Looming Landslide For Demos?

[Nbadan]

Still much work to be done, but districts with "safe" polling leads, or leads outside the margins of error, break 217-198 in favor of Democrats. A remarkable 19 seat lead.


Based on 63 polls of 48 districts of 1,000 likely voters each, they will
show Democrats currently ahead in the House by 19 seats, 224-205, or the
exact, 19-seat margin of the Republican Majority after the 2002 elections.
It is also a significant increase from the 219-214 seat lead for Democrats
found in the Majority Watch polling from late August and early September.

This 19-seat lead will not even include seven competitive, Republican-held
districts that are currently being polled, and six districts that are
currently tied. In fact, perhaps most stunningly, the districts with
"safe" leads outside the margins of error break 217-198 in favor of
Democrats. The previous set of polls actually showed Republicans ahead on
safe seats, 205-199. Further, since TX-22 was not polled, that means
Democrats already have the magic 218, outside the margin of error, with
between 19 and 26 more races in the "toss-up" category. This is a looming
landslide.

Update: Here are the results (PDF). I'll keep adding more as fast as I
can. Polls showing Democratic pickups are in bold:

* NY-26: Davis (D) 56%--40% Reynolds (R)
* OH-15: Kilroy (D) 53%--41% Pryce (R)
* NY-24: Arcuri (D) 53%--42% Mieir (R)
* OH-18: Space (D) 51%--42% Padgett (R)
* PA-07: Sestak (D) 52%--44% Weldon (R)
* NM-01: Madrid (R) 52%--44% Wilson (R)
* NC-11: Shuler (D) 51%--43% Taylor (R)
* NC-08: Kissel (D) 51%--44% Hayes (R)
* PA-06: Murphy (D) 52%--46% Gerlach (R)
* MN-06: Wetterling (D) 50%--45% Bachmann (R)
* IN-02: Donnelly (D) 50%--46% Chocola (R)
* AZ-01: Simon (D) 50%--46% Renzi (R)
* OH-02: Wulsin (D) 48%--45% Schmidt (R)
* FL-13: Jennings (D) 47%--44% Buchannan (R)
* WI-08: Kagen (D) 48%--46% Gard (R)
* IA-02: Loebsack (D) 48%--47% Leach (R)
* KY-03: Yarmuth (D) 48%--48% Northup (R)
* IL-06: Duckworth (D) 47%--47% Roskam (R)
* CO-07: Perlmutter (D) 47%--47% O'Donell (R)
* MN-01: Gutknecht (R) 48%--47% Walz (D)
* VA-02: Drake (R) 48%--46% Kellam (D)
* NJ-07: Ferguson (R) 48%--46% Stender (D)
* NY-03: King (R) 48%--46% Mejas (D)
* WA-08: Reichert (R) 48%--45% Burner (D)
* KY-04: Davis (R) 49%--46% Lucas (D)
* VA-10: Wolf (R) 47%--42% Feder (D)
* ID-01: Sali (R) 49%--43% Grant (D)
* CT-05: Johnson (R) 52%--46% Murphy (D)
* CA-04: Doolittle (R) 52%--44% Brown (D)
* IL-14: Hastert (R) 52%--42% Leasch (D)
* IL-19: Shimkus (R) 53%--36% Stover (D)

Every seat I have listed is held by a Republican and was polled from
October 8-10. One Democratic district, TX-17, was also polled. It showed
Edwards (D) 55%--38% Taylor (R).

Link (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/12/14357/845)

[MannyIsGod]

Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it.

[Nbadan]

I know, but I have to report it.

[PixelPusher]

(Yonivore furiously searching rightwing blogs for fantasy scenarios involving Republicans keeping their majority)

[Nbadan]

GOP Redirects Funds From Faltering Races
By Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 13, 2006; Page A01


Faced with a deteriorating political climate, Republican Party officials are hoping to keep control of the House and Senate with a strategy aimed at shoring up enough endangered incumbents to preserve their majorities, while scaling back planned spending on races that now appear unwinnable.

In recent days, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has given back television time it had reserved in Democratic-held districts in West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio -- apparently concluding that those races are beyond reach unless something dramatic changes the national political environment in the 25 days before the Nov. 7 election....

***

Democrats, meanwhile, are juggling pleas for financial assistance from candidates in House districts once considered second-tier opportunities. The Democrats have ordered up polls in a dozen or more of these long-shot districts and now face a critical choice: whether to place bets on a few of these districts in the hope of expanding the field of competitive seats, or concentrate advertising dollars as planned on the roughly 20 to 25 districts where the odds appear most favorable....

