equivalent of Earned Income Credit, if everyone gets it equally. The taxes may have to be 18% rather than 16%, but it you require proof of legal residency, are 18 years or older, then send everyone a monthly check. Maybe about $300 per person monthly, indexed with inflation. This would eliminate most tax filing. All employers take out a strait percentage. All registered legal residents get a monthly check instead of writing off dependents and getting earned income credit or other tax credits. This can be altered by legislation, but the key is that all people are treated fair. This at the same time could function as your voter registration, and jury duty list.

[boutons_deux]

Same is true in Europe. 50%+ of Europe's budget is farm subsidies, but 1000s of farmers are suffering because the bulk of the subsidies go to BigAg or gets siphoned off into corruption without ever reaching the farmers.

[Winehole23]

It would be nice to see a leader (of either party) who would have the stature and the guts to make the call to sacrifice...I recall:

http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheAMLTBXKGY2FYDGVYUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgjimmy%20carter1.jpg


...and have people fall in line.

http://apptemp.houstonisd.org/procurement//WarehouseCatalog1/img/885.jpg


Shortly after 9/11 it could have been done because the country was united.Hell, the whole damn world was on our side. We were all together and the whole world was with us. They hardly even bitched when we threw out the Taliban.

And we effed it up monumentally. That's what pisses me off maybe most about the War in Iraq as an American: the missed opportunity.



Since the Iraq war, not so much.Sadly, no. Ending our wars in South Asia could be a proximate cause of healing, supposing of course any end to war is actually being contemplated by our wise, benevolent and humane masters.

[Wild Cobra]

I could give an example that would say "Social Security Payments should not be paid out to citizens currently earning more than X amount". What is the X amount? I don't know. Maybe the same $500,000 that is suggested for those who could still afford to pay more in taxes in the middle of a recession.

Many rich people don't even qualify for SS, but the bare minimum if any, because they never paid in.

Why do you want to steal someone insurance benefits just because you think they make too much?


Social security was established as a 'safety net' for folks. If you are making X amount of money per year in your retirement, you don't need a safety net, so why take it?

Yet it was established as an insurance. You forget, the liberals who enacted it lied back then. Just like they do today.

[EVAY]

WC, I understand your point about everyone paying taxes, and I agree that there is some benefit to everyone having a stake in what gets spent. I would not be opposed to everyone paying in someportion of their income in taxes, but the problem is one of common sense, it seems to me.
Some folks in this country work very hard for very little money. Anypercentage of their income paid in taxes would just have to come back to them in rebates or social programs, so there is an argument to me made, I believe, for just not having them pay in the first place.

With respect to your suggestion regarding what gets cut, I respectfully disagree that "no compromise" is needed, for the specific reason that people interpret what the constitution calls for very differently. That is, in my opinion, exactly why compromise is necessary.

Moreover, without compromise, nothing at all is gonna get done, and it seems to me that is how we got to this point in the first place.

[EVAY]

Many rich people don't even qualify for SS, but the bare minimum if any, because they never paid in.

Why do you want to steal someone insurance benefits just because you think they make too much?

Yet it was established as an insurance. You forget, the liberals who enacted it lied back then. Just like they do today.

I really regret that you seem unwilling to discuss the issue without resorting to accusations of moral failure (i.e. 'stealing").

BTW, I never said anyone who makes $500,000 per year "makes too much".

You have no idea how much I disagree with that statement. You are attributing sentiments and behaviors to me that I have not posited, would not agree with or participate in, and then using the erroneous assumptions to
attempt to discredit the suggestions.

Too bad.

[Wild Cobra]

That's a lot of money, but it's small change compared to the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon lost track of before the War on Terror commenced in earnest:

That may or may not be significant. How may years is that over, and how much of it is for unpublished top secret black ops?

It definitely isn't over a one year period like I noticed so many think as I attempted a search. Too many leftist sites propagating this, clouding the information I seek.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's one I think we can all agree on.

Eliminate all corn subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

I really regret that you seem unwilling to discuss the issue without resorting to accusations of moral failure (i.e. 'stealing").

BTW, I never said anyone who makes $500,000 per year "makes too much".

You have no idea how much I disagree with that statement. You are attributing sentiments and behaviors to me that I have not posited, would not agree with or participate in, and then using the erroneous assumptions to
attempt to discredit the suggestions.

Too bad.
Taxes and insurances are different. You are talking about means testing insurance.

[Winehole23]

That may or may not be significant.To you, $2.3 T may or may not be significant. So noted.

Too many leftist sites propagating this, clouding the information I seek.It hardly matter who cites the fact so much as whether or not is it true. Is it?

