sooo....what'cha gonna get with your refund?

[logan5]

seeing as how everyone is likely to get somewhere between 300 (single) and 600 (married) in the mail sometime this summer ... what are you gonna get? I'll probably spend half on new batteries and the other half on some DVDs I've been eyeing.

logan5

[Buran]

Ameritrade!

[rcdude]

Logo 10

[Steve McBride]

Yeah, I am a bit skeptical too. Is there something that actually list the requirements for receiving the tax rebate? Do all 'tax payers' (I use the term loosely as some actually receive more back than they pay) get the same rebate or is it based on something else? As a single parent, I am looking at $500.00 from what I understand.

Here's hoping for more toy money http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/smile.gif

Steve

[NewbieX]

Same that I did with my tax refund. ~25% to the Cousteau Society, CPPA or some other charity I haven't paid this year, another 25% to money market/trading/savings account and 1/2 goes into the checking account to be hopefully spent on wining and dining a young lady, buying toys, getting friends drunk or some other very serious matter. But could just as likely end up at the power company or the grocery store.

As for gloriously not spending money, the walmart foamie is nearly complete with grocery store meat-tray tail group, tape covering and T-52 canabalized components. Total investment under $10. Even better if it actually flies, which I'm beginning to think it will as it has that X-250/skimmer look with the low wing and dragger gear and it's very light. 36" slim wing, 6v 400, 6x4 prop, doing damage.

[me11owman]

Buy gas for the Truck.....

[Scott C]

Is it true that some Democratic politicians are asking that the money be returned to them?

[little nail]

I plan to invest our 600 bux in mutual funds,unless Mrs. little nail decides to book a flight to NYC to visit our grand daughters. That 600 bux is chump change, when you pay over 11K in federal taxes. George

[Gerald]

...

[John Zook]

Considering the new Hitec Eclipse 7, or Astro motor gearbox for my Viking, or, or, or, or,......help! No, I'm allright now. Really I am. John
P/S this tax cut is now estimated to cost 4 trillion. http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/eek.gif

[BobK]

Scott C

Yep, they are. Here's the web site:

https://www.democrats.org/support/

They're asking you to send them your tax refund. Unblieveable.

[DeaninMilwaukee]

Of course they're asking for your refund.
It's not called the "no shame" party for nothing.

BTW, LOL about the "tax cut will cost x " idea.

This is money taxpayers were overcharged and now is being only partially returned.
Thats like your waitress complaining thats it's costing her x dollars to return your change to you.

If it was'nt for the Prez, all that money would just dissapear into the pockets of the special interest groups. Remember, the goverment can't waste what it does'nt have.
Democrats: The real risky scheme.

[dave_lilley]

I'm putting my $600 down on my credit bill to pay for toys that I already have.

[Mark Wood]

Geared Astro 40 and some 3rd generation Panasonic 3000 NiMhs. http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/smile.gif

mw

[Rocksnake2]

Well I ain't countin my chickens(or lizards or whatever) before they hatch...Ever the skeptic I'll beleive it when I gots it in my hot little hands.

Rocky

[partoftheproblm]

Send the money to anyone else, i want a new President..one that has a brain that works.
Who said C students make great Presidents?
Or better yet, bush can use my refund to take a few public speaking classes (after the brain is inserted)

[NewbieX]

Let's face it. Both the democraps and the republicapitals are singing a little, happy, damned song, while they both give GE, Ford, Viacom and so many others the keys to the castle.

It's ridiculous that between the media giants, the manufacturing giants and the political giants, the american people are broken into demographics and conquered through emotion, belief, tradition, repetition and need (among other things I can't even think of right now).

Either way, lives roles on, ...$600, $257 or $0, whether it will be spent on a childs new school pants or 1/4 of another bottle of champagne.

I'm amazed.

[John Zook]

It seems as though people don't realise what this tax cut really is like. If they really knew I suspect most people would feel suckeredand deceived. bush's tax plan is the biggest joke, with it's phase in and phase out and most people don't realise that these cuts don't come into effect for several years 2006, as well as the so called marriage penalty and estate tax in 2009 then phased out in2010. Happy landing.
It's hard to determine if it was Geo. Bush that was elected or Dan Quayle. I guess the only difference is bush is from Texas.

[Feodosia Flyer]

Originally posted by me11owman:
Buy gas for the Truck.....