***

Democrats need to gain 15 seats next month to recapture the House. Strategists believe the goal is now attainable, because of high disapproval ratings for both the Republican-controlled Congress and for President Bush, as well as public dissatisfaction over Iraq and the fallout from the Mark Foley page scandal.

Some top Republicans privately talk about losing a minimum of 12 seats, leaving them with a barely workable majority, and as many as 25 or 30 seats. Democratic strategists see the range of potential pickups in almost identical terms...

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201881.html)

[Nbadan]

Will the Levee Break?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 13, 2006


The key point is that African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are highly concentrated in a few districts. This means that in close elections many Democratic votes are, as political analysts say, wasted — they simply add to huge majorities in a small number of districts, while the more widely spread Republican vote allows the G.O.P. to win by narrower margins in a larger number of districts.

My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that because of this “geographic gerrymander,” even a substantial turnaround in total Congressional votes — say, from the three-percentage-point Republican lead in 2004 to a five-point Democratic lead this year — would leave the House narrowly in Republican hands. It looks as if the Democrats need as much as a seven-point lead in the overall vote to take control.

...

But what’s that howling sound? Every poll taken this month shows the Democrats with a double-digit lead in the generic ballot question, in which voters are asked which party they support in this election. The median Democratic lead is 14 points.

And here’s the thing: because there are many districts that the G.O.P. carried by only moderately large margins in recent elections, a large Democratic surge — one only a bit bigger than that needed to take the House at all — would sweep away many Republicans holding seats normally considered safe. If the actual vote is anything like what the polls now suggest, we’re talking about the Democrats holding a larger majority in the House than the Republicans have held at any point since their 1994 takeover.

So if the Democrats win, they’ll probably have a substantial majority. Whether they’ll be able to keep that majority is another question. But be prepared to wake up less than four weeks from now and learn that everything you’ve been told about American politics — liberalism is dead, whoever controls the South controls Washington, only Republicans know “the way to win” — is wrong. (Are we seeing the birth of a new New Deal coalition, in which the solid Northeast takes the place of the solid South?)

NY Times Select (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?hp)

[BIG IRISH]

Yep Manny/Dan The democrats will win it because youall got them white religious voters now. :lol




October 12, 2006
Religious Whites Disproportionately Shift Away from GOP
Change could reflect impact of Foley situation


by Frank Newport

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- An analysis of USA Today/Gallup poll trend data indicates that while Democrats have made gains across the board on the generic Congressional ballot in the latest Oct. 6-8 survey, the change has been greater among religious whites than among less religious whites and among non whites. At this point, religious whites are equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican, a marked change from their strong tilt towards the Republicans in surveys conducted June through September.

For the purpose of political analysis this year, Gallup has divided the American population into three groups based on race and church attendance: Religious whites (defined as whites who self-report attending church weekly or almost every week), less religious whites (defined as whites who self-report attending church monthly or less often), and all others.

The chart below tracks the trends in congressional voting intentions across these three groups from June to the present, showing the net percent of registered voters planning to vote for the Democratic candidate in their congressional district (% voting Democratic minus % voting Republican). For June/July, August, and September, the figures represent aggregated data from all relevant surveys conducted in each of those time periods. The data for October are from the latest Oct. 6-8 survey only. The graph represents the difference in the percent voting Democrat and the percent voting Republican.


(The full data are presented below the graphs
click on the link for the graphs
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24946

[BIG IRISH]

Moved to tempting faith.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51532

[MannyIsGod]

I've got my fingers crossed and a bottle of champagne ready to go for Super Tuesday!

[BIG IRISH]

How about a prayer :lol

[Ocotillo]

As you may or may not know, I drive all over the state in my job and generally listen to talk radio which in large swaths of Texas is right wing. Anyway, got to hear some Hannity and Limbaugh this week and I guess the writing is on the wall in the Republican war room.

Hannity is coming across as desparate in his GOTV efforts on the radio. He tries to portray himself as optimistic and positive but it rings shallow. Limbaugh is now playing the expectations game. He is trying to overstate what the Democrats will accomplish so that when they fall short, he can launch into a "they came up short" argument.

The truth is despite the gerrymandering that has taken place to protect Republican seats, the house is going to the Dems. The Senate is too close to call but the Dems will pick up seats there and most certainly narrow the margins from what they are today. Control of the Senate will come down to what happens in three races, Missouri, Tennesee and Viriginia. If (and it is a big if) the Dems can sweep those three races, Harry Reid becomes majority leader.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

If (and it is a big if) the Dems can sweep those three races, Harry Reid becomes majority leader.

That would suck, I hate Reid, not only does he have abmramoff ties and the vegas property scandal to deal with, but the man is also prolife.