Do you disbelieve Don Rumsfeld, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

To you, $2.3 T may or may not be significant. So noted.
It hardly matter who cites the fact so much as whether or not is it true. Is it?

Do you disbelieve Don Rumsfeld, WC?
Yes, I believe him. However, the quote is not in full context. Was he talking about 5 years, 20 years, 50 years?

How much went to secret operations off the books?

Are you purposely missing my point that unless we have a time frame, and more facts, there is nothing to debate?

[Winehole23]

Are you purposely missing my point that unless we have a time frame, and more facts, there is nothing to debate?I think the magnitude of the shortage makes all that moot. We differ on this.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the magnitude of the shortage makes all that moot. We differ on this.
We don't know what the shortfall is now, do we. Or when.

I agree, it's a large number. However, if it was the CIA's black ops funding over the last 30 years, I'm not so concerned.

More facts please, otherwise it's just trolling.

[Winehole23]

This is all a sidebar, WC. My curiosity is satisfied that there is significant waste in defense spending as elsewhere in government. If you need more facts to decide whether or not this is true, by all means avail yourself.

[Stringer_Bell]

Here's one I think we can all agree on.

Eliminate all corn subsidies.

:sequ

I hate corn syrup, fuck that shit. I'm sure there's nice people that work in the corn industry, but enough is enough. This country needs sugar!

2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for is not just for Black-Ops. WTF kind if idiocy were they doing to lose that money off the books? Building secret weather machines? Earthquake machines? Presents to the Saudis? :p:

[Wild Cobra]

2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for is not just for Black-Ops. WTF kind if idiocy were they doing to lose that money off the books? Building secret weather machines? Earthquake machines? Presents to the Saudis? :p:
Maybe the Clinton/Gore administration paid that much to prove AGW?

[Wild Cobra]

This is all a sidebar, WC. My curiosity is satisfied that there is significant waste in defense spending as elsewhere in government. If you need more facts to decide whether or not this is true, by all means avail yourself.
Stop and think for a minute please.

We have no context. What if he was saying that adjusted to 200 dollars, we couldn't account for that much during the Viet Nam war?

He could have said when he became the Secretary of Defense, he couldn't find that much in 2000 dollars that were lost from the prior administration.

Point is, context is very important.

[Wild Cobra]

WH... Stinger...

I found an interesting number.

$2.3 trillion is the total of the Defense spending under the Clinton administrations 8 years of budgets.

Could this have been a misstatement?

No way the defense spending could have that much unaccounted for. That's in essence 30 years worth of inflation adjusted loss at the nominal 25%.

[LnGrrrR]

How about legalization of marijuana, or at least, decriminalization? I think that's the one topic most of the board agrees with. That could help generate new businesses, it could be taxed to help pay for services AND it would help reduce the amount of people in jail and police needed to fight the Drug War. As a side benefit, it would also increased personal liberty.

[SnakeBoy]

Hell, the whole damn world was on our side. We were all together and the whole world was with us. They hardly even bitched when we threw out the Taliban.

And we effed it up monumentally. That's what pisses me off maybe most about the War in Iraq as an American: the missed opportunity.


It's ok, they weren't all going to stay on our side no matter what we did. Sympathy is a short lived emotion.

[Wild Cobra]

How about legalization of marijuana, or at least, decriminalization? I think that's the one topic most of the board agrees with. That could help generate new businesses, it could be taxed to help pay for services AND it would help reduce the amount of people in jail and police needed to fight the Drug War. As a side benefit, it would also increased personal liberty.
As you, or someone else recently pointed out, most of us agree with legaizing it and taxing it.

I'm a YES vote.

[Winehole23]

You're picking at a nit here. Do you really deny there's a problem with waste in defense spending? Is there something that makes defense bureaucracies uniquely immune to waste, inefficiency and fraud?

[Winehole23]

It's ok, they weren't all going to stay on our side no matter what we did. What we did and how we did it made a difference. Invading Iraq was much to our detriment on a lot of levels.

[Wild Cobra]

You're picking at a nit here.
LOL....

You think? Think again.

$2.3 trillion is the entire 8 years of Clinton's defense budget.

I am being realistic in pointing out something is wrong with that number.

You can find similar waste in anything run by the government.

[Stringer_Bell]

WH... Stinger...

I found an interesting number.

$2.3 trillion is the total of the Defense spending under the Clinton administrations 8 years of budgets.

Could this have been a misstatement?

No way the defense spending could have that much unaccounted for. That's in essence 30 years worth of inflation adjusted loss at the nominal 25%.