With my $ 600 I was going to buy 24 Litestick planes

But with Bush letting gas going up to $3.00 a gallon I might have to buy a moped to get to work instead http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/frown.gif

[Bill Harris]

I'll believe it when I get it. We got snookered be his daddy's "lip reading act" a few years back... http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/frown.gif

--Bill

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"But with Bush letting gas going up to $3.00 a gallon "

Letting? What, do you think he can stop it by presidential decree?

The only way to drop prices is to up supply.

If you were the prez, how would YOU up supply?

[SchiessCo]

I'll put it in the fund to buy a new fuel efficient econobox to replace my truck. Hope those gas prices keep rising! http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/smile.gif

Pete

[me11owman]

Well Dean ....They could put every penny of this tax cut into renewable energy tax credits....to provide for energy sources less susceptable to manipulation.....(But that wouldn't be a good payback to his finacial backers would it? http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/eek.gif ) I would gladly give up my refund for that......

[This message has been edited by me11owman (edited 06-15-2001).]

[DeaninMilwaukee]

Energy credits are just a temporary stopgap that does nothing to solve the basic problem while causing its own special set of new problems.
The problem is there is no viable alternative to oil, and we are speaking theoretically here. Nothing else has the energy density that oil does save uranium. Throwing research dollars at the problem won't change that fact.
Less than 1/2 of our oil is produced by our country.
We are therefore at the mercy of world prices for oil, ie the only control we have is increasing production. Any solutions that don't address this basic problem are'nt really solutions at all.

"I would gladly give up my refund for that......"

Whats stopping you. Send yours to the dems. BTW, does'nt it bother you that the dems never actually SOLVE any of the issues they champion?

[Feodosia Flyer]

Dean, Increase supply ? How about lower demand ?

Mellowman hit the nail on the head....incentives for the energy-thrifty, something we've needed for a long, long time.

Hey ! Mr.Bush wouldn't happen to know a few rich Texan oilmen that he has to take care of, would he ??

Ok, if you see me on the road with my moped, just remember that we have to share the road equally....don't run me over please.

[Feodosia Flyer]

"Less than 1/2 of our oil is produced by our country"

We produce all the oil we actually need...
The problems are that we are culturally terrible wasters .....let's face it,we have an unhealthy relationship with the automobile..here's one GREAT example..
I live in pan-cake flat south New Jersey that gets about a grand total of 4 inches of snow in a year..... now, why does every yuppy household have at least one or two gas guzzling ATV's in each driveway ? What the h*** do they need with those things in this state ? A double-transmission station wagon that drinks up at least double the amount of gasoline, big deal .... If they want to look like they are sitting high and pretty they can buy a 4 cylinder normal station wagon and jack it up, ha !

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"Dean, Increase supply ? How about lower demand ?
Mellowman hit the nail on the head....incentives for the energy-thrifty, something we've needed for a long, long time."

Lower demand? The only way to do this is to raise prices, either directly (pump prices)or indirectly.(energy credit schemes).
I notice gas prices have gone up what, about 75% in the last two years? Demand still has'nt gone down. Just how high are you willing to have gas prices go?
Are'nt you afraid how this would affect the least fortunate among us, the people who can't afford the newer high milage cars, who may be lucky to have any car at all?
Thats not a very compassionate view.
Is this whats liberalism is really about?

[windsurfer]

Just remember you suckers that it is UP TO 300 single/600 married. YMMV. It'll probably be more like 20.00.

You've been paying too much in taxes to pay off the F%$#@ng debt that Reagan/Daddy Bush created with "Voodoo Economics" (George Sr.'s quote, not mine) and the original "Star Wars" program. HEY LOOKIE HERE George W. is doing it all over again.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[me11owman]

Actually my idea is to displace some oil usage with solar, wind and geo thermal and that old buggabo.....(dare I say it...) Conservation!!....that would lessen demand pressure for oil...but only if supported in the same manner as the other energy sources...(tax incentives and or credits...just like oil or nuclear gets now???)

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"Actually my idea is to displace some oil usage with solar, wind and geo thermal"

The only one that has a functional chance for home use is a photovoltaic grid on a house charging a large bank of batteries and then converted back to ac as the homeowner needs. During long periods of no sun, the batteries could be charged during off peak hours from the power grid. The prob with this of course is the cost. A system large enough to have a chance at running the house would be over $10,000. The componenets do not have an unlimited life span, and therefore will never come close to breaking even on a cost/kw to just staying hooked up to the grid.

Wind could be used in much the same fashion and is cheaper than photovoltaic would be, but is fairly noisy for residential use and many geographical areas would'nt have enough wind anyway.