Piss Poor democrat

[George Gervin's Afro]

I dislike polls but I am hopeful we will get to see 5 deferrment Dick and Rummy under oath. That would make my year ..to see those 2 under the bright lights of a Congressional investigation!

[Yonivore]

Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it.
Dang Manny! That's pathetic.

[Yonivore]

(Yonivore furiously searching rightwing blogs for fantasy scenarios involving Republicans keeping their majority)
I'm becoming concerned over your obsession with me.

[Yonivore]

I dislike polls but I am hopeful we will get to see 5 deferrment Dick and Rummy under oath. That would make my year ..to see those 2 under the bright lights of a Congressional investigation!
This is why I doubt Democrats will be successful in these mid-terms; they've put their personal priorities of punishing all the demons they've fantasized about, over the past 11 years, ahead of:

1) Securing our nation against terrorism;

2) Winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

3) Addressing the very serious threats in North Korea and Iran; and,

4) maintaining the economic boom ushered in by the Bush policies.

Yeah, retribution, raising taxes, and surrender are excellent planks in an already stellar platform.

[ChumpDumper]

I doubt it will be a landslide, but their non-plan for the future looks about as attractive to the average voter as any Republican plan, which is hilarious and sad all at once.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is why I doubt Democrats will be successful in these mid-terms; they've put their personal priorities of punishing all the demons they've fantasized about, over the past 11 years, ahead of:

1) Securing our nation against terrorism;

2) Winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

3) Addressing the very serious threats in North Korea and Iran; and,

4) maintaining the economic boom ushered in by the Bush policies.

Yeah, retribution, raising taxes, and surrender are excellent planks in an already stellar platform.

Well Yoni to some folks taking a country to war is the ultimate act of President. It has become obvious that this administration chose to go to war on less than accurate information. What it also apparent the administration decided to withold information that contradicted the justifications they used for the war. Some people have a problem with that and would like to know if they were lied to when making the case for war. The GOP Congress never bothered to ask anything about those discrepancies that came to light after the war started so people have been biding their time. The only way to find out if anyone lied is to get them under oath. I am surprised that you have not figured out that if this did happen Bush could be completely vindicated when everything shakes out in the end. Retribution? No accountability is all we ask for.

Again Yoni they are talking of reversing the tax cut for the top 2%.. which means the majority of Americans get to keep theirs.

As far as addressing the NK and Iranians.. Bush has zero credibility and a new team could not do any worse..


The not fighting terrorism card is getting a little old don't you think? Enough of the campaign slogans Yoni.. do you just cut and paste those as well?

[Crookshanks]

If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and entitlement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!

[George Gervin's Afro]

If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and entitlement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!


Didn't the GOP take over Congress in 1994? So why are you worried about entitlement spending going up now? :dizzy It has since 1994 ..oh wait your a partisan hack with only political slogans to use as a defense.. never mind

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-02-04-2.html


Republicans Become the Party of Big Government
by Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven

Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy and Tad DeHaven is a research assistant at the Cato Institute.

Even before the release of the new federal budget, President Bush's budget chief Josh Bolten has begun the damage control. On one flank, the president is trying to ward off the increasing despair in his conservative base caused by his huge spending increases and big deficits. On another flank, the mainstream media are beginning to run front-page stories on the administration's fiscal irresponsibility.

Bolten took to the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal in December to defend the administration's fiscal record. His excuses for high spending and deficits are not convincing. First, he says deficits have been caused by declining revenues from the sluggish economy. That was a good argument two years ago, but the economy is growing strongly again and the government should have made adjustments in response to the leaner revenue picture. When revenues fall, the government should cut spending to balance the books just as any business would do.

The administration's other argument is that spending has been driven by defense and national security needs. That was also a good excuse for awhile, but the administration should have been working on reform ideas to cut domestic spending to offset defense increases. Defense is certainly a high-priority spending area, but the administration has not identified low-priority spending areas that could be cut. Indeed, Bush has signed every spending bill that crossed his desk while his veto pen has collected dust.

Bolten argues that the president hasn't vetoed a single spending bill because "he hasn't needed to." It's more likely that the president hasn't vetoed any spending bills because he hasn't wanted to. Each spending bill that has come to his desk has represented a new vote-buying opportunity, whether it was the big education bill in 2001, the big farm bill in 2002, or the even bigger Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003.

The drug bill is the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years. Its advertised price tag of $400 billion is actually a big understatement of the true cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill could cost taxpayers as much as $2 trillion in its second decade because of the rapid increase in the number of elderly in future years. Besides, Senator Ted Kennedy called it only a "down payment" for future drug program expansions.

