Good Morning - It's a Good Day to be a Republican!

[BSFD9302]

The American political system became screwed up when it went from a public servant position to a career. That probably happened, oh I don't know, around 1778.

I hate this party this and that party that, my parties is the best and your party should be drawn and quartered.

Whether anyone wants to admit it, the truth is we need all kinds of different parties, people and opinions in the government. We have seen what happens when there is a single force in charge in Washington. Our government was suppose to be designed so that that kind of situation could not occur. So first thing to do is fix that flaw. In the Houses we need moderates and extremist but they must balance each other out. If we had nothing but a bunch of extreme leftist or rightist in the government our society would crumble.

As for the biggest point of this election, it boils down to jobs. I am not sure any party can fix this right now. Tax breaks for businesses will only work if there is a demand on those businesses to put facilities in the US. Stop giving tax breaks for reduced pollutions when the only thing the corporation did was shutdown the plant in the US and moved it to Korea. Sure that reduced pollutions but it is killing us in other ways.

What we can do right now is keep a sharp eye on our newly elected politicians. If they screw up or do something that is not helping the country we need to let them know.

We also can do one more thing as firefighters. If you buy a product for your FD, especially under an AFG, do everything you can to buy American.

Oh yeah, BAN EARMARKS!

[DaSharkie]

Departments should get the funding they need, from the people they serve.

Quite true. SAFER and FIRE Act grants are stupid. Your local community should be the one paying for staffing, not me.

Stop sucking at the tit of the Federal government, adding to the growing debt. Demand that your local elected officials do what they were elected to do.....act in the best interest of their citizenry - if that means taxes go up, then they go up.

Stop passing the source of your funding up the governmental ladder. Why should I, in Massachusetts, pay for your staffing and equipment in Colorado, Florida, Missouri, or wherever?

[donethat]

I know how the Federal Government can cut two Billion dollars from the budget right today.
Cancel Obama’s huge 10 day $200,000,000 a day junket to India with 40 airplanes, three helicopters, 6 limos and 3,000 people.
Worst conspicuous consumption since King Louis XIV of France.
Obama is breaking the back of the American Tax Payer.

He is spending OUR money like a drunken sailor.

[scfire86]

I know how the Federal Government can cut two Billion dollars from the budget right today.
Cancel Obama’s huge 10 day $200,000,000 a day junket to India with 40 airplanes, three helicopters, 6 limos and 3,000 people.
Worst conspicuous consumption since King Louis XIV of France.
Obama is breaking the back of the American Tax Payer.

He is spending OUR money like a drunken sailor.

You have something to prove this story? Or is this more blind hatred for Obama using a wildly exaggerated figure?

[BoxAlarm187]

You have something to prove this story? Or is this more blind hatred for Obama using a wildly exaggerated figure?

It's all over the internet, including references to it US, UK, and even Indian print media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ured-cars.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us...ai-visit-64106

I'll gladly eat crow if there's proof that shows this is an inaccurate figure.

[scfire86]

It's all over the internet, including references to it US, UK, and even Indian print media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ured-cars.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us...ai-visit-64106

I'll gladly eat crow if there's proof that shows this is an inaccurate figure.

Start eating.

[doughesson]

The difference between not wanting to spend $200 mil a day to support a trip to India for President Barack Hussein Obama is far different than the "blind hatred" shown to George Walker Bush just because he wasn't a liberal.
I have seen news stories about the cost of the latest junket on Yahoo,FOX News,CBS and NBC so I am going to consider "this myth confirmed,Mr Hynemann."
Back to our regularly scheduled programming,the Founding Fathers did NOT want to see career politicians staying in office until they were carried out under a blanket.
They wanted people who would serve the people who elected them on the grounds that "someone has to drive".They wouldn't vote themselves special privileges not afforded to the general public but would remain ordinary citizens who would return to where they came from before being elected or choose to establish another home elsewhere but would live under the laws which they helped to pass while in office with no "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.
That is a far cry from the system that we have now,with lawyers passing laws and not one hesitation about conflict of interest being shown.Politicians being able to duck certain questions because of national interest concerns when he is being questioned about a private affair he had come to mind.

You have something to prove this story? Or is this more blind hatred for Obama using a wildly exaggerated figure?

[BoxAlarm187]

Start eating.