Geothermal also can only be used in certain areas. Very expensive install cost. Not practical for most home use.

" and that old buggabo.....(dare I say it...) Conservation!!....that would lessen demand pressure for oil...but only if supported in the same manner as the other energy sources...(tax incentives and or credits...just like oil or nuclear gets now???) "

See my previous post on tax credits.
People will not conserve unless its actually cheaper. Tax credits DO NOT make it cheaper, it just shifts the cost to some other poor slob.

If a new technology is to be considered superior, it must beat the old technology on a level playing field. If it can't, it should not be adopted.

BTW, one technology that could give California a significant boost if adopted on a widespread basis is a simple batt storage system that uses cheaper off peak power to charge batts to run the home during peak hours. Without any tax credits or any other goverment incentive, it would make financial sense for homeowners to buy these systems just to take advantage of cheaper off peak power.
The end result of course is peak load is taken off the power grid resulting in less blackouts. Of course the people with the batt systems will not be suffering throught the blackouts either.
Its funny how the news seems to address more power plant capacity as the only possible solution.

[windsurfer]

NO, NO, NO!!! Don't you guys get it? Trying to make yourself independant of the grid is EXPENSIVE and a waste of resources. To make PV and Wind work on a single home scale requires expensive storage and over-capacity. Solar and wind can be used in ADDITION to the regular grid with a two-way electric meter. Most of your electricity is generated when the grid most needs it (during the day) and you put it into the grid during those hours. Your home then uses from the grid at night when there is a huge over-capacity on the system. You don't need the batteries and can get by with a smaller system. In addition you can pretty easily drop your energy usage with some passive solar technologies to generate hot water and heat (which CAN be stored without batteries). In the end you've saved usage and money.

[NewbieX]

Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. Hell, the federal reserve sets the price of money, which is arguably more important than energy, food, shelter, etc. There are a number of federal agencies with this power, depending on the commodity we're talking about. That's what Davis wants him to do but Bush has refused to invoke these powers a) the cover story is that the "market" will work it out b) the reality is the spot market energy companies are making a killing and want to continue doing so. And these guys have lunch with Bush and Co. (as they did with Clinton, etc) so often he thinks they've got family on death row.

Unfortunately, the market won't work this out without a serious change, since the ultimate consumers do not have choice of supplier at this time. Just like Dean says, without a viable alternative people have to pay Edison, Enron, Peak, whoever. Without competition, the market is more of a federal subsidy than a market. Oh horror, state sanctioned businesses, sounds awful familiar to one of Dean's favorite boggeymen. But it will never work if you treat it like a market on one side and a subsidy on the other.

And if you really think there aren't loads of alternatives to oil in many of the capacities that we use it, go to the grocery store and pick up a 1/2 gallon of "Silk" Soy Milk. On the label is the story of how Henry Ford used a bushel of soybeans to make plastic (oil) and fabric (oil) used in the Model T over 60 years ago.

So it's not that the technologies aren't there or that oil is just superior, it's that there are some very powerful and "persuasive" (if you get my drift) individuals who really like the status quo and think that Senator X or President Y should too.

And the soybean, the industrial hemp plant (plastic, energy, fabric, etc) the photovoltaic cells, the geothermals and the hydrokinetics of all different stripes don't have such persuasive lobbyists because they aren't sitting on the top of the heap yet. It's rather ridiculous that our system of government and economy combines to create a situation where past success and progress combines to hinder further success and progress. I now refer you to microsoft, GM, immigration policy, the justice system and the grand daddy of them all (that keeps all this **** rolling along uphill) campaign finance.

It can be improved. But the American people have to escape static thinking, media manipulation, personality voting and so many other things that just clog up what was supposed to be gov't by and for the people.

[lymon]

I spent mine 6 months ago

When you calculate the cost of renewable energy, remember that the cost of producing grid energy includes the hidden subsidy (via taxes) of defending countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from invasion. Solar panels can last 20 years; who wants to predict what a kw will be worth in 2021? Solar (wind, hydro) stand alone systems also ruthlessly demand conservation.
You can spend more than $10K having lines run to a rural home- to earn the privilege of paying a monthly bill.

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. "

I think we've established here that there is no good alternative to using oil at this time, (especially for vehicles where energy desnsity/pound is so important), therefore it is an issue of supply.