In stark contrast, the Republicans sought cuts to Medicare in the 1990s because they were rightly concerned that the program's cost will spin out of control when the baby boomer generation retires. Unfortunately, today's Republicans, led by Bush, have made the coming elderly spending time bomb that much more explosive.

After increasing 24 percent in the past three years, the budget is in desperate need of cuts to get federal finances under control. But cuts are not a policy option that the current White House considers very much. At the time of this writing the new budget figures are not available, but it looks like the administration will request a 3 percent increase next year for non-defense, non-entitlement programs. In some years, 3 percent may seem like a reasonable increase. But we currently have a roughly $450 billion deficit. Shouldn't the administration be calling at least for a freeze in federal spending to get the giant deficit under control?

In addition, the White House seems content to call for cutting the deficit in half in five years. That is remarkably timid. In the 1990s, the Republican Congress battled against all deficits and forced President Clinton to embrace a plan to completely eliminate the deficit over a period of years. Non-entitlement spending actual fell in 1996, a truly rare event in federal budgeting.

The administration's spin on today's fiscal situation is not very convincing. In the Journal op-ed, Bolten wrote:

In the last budget year of the previous administration (FY '01), domestic spending unrelated to defense or homeland security grew by an eye-popping 15%. With the adoption of President Bush's first budget (FY '02), that number was reduced to 6%; then 5% the following year; and now 3% for the current fiscal year.

The first thing to notice is that Bolten chooses to exclude at least four-fifths of the federal budget from his statistics. Federal spending is of two basic types: discretionary and entitlements. Discretionary spending is determined annually through the appropriations process and amounts to about two-fifths of the budget. Defense accounts for about half of discretionary.

The other three-fifths of the federal budget is interest and entitlement spending, chiefly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Bolten leaves entitlement spending out of his figures. Entitlements are often said to be on autopilot because it takes a law change to reduce spending on them. As a consequence, politicians often act as if they aren't responsible for the rapid spending increases that occur in entitlements. For example, Medicaid spending has grown at an average 11 percent per year the last three years while the administration and Congress have looked the other way. In truth, Congress can cut entitlement spending anytime it wants. After all, Congress just changed the law to massively increase Medicare spending for the prescription drug bill.

Nonetheless, let's zero in on the one-fifth of the budget that is non-entitlement and non-defense. Bolten claims that the administration has been fiscally responsible in this area of spending. Actually, he carves even more spending out the equation, only looking at non-defense spending that is "unrelated to homeland security." It is on this small fraction of overall spending that Bolten says the administration has not overspent. But even here, the administration figures are suspect. Indeed, some areas like education spending have seen huge increases.

Politically, it must be frustrating for the Republicans who have worked hard in the past to cut government to see today's Republican president become one of the biggest spenders in decades. When the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994, they promised to eliminate the deficit and reduce wasteful spending. In their Contract with America in 1994, Republicans committed to "restoring fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses." For several years, they did modestly curtail spending growth, and they balanced the budget in 1998 for the first time since the 1960s.

The Republican emphasis on spending restraint at the time also seemed to move President Clinton to the political center. In his 1995 State of the Union message, Clinton proclaimed: "Let's change the government -- let's make it smaller, less costly and smarter -- leaner, not meaner." In his message for the 1996 budget, Clinton argued: "Except in emergencies, we cannot spend an additional dime on any program unless we cut it from another part of the budget."

In the 1990s, many Republicans tried to revive the emphasis on spending reform that had been an early focus of President Reagan. For example, Reagan fought to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy. In May 1995, the House approved a budget plan calling for the elimination of the departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy. At the time, the House determined that each of these departments was wasteful, ineffective, and unconstitutional. Indeed, the GOP presidential platform in 1996 stated: "The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula ... this is why we will abolish the Department of Education."

It's true that many of the budget cuts of Reagan and of the GOP in the mid-1990s did not last very long. But at least they were pushing in the right direction. By contrast, President Bush has sought large spending increases for the Department of Education, for example. Education outlays increased from $36 billion to $61 billion in just the last three years.

A sharp contrast is evident when comparing Reagan and Bush on spending. While both boosted defense outlays during their first three years in office, Reagan offset that increase with a 13 percent cut in real discretionary nondefense spending. By contrast, Bush has increased nondefense spending by more than 20 percent in real terms.

Reagan was not able to follow through on many of his cuts because of solid opposition by the Democratic House. In the 1990s, President Clinton was an obstacle to many cuts, despite his conservative rhetoric. But today, Republicans have the White House and a majority in Congress and should be moving ahead with these long-sought reforms.