That's actually pretty damn funny, maybe Ol' Rummy was making a joke that the Clinton defense budget was totally worthless and those years and the evidence just kinda disappeared into a black hole (and I'm not talking about Monica Lewinsky's mouth, though to be honest Clinton left a trail there too). This issue continues to confound me. :(

[xrayzebra]

Okay, let me know when a Dimm-o-crap reaches across the aisle to support a
Republican effort. :sleep :rollin

[LnGrrrR]

Okay, let me know when a Dimm-o-crap reaches across the aisle to support a
Republican effort. :sleep :rollin

It's happened on a few pieces of legislation already. Or do you think that every bill passed in the past year or two has been completely partisan?

[Winehole23]

There's very little coming out of the GOP policy shop these days, Ray.

[xrayzebra]

Wine, you are not reading enough. Go to the Republican website. By the way I
am not a Republican. But they do have some ideas.

Grrrr.......you gotta be kiddin.........want to give me a clue.

[Winehole23]

I'm not talking about talking points posted on some RNC website, Ray. I'm talking about real plans to get shit done in Congress. The GOP has been just pitiful since 2006 and now seems content to ride the coattails of Obama's unpopularity.

[LnGrrrR]

Wine, you are not reading enough. Go to the Republican website. By the way I
am not a Republican. But they do have some ideas.

Grrrr.......you gotta be kiddin.........want to give me a clue.

Define what you mean by "reaching across the aisle". I mean, it's obvious that a majority of legislation has both parties signed to it. What would you define as a "Republican" bill, first off? One proposed by a majority of Republicans? Authored? Sponsored?

If you're talking about reaching over the aisle, I assume you mean on a piece of legislation that Dems don't like that Republicans do. A good deal of Republican bills get some token support from the Dems. If you're talking about both sides working together closely to hammer out a contentious issue, I agree that there's not a whole lot of that going around. (The only ones they can seemingly agree on is war funding.)

[SnakeBoy]

I'm not talking about talking points posted on some RNC website, Ray. I'm talking about real plans to get shit done in Congress. The GOP has been just pitiful since 2006 and now seems content to ride the coattails of Obama's unpopularity.

Paul Ryan has real plans whether you agree with them or not. Not getting much support from the GOP though. The GOP seems confident that simply being anti Obama will be enough to gain power.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/

[Winehole23]

The GOP seems confident that simply being anti Obama will be enough to gain power.Worked great for the Dems in 2006 and 2008. What goes around eventually comes around.

[SnakeBoy]

What we did and how we did it made a difference. Invading Iraq was much to our detriment on a lot of levels.

What difference would having not invaded Iraq made in terms of our most pressing foreign relations? Invading Iraq was clearly a mistake but I don't see the issues of Iran, N. Korea, middle east peace being any different had we not invaded Iraq. I don't think China or Russia would be putting our self interest ahead of their own had we not invaded.

[Winehole23]

Iraq hurt the credibility and prestige of the US, and now we've got our dicks caught in a crack. It's still hurting us.

[spursncowboys]

Wh: the world is normaly anti-america. Just like they were anti-brittian when they were the global power. it comes with the territory. In regards to the Iraq war, we have learned so much militarily and strategically that will benefit america and keep us safer for the future.

FTR I don't think OIF was a mistake.

[spurster]

1. Cuts in defense spending programs.

I vote yes. I also vote to leave Iraq and Afghanistan to their own stupidities.

2. Changes in entitlement programs that will involve some form of means-testing.

I vote yes along with a modification with SS thresholds and rates to make them viable in the long term.

3. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts for earners making more than $500,000 per year in income.

I vote yes, but would prefer a lower threshold along with cleaning up the AMT.

4. Legalize and tax marijuana.

I vote yes.

[SnakeBoy]

In regards to the Iraq war, we have learned so much militarily and strategically that will benefit america and keep us safer for the future.


Got any specifics of how we will be safer in the future?


FTR I don't think OIF was a mistake.

What premise for OIF was true?

[xrayzebra]

Are any of you feeling the love yet from reaching out to each other?

:lol

[EVAY]

Are any of you feeling the love yet from reaching out to each other?

:lol

Well, since I started it, I think I should answer.

Actually, I think that there is a fair amount of agreement on some basic areas, i.e., some defense cuts, some entitlements modifications and some tax changes...plus, the additional matter of legalizing marijuana seems pretty universally accepted herein.

There is animosity. This is a political forum, after all.

But still, I believe (perhaps hope is a better description) that, save for a few who just refuse reason, there is some agreement.

Actually, WH's observation that Republicans are merely planning on riding the distatste for Democratic policies into office in much the same manner that Democrats rode the wave of distaste over Republican policies in 2006 and 2008 is probably the most accurate and distressing of all of the things said herein. That is my wort fear...that nothing will get done by anyone.