Explain how capping selling prices stimulates production.
Its easy to see how it could stop conservation, (go ahead and buy that big SUV Clem, fuel prices will never go up!), and how all incentive for new exploration and drilling goes away, (why invest more money when you have no chance of getting it back.), but not how it will stimulate production.

Goverment companies simply don't work. All the ruthlesness and brutality the USSR could bring to bear could'nt make their goverment companies even make production quota's, but you think our wishy washy politicians can make it work. Even the power hungry Dems don't try to put the goverment finger into their most important goverment function, tax collection. They leave it to a private firm, the IRS.

[wildcat1949]

Put it in the bank. Use it to help pay this years tax........wild

[BillM]

I plan to use mine to offset the 23% school tax increase our local school directors have deemed a necessity. Seems they feel we need a new school to house the 168 students we no longer have in the district.

[Gerald]

...

[NewbieX]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
"Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. "

I think we've established here that there is no good alternative to using oil at this time, (especially for vehicles where energy desnsity/pound is so important), therefore it is an issue of supply.

Explain how capping selling prices stimulates production.
Its easy to see how it could stop conservation, (go ahead and buy that big SUV Clem, fuel prices will never go up!), and how all incentive for new exploration and drilling goes away, (why invest more money when you have no chance of getting it back.), but not how it will stimulate production.

Goverment companies simply don't work. All the ruthlesness and brutality the USSR could bring to bear could'nt make their goverment companies even make production quota's, but you think our wishy washy politicians can make it work. Even the power hungry Dems don't try to put the goverment finger into their most important goverment function, tax collection. They leave it to a private firm, the IRS.

What do you think the deregulated power system in California is? It's a government subsidized business, because consumers do not have choice. It's a market between the energy producers and the utility company, but it's a subsidy between the consumer and utility company. I'm not arguing that government run companies work, I'm arguing that you have to make a choice. Either something is a government service or a private service, can't go halfway.

And the gas business is subsidized as well, or don't they build roads with public money anymore. An aircraft carrier costs alot to maintain, but not nearly as much as having nothing to hold over OPEC's head. And last I checked the government still runs the Navy.

Much of the oil we use is made into plastic, for which there are many alternatives, but the oil lobby is very powerful and prevents this.

And electric/hybrid vehicles, while unpopular, can be used quite well for some needs. Look around some liberal strongholds like Boulder, CO. More solar homes, electric cars, windmills and natural gas buses than you can shake a stick at. But the gas and auto companies don't want us to know that.

I think we agree on this generally, but when the gov't obviously supports and defends an industry, creating future problems and screwing consumers, I'll call it exactly what it is rather than making weak excuses, for inexcusable behavior.

Clinton and Bush (and all Presidents) have used their power to quell strikes, to subsidize industries or individual companies or to completely flout market forces (such as in emergency situations like a hurricane).

The craziest thing is this "market mantra" that basically states the market will correct itself, the market is always right-except when it isn't. How easily some conservatives are able to forget the Chrysler bailout, a ten year old oil war, an S&L scam or Billions given to Lockheed and Martin-Marietta, during their merger. The rationale was that the merger would end up saving the gov't money, so why not make this quarter look real good to ensure shareholder support for the merger.

Go ask the FCC who owns the airwaves and then ask them who makes the profits. It appears that public and private are not nearly as separate as the conservative "market mantra" stance proposes. That this rationale is used to ensure record profits for the petroleum industry isn't really a suprise, but it's still rather ridiculous given the danger it poses and the cost it imposes on consumers.

[NewbieX]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
"Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. "

I think we've established here that there is no good alternative to using oil at this time, (especially for vehicles where energy desnsity/pound is so important), therefore it is an issue of supply.

Explain how capping selling prices stimulates production.
Its easy to see how it could stop conservation, (go ahead and buy that big SUV Clem, fuel prices will never go up!), and how all incentive for new exploration and drilling goes away, (why invest more money when you have no chance of getting it back.), but not how it will stimulate production.

Goverment companies simply don't work. All the ruthlesness and brutality the USSR could bring to bear could'nt make their goverment companies even make production quota's, but you think our wishy washy politicians can make it work. Even the power hungry Dems don't try to put the goverment finger into their most important goverment function, tax collection. They leave it to a private firm, the IRS.


I was talking about the California Power system, not really about gas. Actually, we pay a pretty low price for gas, yet there is still an awful lot of profit in it. If caps were set at like $1.50 regular, there would still be plenty of money to go around assuming OPEC stayed afraid of the USS Nimitz and assuming that domestic production stayed near current levels.