Instead, they have moved in an anti-reform direction in many cases. For example, they have turned their back on past Republican efforts to reform agriculture subsidies. The farm bill signed into law by President Bush in 2002 represented a reversal of the Republican 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. The 1996 Act had sought to finally wean farmers off federal price supports and subsidies. But the new farm bill embraced price supports and boosted farm subsidies.

The culture of spending seems to have prevailed over the current Republican Party. In his initial budget plan in 2001, President Bush noted: "For too long, politics in Washington has been divided between those who wanted Big Government without regard to cost and those who wanted Small Government without regard to need." Three years later it is clear that Bush has embraced Big Government without regard to cost.

Looking ahead, Republicans need to rediscover the reforming spirit that they brought to Washington after the landmark 1994 congressional elections. For their part, fiscally conservative Democrats should challenge the big spending Republicans, and work to cut unneeded defense and non-defense programs. To begin getting the budget under control, an immediate freeze should be imposed on discretionary spending. That should be followed by eliminations of low-priority domestic programs, cutting waste in the defense budget, and implementing reforms to the elderly entitlements to diffuse the fiscal time bomb that is waiting to explode on the coming generation of young taxpayers.

[Crookshanks]

Again Yoni they are talking of reversing the tax cut for the top 2%.. which means the majority of Americans get to keep theirs.

That talking point is getting soooo old! The top 1% pay over 34% of the taxes! How much more do you want them to pay? And the top 25% pay almost 84% of the taxes. I'm sick of hearing about tax cuts only for the rich. The bottom 75% of wage earners in this country only pay 16% of the taxes! How much more can their taxes be cut - I guess you'd be happy if the top 5% paid 100% of the taxes, huh?

Dems slogan should be:

Give the slackers at the bottom more money to buy cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets!

[Spurminator]

I guess you'd be happy if the top 5% paid 100% of the taxes, huh?

That's a start.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and entitlement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!because "what's really going on" has been obvious to the public these last 6 years? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[Crookshanks]

That's a start. :(

I really hope that's a joke - if not, you're a very scary person.

[Spurminator]

:lol

Scary person? The idea of multibillionaires paying millions taxes SCARES you?

I hope that's a joke.


And yes, I was being partly facetious.

[Spurminator]

I'm willing to bet most people find your generalization of the poor in this country as "slackers" scarier than my willingness to relax tax cuts on the top 5% wealthiest people in this country.

Some of the hardest working people in this country are some of the worst paid. And some of the laziest are the wealthiest. Don't try that tired "rich = hard working" canard, it only further shows how detatched from reality you are.

[SA210]

Impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach...

Oh, I can just see it now.


Impeach George W. Bush
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmXdep8_IIM


:lmao

[clambake]

Any leader that takes their country to war on a lie needs to end up in court much like Saddam. Republicans never address that. Is it because they are morally bankrupt?

Is it because they are in the Flag Draped Casket Manufacturing business?

Is it because there were no substantial targets to obliterate in Afghanistan?

Are we in Iraq because Bush got caught with his pants down on 9-11, leaving his giant, redneck, dumbass ego out to dry?

[Spurminator]

Do you guys want the Dems to win or not?

[Extra Stout]

If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and entitlement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!
Are there any higher gears left for entitlement programs?

I agree that the Democrats probably aren't the answer. A different form of representative democracy probably is the answer.

[Extra Stout]

Impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach...

Oh, I can just see it now.

:lmao
Not interested in running the country, I see, just settling scores.

[Yonivore]

I doubt it will be a landslide, but their non-plan for the future looks about as attractive to the average voter as any Republican plan, which is hilarious and sad all at once.
So, it comes down to voter turnout once again.

[DarkReign]

CD said it best...

Whats more fear-inspiring?

a. Republicans continuing with status quo?
b. Democrats winning on nothing more than "I dont know what I am going to do, but I know what I am not going to do!"

This country = teh suk

[boutons_]

"Not interested in running the country, I see, just settling scores."

Repugs are:

Absolutely not interested in running the country, I see, just settling enriching/protecting the super-rich and corps.

And the Repugs were absolutely interested in Clinton also not running the country by witch-hunting him for all his 8 years in office.

[Nbadan]

So, it comes down to voter turnout once again.

I hope the GOP is relying on wedge issues to drive the religious base to the polls again.

[Extra Stout]

"Not interested in running the country, I see, just settling scores."

Repugs are:

Absolutely not interested in running the country, I see, just settling enriching/protecting the super-rich and corps.

And the Repugs were absolutely interested in Clinton also not running the country by witch-hunting him for all his 8 years in office.
So between the two parties we have to choose to run the country, neither is interested in running the country.

Our future is so bright.