Thanks for the link.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the daily cost is only 5% of the reported figure - $10,000,000. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand that's a $100,000,000 trip.

I fully understand that trips abroad for various goodwill and political missions are required, but at what cost?

[scfire86]

Thanks for the link.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the daily cost is only 5% of the reported figure - $10,000,000. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand that's a $100,000,000 trip.

I fully understand that trips abroad for various goodwill and political missions are required, but at what cost?

Until you have something verifiable your comment is speculative. In case you weren't paying attention, Obama isn't the first president to travel abroad.

Were you as equally concerned about the cost when Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan were travelling abroad?

Amazing about the sudden concern for taxpayer dollars that occurs when a Dem is in office. They are supposed to do without. Yet nothing is heard when a GOP is the man. We don't know the cost of other presidents and their travels. A little perspective might be in order before you make accusations of extravagance.

[scfire86]

The difference between not wanting to spend $200 mil a day to support a trip to India for President Barack Hussein Obama is far different than the "blind hatred" shown to George Walker Bush just because he wasn't a liberal.

So because one group did it, that makes it okay for the other.

I have seen news stories about the cost of the latest junket on Yahoo,FOX News,CBS and NBC so I am going to consider "this myth confirmed,Mr Hynemann."

Good thing you're not an attorney. You'd starve. So much for the myth of the liberal media protecting Obama.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming,the Founding Fathers did NOT want to see career politicians staying in office until they were carried out under a blanket.

Are we the same nation we were back then or has America changed?

They wanted people who would serve the people who elected them on the grounds that "someone has to drive".They wouldn't vote themselves special privileges not afforded to the general public but would remain ordinary citizens who would return to where they came from before being elected or choose to establish another home elsewhere but would live under the laws which they helped to pass while in office with no "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

You should read the Washington Expense Account. Your perception of the Founding Fathers is based upon the mythology you learned in grade school and isn't even close to the reality of the lives they led.

Excerpt:

In George Washington's Expense Account -- the best-selling expense account in history -- Kitman shows how Washington brilliantly turned his noble gesture of refusing payment for his services as commander in chief of the Continental Army into an opportunity to indulge his insatiable lust for fine food and drink, extravagant clothing, and lavish accommodations. In a close analysis of the document that financed our Revolution, Kitman uncovers more scandals than you can shake a Nixon Cabinet member at -- and serves each up with verve and wit.

You may not like it. There are very few pictures.

That is a far cry from the system that we have now,with lawyers passing laws and not one hesitation about conflict of interest being shown.Politicians being able to duck certain questions because of national interest concerns when he is being questioned about a private affair he had come to mind.

And you're point? We keep re-electing them. I for one don't like term limits. If someone is doing a good job I have the power of term limits in my vote. I guess that makes me the only one here who believes in freedom and liberty.

Maybe you weren't paying attention, but a bunch of incumbents lost their jobs last Tuesday.

[doughesson]

No.But Barack Hussein Obama seems to have been traveling out of country a lot at outrageous expense when the country should be looking at ways to tighten the budgetary belt. As my Mom said FDR asked during WW II,"Is this trip necessary?".

No,I won't.I hunt,fish and have a garden in the backyard.I might not eat meat every day but I sure won't starve because,unlike a lawyer,I can fend for myself without help from a government agency.

In some ways,we are the same country but there have been a lot of changes.You decide for yourself whether those changes are good or not.I might have different opinons from yours.(ya think?)

It doesn't have explanations of all the big words,either.Are you sure that YOU understood what you read?

Since we have too many politicians who think that once they get elected to a job,they or a family member should be the only ones who could possibly effectively serve the voters in that office,we have a need for term limits.Whether that should be in effect in your area is up to you and your fellow voters.

I know a lot of incumbents lost their jobs.How are you so certain that their replacements will fuddle the job before they have had a chance to fail?
As I said,politicians should run for office,serve a while and then return to their old job to live their life under the laws that they helped pas without any special privileges or health plans that the voters do not have.

So because one group did it, that makes it okay for the other.


Good thing you're not an attorney. You'd starve. So much for the myth of the liberal media protecting Obama.


Are we the same nation we were back then or has America changed?


You should read the Washington Expense Account. Your perception of the Founding Fathers is based upon the mythology you learned in grade school and isn't even close to the reality of the lives they led.

