just interested .what party you are

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.
If you found out that Wally World had overcharged you for a TV set or tire change,you'd march back in,reciept in hand,demanding your money back and if you were mad enough,someone's job over the amount.
Now that I've said my piece,I will remind people that three subjects are tabboo at any well run wardroom table-politics,women and religion.This is to avoid hard feelings among people who HAVE to work and live together or they very well could die together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Since I believe fiscal responsibility is crucial to our national economy I'm forced to be a democrat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fireguy919

I’m independent. And let me tell you I was the most important person ever this election year. I had to be with all the people that called me. Everyone from Arnold to Bush himself. I would have at least ten messages every night when I go home. It was unreal. Who would of guessed not claiming one party or the other would of helped me to get all these calls

---

Did not matter if you claimed a party or not, I got calls from all sides too in this past election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doughesson

Well,a WWII Admiral is quoted as saying"When you are in command,command."
This means that when a President has a majority of his Party's members in office along with him,he gets to decide how the country is run.There should be checks and balances,like we are taught in Civics class in HS but the President has the final say in how the national policy is set.
You might not like it and don't have to but you had your say when you cast your vote and write your congresscritter.(You DO write your congresscritter,don't you?)
Politicians and Reverends with a politcal agenda running off to countries and then spouting their opinion of what should be done,instead of meeting privately with the President and asking him to consider their opinion for an action aren't helping.
My general opinion of politicians,anyway,comes from Stephen Coonts' book"Flight of the Minotaur"where a naval officer assigned to Pentagon duty mutters"Politicians.If you rendered the lot of 'em,you wouldn't end up with a thimblefull of scruples."

---

See there is the problem, you have just demonstrated how too many people do not understand our system of government and get their education about it from pop FICTION.

The President has taken charge and done what he can under the Constitution, he can not just run roughshod around changing things to his personal liking and whims of the moment. Things were set up that way for a reason. Congress also must work together to change what some would like.

Placeing your moral views on the people on such issues as family, abortion, etc. is NOT leadership. That is legislating, there is a HUGE difference and different parts of the government has different roles. You might remember a term from fifth grade civics class called "checks and balances". The President DOES NOT have the final say on how National Policy is set, he is just one part of the balance of power in saying how it should be set. Granted being the single head of his particular branch of governement gives him the largest individual say, that is only one third of the total that he must share with the 9 top guys/girls in the Judiciary(and those at lower levels) and the 535 of the legislative branch. What you propse is that the President of the United States be allowed to operate as an elected dictator.

The founding fathers intended for thing to be tough to change, the situation that the nation is in is by design, there is no good point in a single party/political faction being allowed to run make major changes because they have temporary power(and it is ALWAYS temporary).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doughesson

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.
If you found out that Wally World had overcharged you for a TV set or tire change,you'd march back in,reciept in hand,demanding your money back and if you were mad enough,someone's job over the amount.
Now that I've said my piece,I will remind people that three subjects are tabboo at any well run wardroom table-politics,women and religion.This is to avoid hard feelings among people who HAVE to work and live together or they very well could die together.

---

While I am with you on the issue, that is a totally screwed up example. Wally World can charge you what ever the heck they want to charge you. If the price on the tag is what you paid at the register it is not over charging even if you paid $500 for a can of Coca-Cola.

There is no retail comparison to the government and its spending. The debate should be how much of a surplus/debit window is best for the country, the taxpayers, and the economy. It is a legit debate that should be had. Simple cognitive thought will let you know that with a multi-trillion dollar budget, there is no way that the actual revenues and expenditures will ever be in perfect balance. So what should we aim for in the max debit we should be willing to take on, and what is the max surplus that we she feel is right in the government holding before refunds are issued or the next years tax rate is lowered. It is a VERY difficult if not impossible balancing act and it is there at every level of governenment from a small hamlets budget through the state level and up to the federal level. I wish I had the answer to the right level, it requires a serious understanding of economics and a crystal ball, but all that we have is one guy in a white house to send a wish list to 535 guys in a domed white building on a hill to try and come up with a common opinion on the way to go with it all.

Agreeing with one my favorite authors isn't getting educated by pop fiction.I've worked on a few campaigns when I was a kid and after seeing how most politicians treat people after the election is over and done with causes me to find the mental image of a politician in a rendering vat kind of funny.
I do know about checks and balances.I saw the previous administration actually admit that they were looking for ways around the Constitution to enact more gun control than it was legally to do.Because the system is hard to change,despite what the media and other people who hate Freedom wanted to do,they couldn't and the Judicial Branch overruled the Executive branch,like it's supposed to be able to do.
I never said anything about a dictator.The President has to be the one held accountable for what happens on his watch,just like a ship's Captain or Officer of the Deck.When he screws up,he is roasted for it and when he makes us all proud,he should be praised for it,no matter what political party he belongs to.
For this reason,the President should be able to set policy for the nation,even though Congress might shoot him down.