[Extra Stout]

I hope the GOP is relying on wedge issues to drive the religious base to the polls again.
It will have to be security issues. Mark Foley and the attendant cover-up killed the social-wedge-issue advantage.

[Yonivore]

I hope the GOP is relying on wedge issues to drive the religious base to the polls again.
All the GOP has to do is tell Americans the Democrat's platform.

1) Impeachment proceedings will begin on the first day of the new Congress;

2) American military efforts in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan will be defunded on the first day of the new Congress;

3) Taxes will be raised on the first day of the new Congress;

4) "We-will-be-willing-to-pay-any-price-to-appease-Iran,-North-Korea,-and-al-Qaeda-if-they-will-just-stop-trying-to-hurt-us" legislation will be introduced by every senior Democrat on their side of the aisle beginning on day one of the new Congress;

I'm sure I've missed a few planks of their platform but these are the four biggies.

[clambake]

Right now we just need change. Any change.

Gorbochev, today, said that because of our actions, the power of our policies have diminished.

Gorbochev also said that we have to learn to accept a diminished role on the world stage.

The only reason he makes sense is because we can't be trusted.

[MannyIsGod]

Nothing Yoni says in here changes what is going to happen. :) Oh, happy day.

[Yonivore]

Nothing Yoni says in here changes what is going to happen. :) Oh, happy day.
You're absolutely right. However, I do wonder why you're so happy about the House and Senate remaining in Republican hands.

[clambake]

Yoni may be right. He is an accomplice to doom.

[Guru of Nothing]

So between the two parties we have to choose to run the country, neither is interested in running the country.

Our future is so bright.

Even poor white people are wearing shades!

http://academic.csuohio.edu/ball/2004_pics/P21704_acb-shades.JPG

[MannyIsGod]

You're absolutely right. However, I do wonder why you're so happy about the House and Senate remaining in Republican hands.Oh man, what do you want to wager that the house switches sides? I do feel the Senate will stay within the GOP control, but lets put a wager on the house.

[Nbadan]

Oh man, what do you want to wager that the house switches sides? I do feel the Senate will stay within the GOP control, but lets put a wager on the house.


Talk about jinxing the home team. Republicans still have the power of incumbancy, whatever that's good for, only during the great 90's power shift did so many seats change sides so quickly.

[Ocotillo]

All the GOP has to do is tell Americans the Democrat's platform.

1) Impeachment proceedings will begin on the first day of the new Congress;

No this won't happen. There will be many investigations and the administration will be held accoutable to the Congress, something that has not happened since January 2001.


2) American military efforts in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan will be defunded on the first day of the new Congress;

Nope. Democrats don't believe in shafting the military. They actually believe in funding them with benefits and body armour. Pressure will mount to withdraw from Iraq and redeployment may be made to Afghanistan where the situation actually maybe salvagable.


3) Taxes will be raised on the first day of the new Congress;

So are you saying Bush will sign it in to law? No matter how big the Dems do in November no one is expecting them to get a veto proof Congress.


4) "We-will-be-willing-to-pay-any-price-to-appease-Iran,-North-Korea,-and-al-Qaeda-if-they-will-just-stop-trying-to-hurt-us" legislation will be introduced by every senior Democrat on their side of the aisle beginning on day one of the new Congress;


Diplomacy = appease in Yoni's mind. I guess military action is your only option. How's that working for ya?

[Zunni]

The Firewall Strategy...GOP already conceding House.
article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1545946,00.html?cnn=yes)

[Yonivore]

Oh man, what do you want to wager that the house switches sides? I do feel the Senate will stay within the GOP control, but lets put a wager on the house.
Republicans keep the House and you take your sorry ass out of here, forever. Democrats take the House and you take your sorry ass out of here, forever.

There. How's that?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Republicans keep the House and you take your sorry ass out of here, forever. Democrats take the House and you take your sorry ass out of here, forever.

There. How's that?

Oh, if only your poo-flingin' self had the balls to take any part of that bet.

But alas, you have none.

[Yonivore]

Oh, if only your poo-flingin' self had the balls to take any part of that bet.

But alas, you have none.
I'll take both sides of the bet. Either way, Manny's gone. If for not other reason that for attempting to wager with an anonymous poster on a silly forum.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll take both sides of the bet. Either way, Manny's gone. If for not other reason that for attempting to wager with an anonymous poster on a silly forum.People make wagers on this forum constantly. Johnny Blaze's signature is the result of such a wager. I knew you'd decline, and I don't blame you. Its a sucker bet, because the odds of republicans retaining the house are extremely low. I just think its funny that you're pounding your chest above, but you scurry off to your corner when challenged.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

People make wagers on this forum constantly. Johnny Blaze's signature is the result of such a wager. I knew you'd decline, and I don't blame you. Its a sucker bet, because the odds of republicans retaining the house are extremely low. I just think its funny that you're pounding your chest above, but you scurry off to your corner when challenged.