Excerpt:



You may not like it. There are very few pictures.


And you're point? We keep re-electing them. I for one don't like term limits. If someone is doing a good job I have the power of term limits in my vote. I guess that makes me the only one here who believes in freedom and liberty.

Maybe you weren't paying attention, but a bunch of incumbents lost their jobs last Tuesday.

[BoxAlarm187]

Until you have something verifiable your comment is speculative.

Yes, I was speculating. And not apologizing for it.

In case you weren't paying attention, Obama isn't the first president to travel abroad.

Hence, my above statement that I understand that trips abroad are necessary.

Were you as equally concerned about the cost when Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan were travelling abroad?

Again, it's not about the fact that the POTUS is traveling abroad. It's not about his political affiliation. It's about the cost of such a trip during the current economy. It's about appearance. He wants to travel abroad at the cost of "millions of dollars" a day (provided within your link), yet we're supposed to throw unadulterated support behind his mission?

Amazing about the sudden concern for taxpayer dollars that occurs when a Dem is in office. They are supposed to do without. Yet nothing is heard when a GOP is the man.

When such broad generalities are made, they're easy to take aim at.

[scfire86]

Again, it's not about the fact that the POTUS is traveling abroad. It's not about his political affiliation. It's about the cost of such a trip during the current economy. It's about appearance. He wants to travel abroad at the cost of "millions of dollars" a day (provided within your link), yet we're supposed to throw unadulterated support behind his mission?

The same was said by Bush supporters about his detractors. Again the cost is useless without the perspective of the costs of his predecessors. Bush, Bush, and Reagan all traveled when the economy was in stagnation or in a recession. You didn't seem to care then, yet you care now about the cost. Which dispels your claim that it isn't about his political affiliation.

When such broad generalities are made, they're easy to take aim at.

Yup. And in your case, easily proven.

[doughesson]

Well,because of their majority in the House and the Senate,the Democrats had control of various committees which were supposed to oversee the financial and banking markets but failed to prevent the meltdown which occurred the last years of President George Walker Bush's term.
Barack Hussein Obama used that as a reason for himself to be elected but appearently found the job too big for his ideas so he stuck with blaming the previous watch for stuff that became his responsibility the day he took the oath of office.
How is replacing the healthcare plan which was passed unread by the very admission of some senior and now out of office politicians with something that won't strap the economy as much a bad thing?
There is much hysteria about the current plan even being overhauled without knowing what will be replaced or any other consideration.Some people must thing that they will contract some dread disease if the health care plan is worked over to something that will actually work.
BTW,has YOUR congresscritter stepped away from the Congresional healthcare to accept coverage under the plan now in effect,just as if he/she was an ordinary citizen and not the "Esteemed Congresscritter from the Great State of..."?

Here is my predictions, just from watching the last 10 years of politics:

We will not do very much, and a newly GOP controlled house will blame the previous Democrat controlled house and the mess inherited from 2 years of Obama as the reason.

Despite all the rhetoric, health care reform will not get repealed. Even the hardcore Republicans in office will realize that you cannot get reelected on a platform of "I took health insurance coverage away from people with preexisting conditions and 25 year olds".

Domestic surveillance will continue to expand.

In 2 years there will be another shift back to the Democratic side.

In 20 years people may finally realize that the two parties are more alike than they are different and we don't really have any choice at all. Democracy in the US is a farce.

[doughesson]

You could ask that of the Democrats in the Majority of Congress when the banking and housing industries were not being properly watched over as their committees were supposed to be doing.
When I was in the Navy,if I relieved the previous watch down in the fireroom and found he had not wiped up the oil leaking from a forced draft blower on the on-line boiler,I couldn't call him back to do the job.I had relieved the watch and any problems that were occurring were now my responsibility to take care of.
If only politicians understod that concept better.

You're funny. Don't change. Where was all the change when the GOP controlled congress for 12 years with six of those having a GOP in the White House.

Now you want us to believe they've seen the light?

How long will you wait until you hold them accountable for not getting rid of the programs (Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drugs (passed by GOP) etc) you and the other tea partiers consider socialist?

[BoxAlarm187]

The same was said by Bush supporters about his detractors. Again the cost is useless without the perspective of the costs of his predecessors. Bush, Bush, and Reagan all traveled when the economy was in stagnation or in a recession.