I'm a Democrat, mostly becuase I find the people who run the Republican party far more repugnant, arrogant and generally distasteful all around than those who run the Democratic party. I don't like any of them...but we don't have open primaries in Pennsylvania...

I don't, however, spout the party line on all issues, by a long shot...

I believe fiscal responsibility is found in balanced budgets and/or modest surpluses to aid in debt reduction...not the tax-and-spend policies of old-school Democrats or the don't-tax-and-spend-like-idiots-anyway policies of the modern GOP.

I believe free markets are a great resource allocation tool most of the time, but, in the real world, they also do fail from time to time. Therefore, there is a need for government intervention in the economy...but not in the wholly politically motivated ways in which our government has undertaken economic policy for decades.

I believe in freedom of religion and, more importantly, freedom from religion. I have no right telling you what to believe or where and what to worship...but there is no place for your god in my government, either. Period.

I'm pro-choice, without reservation or apology...and I'm also pro-death penalty for a list of offenses, as long as it's equitably enforced, regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, region of the country, time of day, or anything else that might make it discriminatory.

I believe it's none of my business - and certainly none of the government's business - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and relationships. I belive that, in turn, means debates over things like gay marriage should never have happened. The government has no place in the marriage business at all...that's a religious issue (see above)...it should record and enforce civil contracts between whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them. That's it.

Overall, I believe I would rather have the government meddling in my financial life than my personal life.

I believe freedom of speech, press and thought should be protected to the hilt...and I oppose censorship in all its forms, whether in the name of morality, political correctness, or pretty much anything else except public safety (the old "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater exception").

I believe in my right to keep and bear arms...but also in the rights of me and others like me to at least keep an eye on who else is bearing arms. I think many gun control advocates take it to the point of paranoia...but I also think the NRA is run by a bunch of raving whack-jobs.

I could go on...but I'm tired of typing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doughesson

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.

---

Borrowing at record levels is not ultimately bad for the economy, but potentially a national security issue.

The GOP controls all aspects of the federal government and is running our country towards economic disaster.

I try to remain in the common sense party, lets face it, no candidate in history has ever said what they actually mean or believe. If someone ever runs with the slogan "vote for me cause i cant screw it up anyworse" Ill be there on voting day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsnyder

I'm a Democrat, mostly becuase I find the people who run the Republican party far more repugnant, arrogant and generally distasteful all around than those who run the Democratic party. I don't like any of them...but we don't have open primaries in Pennsylvania...

I don't, however, spout the party line on all issues, by a long shot...

I believe fiscal responsibility is found in balanced budgets and/or modest surpluses to aid in debt reduction...not the tax-and-spend policies of old-school Democrats or the don't-tax-and-spend-like-idiots-anyway policies of the modern GOP.

I believe free markets are a great resource allocation tool most of the time, but, in the real world, they also do fail from time to time. Therefore, there is a need for government intervention in the economy...but not in the wholly politically motivated ways in which our government has undertaken economic policy for decades.

I believe in freedom of religion and, more importantly, freedom from religion. I have no right telling you what to believe or where and what to worship...but there is no place for your god in my government, either. Period.

I'm pro-choice, without reservation or apology...and I'm also pro-death penalty for a list of offenses, as long as it's equitably enforced, regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, region of the country, time of day, or anything else that might make it discriminatory.

I believe it's none of my business - and certainly none of the government's business - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and relationships. I belive that, in turn, means debates over things like gay marriage should never have happened. The government has no place in the marriage business at all...that's a religious issue (see above)...it should record and enforce civil contracts between whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them. That's it.

Overall, I believe I would rather have the government meddling in my financial life than my personal life.

I believe freedom of speech, press and thought should be protected to the hilt...and I oppose censorship in all its forms, whether in the name of morality, political correctness, or pretty much anything else except public safety (the old "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater exception").

I believe in my right to keep and bear arms...but also in the rights of me and others like me to at least keep an eye on who else is bearing arms. I think many gun control advocates take it to the point of paranoia...but I also think the NRA is run by a bunch of raving whack-jobs.

I could go on...but I'm tired of typing...

---

So, in essence, you really don't believe in anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace

Did not matter if you claimed a party or not, I got calls from all sides too in this past election.