[LnGrrrR]

To be fair, Democrats didn't just ride Republican dissatisfaction. They did campaign on certain values and ideas. It's just that they went back against those ideas, or were too afraid to enact them, once they got into office.

[Winehole23]

To be fair, Democrats didn't just ride Republican dissatisfaction. They did campaign on certain values and ideas. It's just that they went back against those ideas, or were too afraid to enact them, once they got into office.Distinction w/o a difference. Republicans have been promising to shrink government almost as long as I've been alive. None of them have done it.

[LnGrrrR]

Distinction w/o a difference. Republicans have been promising to shrink government almost as long as I've been alive. None of them have done it.

Fair enough, I suppose.

[Winehole23]

Okay, how 'bout "citizen-initiated"?Winner winner, chicken dinner, with this proviso: it would be a tragedy if we emulated California's system.

[Winehole23]

Fair enough, I suppose.If the promised change evanesces (http://dictionary.die.net/evanescing) upon election what good is it except to get elected?

Obama's dull, unmoving acceptance speech in retrospect foreshadowed the disillusionment his administration would sow even in his own retinue (http://dictionary.die.net/retinue).

[Winehole23]

Obama knew he was gonna let everybody down. From the very beginning. The riddle of his presidency is whether he can ever overcome it.


O magic 8-ball, what say you?

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/magic_8ball_outlook_not_so_good.jpgb

[boutons_deux]

Amusing how people still think DC calls the shots, and that citizens' votes and elections mean anything will change for the better.

Both are total myths.

DC is nothing but a hired proxy for corps and capitalists.

America is fucked, and unfuckable, while Americans refuse to condemn, indict, or restrict the fuckers, dreaming that one day they will be one of the fucking class.

Anybody notice how Wall St is back to pre-crisis obscene profits, how corps are reporting (huge) profits, buying back their stocks (driving up the price), and sitting on $2T in cash? While 20% of US is unemployed or underemployed, longer and longer?

While the bullshit wars and fraudulent, corrupt bloated defense spending continue to transfer taxpayers dollars to the MIC, encumbering taxpayers with $Ts in debt obligations?

America is fucked, and unfuckable.

[Winehole23]

Amusing how people still think DC calls the shots, and that citizens' votes and elections mean anything will change for the better.Uh huh. Who said so? Are you contesting the fact that Obama abused and continues to abuse the hope he solicited during his campaign?


DC is nothing but a hired proxy for corps and capitalists.Were you talking to someone else?


Don't you know who the hell I am?

http://www.brightestyoungthings.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/200711knievel.jpgjpg.jpg


America is fucked, and unfuckable, while Americans refuse to condemn, indict, or restrict the fuckers, dreaming that one day they will be one of the fucking class.Be the motherf****r you want to be. Beautiful, man.


Anybody notice how Wall St is back to pre-crisis obscene profits, how corps are reporting (huge) profits, buying back their stocks (driving up the price), and sitting on $2T in cash? While 20% of US is unemployed or underemployed, longer and longer? I heard that too. Do you have a point?


While the bullshit wars and fraudulent, corrupt bloated defense spending continue to transfer taxpayers dollars to the MIC, encumbering taxpayers with $Ts in debt obligations?Obvious. And?


America is fucked, and unfuckable.If you have a really good line maybe you shouldn't use it too often. People could take it for a tic.

:wakeup

[spursncowboys]

Got any specifics of how we will be safer in the future?

I am speaking militarily. Our advancements on tactics and equipment. But def. all the foreign terrorists who we took out on Iraq. Do you think we are less safe or the same than if we did not invade the country controlled by the brutal dictator saddam hussein?





What premise for OIF was true?

That Saddam had violated over 12 un resolutions and he was still not allowing un weapons inspectors to come and check. he was funding terrorists and allowing them to train inside Iraq as long as they pledged to target americans or israel.

[boutons_deux]

"he was still not allowing un weapons inspectors to come and check"

total bullshit. the inspectors were running around Iraq and dubya pulled them out in Feb so he could invade a couple weeks later.

[Wild Cobra]

"he was still not allowing un weapons inspectors to come and check"

total bullshit. the inspectors were running around Iraq and dubya pulled them out in Feb so he could invade a couple weeks later.
You are both correct.

The UN inspectors were not allowed to inspect, until after there was time to move any contraband.

[boutons_deux]

"move any contraband"

strictly evidence-free, faith-based bullshit to justify neo-con crimes.

neo-con's Iraq invasion for was oil and to enrich the MIC.

DUBYA LIED