You compare the current unemployment rate and housing market to the economies that existed during those previous presidents? I notice that you conveniently left Clinton out of your list of presidents traveling abroad. Why is that? Blind political affiliation as you accuse me of?

You didn't seem to care then, yet you care now about the cost. Which dispels your claim that it isn't about his political affiliation.

How do you know I didn't care then? Were you and I exchanging differing political ideals here on FH.com when those presidents (including Mr. Clinton) were in office? No, we weren't.

I don't care if the current president was the most radically right-winged extremist that had ever been voted into office. I don't care if he was mildly conservative. Or mildly liberal. As I said before, his party ties aren't fueling this debate, it's his choice of when to spend our money on a trip overseas.

[scfire86]

You compare the current unemployment rate and housing market to the economies that existed during those previous presidents? I notice that you conveniently left Clinton out of your list of presidents traveling abroad. Why is that? Blind political affiliation as you accuse me of?

I left Clinton out because it is a reasonable assumption conservatives bellyached about his presidential travels. Now all of a sudden you're concerned about presidential expenses when you said nothing for the eight years that Bush travelled to his faux ranch in Texas to clear brush. That wasn't free or no cost to the taxpayers.

How do you know I didn't care then? Were you and I exchanging differing political ideals here on FH.com when those presidents (including Mr. Clinton) were in office? No, we weren't.

Then prove it. Prove you cared about those expenses back then.

I don't care if the current president was the most radically right-winged extremist that had ever been voted into office. I don't care if he was mildly conservative. Or mildly liberal. As I said before, his party ties aren't fueling this debate, it's his choice of when to spend our money on a trip overseas.

No one cared about traveling overseas when a GOP was in office. Since we don't know the cost involved for those presidents its a moot point. You're making the assumption that Obama's travels are more than his predecessors. I don't. There is nothing in Obama's travels that are out of the ordinary. Trips to trading partners like India are done to promote commerce with the US. Given that India and the other countries on the list are emerging markets it is a reasonable assumption these trips to promote the US markets and thereby improving trade which is good for our economy.

I know you find it hard to believe. But there's a whole big world outside your firehouse.

[BoxAlarm187]

I know you find it hard to believe. But there's a whole big world outside your firehouse.

Alright, I'm done with this. You're clearly ignoring the fact that I'm not basing my judgement of the overseas trip on the political affiliation of the POTUS, rather the timing of said event.

And yes, I'm aware of the world outside the firehouse. My employment has nothing to do with this discussion. Neither does your Class-A sarcasm.

[CaptOldTimer]

Alright, I'm done with this. You're clearly ignoring the fact that I'm not basing my judgement of the overseas trip on the political affiliation of the POTUS, rather the timing of said event.

And yes, I'm aware of the world outside the firehouse. My employment has nothing to do with this discussion. Neither does your Class-A sarcasm.

You are wasting your time and getting your bp worked arguing with him.

If I didn't know better, one would think it was crowbar writing that stuff.

No one is going to like all POTUS no matter what party they are with.

[MarcusKspn]

BTW,has YOUR congresscritter stepped away from the Congresional healthcare to accept coverage under the plan now in effect,just as if he/she was an ordinary citizen and not the "Esteemed Congresscritter from the Great State of..."?

What kind of health care plan do you think is available to congresscritters?

But yes, every single one of my congresscritter has the the same plan that is available to ordinary citizens. It's called "If you have health insurance you are happy with, you can keep it."

You do realize that there is no "Congress Health Insurance". They pick from the same pool of insurance plans available to every other employee of the federal government. It is run the same way as any other employer runs theirs. The company covers a big portion and the employee covers the rest.

The only difference between the federal benefit package is that you have more options to choose from than in the private sector "This health plan doesn't cover anything, but it's the cheapest for the employer" model. You see, the federal model that people love to paint as "a socialist health care plan for congresscritters" actually relies on capitalism. The federal employee pool is a huge market of potential members for any health care plan, and the plans all compete against each other to get your enrollment.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/hea...s-of-congress/

Edited to add:

And no, I'm not just posting random things from the interwebs. I'm a federal employee. The guy who mobs the floor at a federal facility has the same health insurance as the guy in DC who writes the laws.