---

What you trying to say Dennis. I wasn’t the only one. But they told me I was very important. I can’t believe this. I feel so used lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Borrowing at record levels is not ultimately bad for the economy, but potentially a national security issue.

The GOP controls all aspects of the federal government and is running our country towards economic disaster.

---

If the GOP has such strong control, why is the radical right complaining that the leadership can't get anything that they want done? Is it because the majority of the GOP is not realy as radical as some would like to paint them, or because the Constitution is set up to give no single group absolute power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace

If the GOP has such strong control, why is the radical right complaining that the leadership can't get anything that they want done? Is it because the majority of the GOP is not realy as radical as some would like to paint them, or because the Constitution is set up to give no single group absolute power?

---

Because the group in power always has a vested interest in maintaining spending to pay back the constituents who put them there in the first place.

You think its an accident that a state like Alaska which sends minimal dollars is on the receiving end of a much higher rate of federal spending than other states when Sen Stevens is doing all the arm twisting? It's easy to blast away at tax and spend liberals when the blue states are paying the freight of the red states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

You think its an accident that a state like Alaska which sends minimal dollars is on the receiving end of a much higher rate of federal spending than other states when Sen Stevens is doing all the arm twisting? It's easy to blast away at tax and spend liberals when the blue states are paying the freight of the red states.

---

This is precisely my point regarding problems with the political system of today, " he who gives the most, gets his way."
This is a problem plagueing both sides of the aisle.
As far as the tax and spend liberals, I recieve a much larger federal tax refund now, as opposed to the '90's, even though I have refinanced to lower interest rates a number of times since then. My mortgage is my primary tax credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasper45

As far as the tax and spend liberals, I recieve a much larger federal tax refund now, as opposed to the '90's

---

Look here to see why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Look here to see why.

---

I know exactly why. People spend too much time with the whole "tax cut's for the rich" squeal. I'm not rich, the tax cuts benefitted me quite a bit, they also were very welcomed by my co-workers. We each had a good sum of extra money to spend as we see fit, thanks primarily to the Bush tax cuts. In fact, alot of that money went to support our troops in the form of cash donations, and now much will probably go to help the hurricane victims. That's purely guess work, based on conversations at work. Either way, or none of those ways, it's money I will gladly take back, and I put back into the economy in a positive way, as opposed to some useless handout program that does nothing but waste it.
I live through enough of that every day at the local, and the state level. That's what happens when you live in a "blue" state. You get over taxed, and you watch your money get ****ed away, with no benefit to anyone.
Are there problems at the federal level? Absolutely, but we need to look back through time, and see when this defecit began. If I'm not mistaken, it didn't start in January of 2001, or even January of 1981, for that matter.
Every president, in recent history has run with a defecit. Clinton ran with one as well. He may have had a balanced budget, on paper, but in all reality it did nothing with our debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasper45

Clinton ran with one as well. He may have had a balanced budget, on paper, but in all reality it did nothing with our debt.

---

WRONG!!!! When a budget is balanced. The debt doesn't increase. Nor does the interest on the debt. Both of which have occurred under Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

WRONG!!!! When a budget is balanced. The debt doesn't increase. Nor does the interest on the debt. Both of which have occurred under Bush.

---

How does the interest on the debt not increase? As long as money is not going towards paying down the debt, the interest will always be compounding. Show me where Clinton paid down the debt at a rate higher then the interest accumulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace

How does the interest on the debt not increase? As long as money is not going towards paying down the debt, the interest will always be compounding. Show me where Clinton paid down the debt at a rate higher then the interest accumulation.

---

Interest is a function of priniciple. If the principle doesn't increase, the interest upon it doesn't increase. This is simple finance. If the principle increases, the interest increases. If the interest is compounding as you put forth in your scenario, it is compounding at a lower rate since it based upon a lower principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Interest is a function of priniciple. If the principle doesn't increase, the interest upon it doesn't increase. This is simple finance. If the principle increases, the interest increases. If the interest is compounding as you put forth in your scenario, it is compounding at a lower rate since it based upon a lower principle.

---

What Econ class did you fail? As long as interest is accumulating, the principle is growing and thus the next interest payment will be that much higher. Clinton did nothing to lower the principle when he had the oppertunity. Neither did the GOP Congress, but they have not been running around for the last five years complaining that it had not been done either.

DM: You asked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace

How does the interest on the debt not increase?

---

If the principle doesn't increase, say because you haven't added to the principle because the budget is balanced, the interest won't increase either. Pretty simple.