This would be bad from a conservation POV, but I think a company (Exxon Mobil) that had 8 Billion in net profits in '99 and more in 2000 (SEC yet to release numbers) and more in 2001 (SEC yet to release numbers), can probably handle the expense of a few exploration rigs, some scientists and a truck, maybe even a geographic information system or two.

Why do Exxon and Texaco and Chevron buy from OPEC, because it's still cheaper than domestic production. The Turks and Africans and Filipinos and other immigrant laborers that work oil jobs in Saudi and Kuwait and UEA don't demand the same type of pay and benefits that American workers do.

$1.40 to $1.80 isn't really a cause for the Prez to step in, but I think the argument could be made that something should be done to help California out of a bind they created with a dereg plan that didn't quite finish the job.

I've always kinda wondered about those "businesses" we have where there is no choice. Phone company, power company, water company, airport, etc. Like I said, the separation between private and public is not nearly as neat and clean as some would assume. A company that is a) already enjoying or quickly creating monopoly power b) subsidized by the gov't, isn't really acting according to strict market forces anyway. Claiming supply/demand in this situation denies so much about the reality of this situation, it's like claiming that poor kids could go to private school if they had an extra $1500.

[logan5]

sigh .... it was such an inocent question and now it's been turned into a political debate....

logan5

[Mark Wood]

Hang in there, Logan5. After 100 posts or so the discussion usually loops back to where it started. Kinda like fashions if you want to wait 30 years to wear those bell bottoms you've had stashed in the closet.

mw http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/smile.gif

[NipponDave]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
...Remember, the goverment can't waste what it does'nt have.

Yes, it can. The government has spent a huge sums of money that it didn't have. These borrowed funds have enriched Americans, big and small, for years.

There is no surplus until, aside from productive cap investment, the public debt is zero.

Government irresponsibily is the child of personal. Don't blame the politicians - they belong to us and we are responsible for the accounting of their actions.

I'm staggered by the pie-in-the-sky, play-today-pay-tomorrow attitude which prevails now. I always voted republican because I thought they had more fiscal sense - now it's clear that they're just stupid in a different way.

Oh, yeah, Eclipse 7!

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"There is no surplus until, aside from productive cap investment, the public debt is zero. "

According to the Dem party line, only increasing taxes 6% this year instead of the planned 7% is actually a spending cut.

I guess all the doobie smoking these people did in college musta affected their math skills.

[John Zook]

.......Does that mean that all the alcohol and cocaine abuse George Bush did, explains his irrational thought patterns?

[NipponDave]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
According to the Dem party line, only increasing taxes 6% this year instead of the planned 7% is actually a spending cut.


I'm no democrat, but I just have to wonder where this stuff comes from. Who's talking about increasing taxes????

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"I'm no democrat, but I just have to wonder where this stuff comes from. Who's talking about increasing taxes????"

Taxes (net revenues) automatically increase every year by a preagreed %. Thats was supposed to be about 7% this year but now will drop to around 6% due to the tax "cut".
If they'de changed it to 8% they'de call it a tax increase, but make no mistake, the goverments take goes up every year. They just call don't call it a tax increase.

I personally would like to see this increase limited to the inflation rate instead of doubling it, but hey, what do I know?

[BillM]

To anyone who is interested: When was the last time a politician listened to the people?

[DeaninMilwaukee]

Tailheavy, you have to remember that true liberals have a superiority complex. It not just you who they talk down to, its any non liberal. Thats why you'll find the largest percentage of liberals are aethiests. They've rationalized God away in their minds and denigrate anyone who does'nt agree with them as simple minded fools. (ie prez Bush).

Its really a shame these people have hijacked what used to be a reputable, honorable party, the democrats.
JFK would be ashamed of what his parties become.

[mrittinger]

amazes me how some people can view the handing over of an extra $300 as a BAD thing!

MArk

[Tim O]

Gas guzzling ATV's? They get about 40mpg. People get them because they're fun to ride, not for transportation. It's sure a lot more energy efficient than tooling around in a vintage car.

I edited this because based on re-reading your post, I think you meant SUV's instead of ATV's.