I blame him because he's a little bitch, but that's just me.

[Yonivore]

People make wagers on this forum constantly. Johnny Blaze's signature is the result of such a wager. I knew you'd decline, and I don't blame you. Its a sucker bet, because the odds of republicans retaining the house are extremely low. I just think its funny that you're pounding your chest above, but you scurry off to your corner when challenged.
I have signatures off.

And, if your so sure, take the bet. I'll even drop the half where you leave if the Democrats take the House.

[MannyIsGod]

I have signatures off.

And, if your so sure, take the bet. I'll even drop the half where you leave if the Democrats take the House.Why would I take a bet where I have nothing to gain? I am sure, but that doesn't change the bet is retarded.

[Yonivore]

Why would I take a bet where I have nothing to gain? I am sure, but that doesn't change the bet is retarded.
I guess for the same reason you post in a forum with nothing to gain.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I guess for the same reason you post in a forum with nothing to gain.

"Hey Pot, this is Kettle. Have I ever told you how black you are?"

[SA210]

Not interested in running the country, I see, just settling scores.
I'm talking about taking care of business. The lying murdering loser broke the law and people are dead because of it. Impeachment must happen.

I'm talking about "bringing integrity back to the White House". With all due respect, If you think Bush is even remotely sufficient in running this country, you are sadly mistaken.

[01Snake]

I'm talking about "bringing integrity back to the White House".

Ya man! Bring back Clinton...errr..wait...nevermind. :lol

[Yonivore]

"Hey Pot, this is Kettle. Have I ever told you how black you are?"
I don't recall ever claiming to have achieved anything in here. Nor have I made any wagers.

I'm merely entertained by you clowns.

Go ahead, dance some more Manny. I wonder how many Mannys would fit into a clown car.

[xrayzebra]

Well Yoni to some folks taking a country to war is the ultimate act of President. It has become obvious that this administration chose to go to war on less than accurate information. What it also apparent the administration decided to withold information that contradicted the justifications they used for the war. Some people have a problem with that and would like to know if they were lied to when making the case for war. The GOP Congress never bothered to ask anything about those discrepancies that came to light after the war started so people have been biding their time. The only way to find out if anyone lied is to get them under oath. I am surprised that you have not figured out that if this did happen Bush could be completely vindicated when everything shakes out in the end. Retribution? No accountability is all we ask for.

Again Yoni they are talking of reversing the tax cut for the top 2%.. which means the majority of Americans get to keep theirs.

As far as addressing the NK and Iranians.. Bush has zero credibility and a new team could not do any worse..


The not fighting terrorism card is getting a little old don't you think? Enough of the campaign slogans Yoni.. do you just cut and paste those as well?


Well GGA as usual, you come up with some off the wall crap about
Bush went to war on his own. May I direct you attention to the following
little article from CNN on a resolution passed by the Senate, which
included 29 Dimm-o-craps, who now say they were mislead.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote

Story Tools

WASHINGTON (CNN) --In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.
Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.

"All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."
================================================== ========

The top 5 percent of of taxpayers pay over 54 percent of the taxes.
So get off the crap that only the poor pay taxes and rich keep getting
richer.

================================================== ======

And you and others keep saying Bush has no credibility, but it was
your dumb ass President, Clinton and Carter who gave away the nuke to
NK. You folks scream and holler about staying out of a war, cutting and
running and turn right around and say go to war with Iran and NK. Hell
make up you mind. What little you have.

================================================== =======

You all make me sick with your, lets have their hide attitude. If for once
in your small life you would support your country and quit being mad at
losing an election(s), you might find a whole new life.

I will promise you one thing, if the dimm-o-craps do win the house and
senate, so be it. We will still have the President to hold them in check.
But if we lose that in a couple of years, I will still support our country
and troops and the President in his actions. I may no agree with them,
but I will support him. You can keep that little piece of information and
re-read it from time to time, if your side gets lucky.

You damn well can say the same thing.

[xrayzebra]

Impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach...

Oh, I can just see it now.


Impeach George W. Bush
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmXdep8_IIM


:lmao

Yeah you can and it shows how your small mind works. In ever decreasing
circles.

[xrayzebra]

So between the two parties we have to choose to run the country, neither is interested in running the country.

Our future is so bright.

Our future is very bright. Because we have people who do care. It will and
has survived worst times.

The really scary part is Nacy and Harry. There is pair to be scared of.
One who is a dyed in the wool socialist and one who will lie and turn a buck
every chance he can.

[Trainwreck2100]

Once again, if you inmpeach Bush there's still Cheyney, it' like going from your left nut to your right nut. It's still a damn testicle. Repubs winning back the House would/should just curb W's party.

[PixelPusher]

I'm talking about "bringing competence back to the White House". With all due respect, If you think Bush is even remotely sufficient in running this country, you are sadly mistaken.

fixed.

[MannyIsGod]

I guess for the same reason you post in a forum with nothing to gain.I gain entertainment and information from posting in this forum, neither of which I gain from a one sided bet.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't recall ever claiming to have achieved anything in here. Nor have I made any wagers.

I'm merely entertained by you clowns.

Go ahead, dance some more Manny. I wonder how many Mannys would fit into a clown car.Scoreboard baby, scoreboard is coming. I don't give a shit what you say. :)

[01Snake]

Scoreboard baby, scoreboard is coming. I don't give a shit what you say. :)

Hey Manny, where is all this fucking rain the local forecasters said we were going to get? Several inches my ass.
:madrun

[Zunni]

Once again, if you inmpeach Bush there's still Cheyney, it' like going from your left nut to your right nut. It's still a damn testicle. Repubs winning back the House would/should just curb W's party.
Oh, they'll never remove him. If the Dems win the Senate, it will be by a whisker, not with 67 seats. Impeachment by the House is only half the process, as the GOP found out. It would be a WELL deserved stain on the disfunctional Blue Dress of a "Presidency", though.

[smeagol]

That would suck, I hate Reid, not only does he have abmramoff ties and the vegas property scandal to deal with, but the man is also prolife.
Now there is an excellent reason to hate someone :rolleyes

[smeagol]

If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and entitlement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!

Yep, next time I want to understand what is really going on, I'll go to you.

[smeagol]

That talking point is getting soooo old! The top 1% pay over 34% of the taxes! How much more do you want them to pay? And the top 25% pay almost 84% of the taxes.

And? This is a meaningless stat.

The important point to be made is how much are the rich paying with respect to their net worth. Give me a study where they show that stat and we can have a meaningful discussion.


The bottom 75% of wage earners in this country only pay 16% of the taxes!

What an outrage! Let's tax all those motherfucing bottomfeaders. They should opt between eating or paying Uncle Sam. :rolleyes



How much more can their taxes be cut

Well, if the rich and corporations pay a little more, the poor can pay less, that's for sure. But I'm no expert on this subject. Maybe the poor are already paying their fair share of taxes.


I guess you'd be happy if the top 5% paid 100% of the taxes, huh?

A fair system would make me happy.


Dems slogan should be:

Give the slackers at the bottom more money to buy cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets!

I usually try not insult ladies but you are tempting your fate.

One of the most ignorant statements I have read in the forum in a while.

And you are supposed to be a Christian?

Have you read the Bible where it says "Blessed are the poor . . ." and so on and so forth?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it.


:lol I was thinking the same thing---manny is god is a libertarian i thought?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol I was thinking the same thing---manny is god is a libertarian i thought?Man, I just want the republicans out for now. We'll talk about more later.

[Ocotillo]

Once again: Democrats can only raise taxes with Bush's signature.

[sickdsm]

I'd vote left if there was a race that was debateable for me, anything less than national congress or Gov. it doesn't pay to vote to make a statement.

[Crookshanks]

The important point to be made is how much are the rich paying with respect to their net worth. Give me a study where they show that stat and we can have a meaningful discussion.

Well, let's see - I believe the top bracket is taxed at about 30% and the bottom bracket is 6%. That means the income of the wealthy is taxed 24% more than the poor. Isn't that a significant portion of their income?


What an outrage! Let's tax all those motherfucing bottomfeaders. They should opt between eating or paying Uncle Sam.

That is a fallacy - there are very few truly poor people in the US. The truly poor don't pay ANY taxes, and, if they have children, they get the earned income credit. And many of the "working poor" still have cable TV and cell phones. It's all about choices and priorities.


Have you read the Bible where it says "Blessed are the poor . . ." and so on and so forth?

It might help if you quoted the whole scripture. In Matthew 5:3 it says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." And it doesn't mean materially poor, it means broken in spirit, or humble. Quite a different meaning, huh? Also, it says in I Timothy Chapter 5 that a man who doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel.

Finally, I challenge you to find the chapter and verse in the Bible that says the government is supposed to care for the poor. Or that the government is supposed to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

Oh, and BTW, there have been studies done that show that "poor" people spend a disproportionate amount of income on cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets. Hence my statement!