Originally posted by Feodosia Flyer:
"Less than 1/2 of our oil is produced by our country"

We produce all the oil we actually need...
The problems are that we are culturally terrible wasters .....let's face it,we have an unhealthy relationship with the automobile..here's one GREAT example..
I live in pan-cake flat south New Jersey that gets about a grand total of 4 inches of snow in a year..... now, why does every yuppy household have at least one or two gas guzzling ATV's in each driveway ? What the h*** do they need with those things in this state ? A double-transmission station wagon that drinks up at least double the amount of gasoline, big deal .... If they want to look like they are sitting high and pretty they can buy a 4 cylinder normal station wagon and jack it up, ha !



[This message has been edited by Tim O (edited 06-19-2001).]

[NipponDave]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
Taxes (net revenues) automatically increase every year by a preagreed %. Thats was supposed to be about 7% this year but now will drop to around 6% due to the tax "cut".


Don't confuse tax rate percentages (which is what politicians can control) with revenues. Net revenues depend on the health of the economy - more money made means more tax revenues are collected. Unless you want to give the democrats full credit for the economic miracle over the Clinton administration, and I bet you don't, don't blame them for the windfall in revenues by calling it a tax increase. Nobody knew that the economy would grow like that - there was no "pre-set", diabolical democratic plan for such because they couldn't have predicted the future.

Ironically, the republicans now think that THEY have a crystal-ball, and that the pretty picture it shows will allow us to shirk our responsibility to creditors today. Debt crushes families, corporations, and countries. Not paying it back is weak-minded and immoral, and worse, saddles our children with a dim and uncertain future.

I'd love to see more people start thinking for themselves - the kind of statistics the get quoted from slavish supporters of one party or the other chill my blood. Politicians today think that they can fool most of the people most of the time. They're right.

Pay down the debt - reduce taxes - move power from Washington to your town.

[Gene]

Refund? What's that? How about PAYFUND to the tune $2,000.00. Phuey!!!

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"Don't confuse tax rate percentages (which is what politicians can control) with revenues."

I did'nt. Thought I was clear on that.

" Net revenues depend on the health of the economy - more money made means more tax revenues are collected. "


Absolutly correct.


"Unless you want to give the democrats full credit for the economic miracle over the Clinton administration, and I bet you don't,"


Right again.


" don't blame them for the windfall in revenues by calling it a tax increase."


Its not a windfall, its overtaxation. They continued to keep the tax rate the same even though they knew early on that it was more than the goverment needed.
Perhaps some long backburnered pet projects were about to see the light of day before mean ol' prez Bush stepped in.
No wonder the dems fought so hard to first avoid and then limit the tax cut.
It must have been real painful to watch all that long awaited pork slide right off the table untouched.

[NipponDave]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
"Its not a windfall, its overtaxation. They continued to keep the tax rate the same even though they knew early on that it was more than the goverment needed."

Yes, hindsight is 20/20.

And about pork, if you think it's an invention of the Democrats, you need the consult the records at the CBO. The Republicans are (also) master porkers.

Armed with the facts, I don't see how anyone could support the policies of either party.

[NewbieX]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
Tailheavy, you have to remember that true liberals have a superiority complex. It not just you who they talk down to, its any non liberal. Thats why you'll find the largest percentage of liberals are aethiests. They've rationalized God away in their minds and denigrate anyone who does'nt agree with them as simple minded fools. (ie prez Bush).

Its really a shame these people have hijacked what used to be a reputable, honorable party, the democrats.
JFK would be ashamed of what his parties become.

So I guess I can over-generalize about the motivations, thoughts and spiritual beliefs of political conservatives and you would appreciate that, or would that be superior if I said the same thing you have said.

Lumping people into groups based on political affiliation (which is often inherited from family) and then ascribing personality traits isn't going to help us understand each other's opinions and ideas.

Let's keep it based on policy objectives and issues which can be studied and discussed without resorting to blanket statements condemning ones philosophical opponents.

And the same things that are hurting the Democratic Party hurts the Republican Party, namely TV politics (spin, marketing, polling, etc, where a good tie and a good speaking voice is more important than what you say or do), corporatization, death of the small business, as well as the general political apathy of the American public. Remember, the majority of eligable voters didn't even vote in the last election.

We get the government we demand and most people (liberal or conservative) are too busy demanding entertainment, fancy cell phones and other meaningless diversions to demand much in the way of government.

The conservative/liberal baiting, ceaseless argument and lining up like democracy is a gang fight, isn't going to help solve the problems, address the issues or make America the best it can be.

But I do agree that both major parties are basically useless at this point. Kind of hard to address the needs of a country and a world, when you're busy raising money for re-election by cow-towwing to anyone with a couple million to rub together.

Personally, I am a deeply spiritual person and don't need anyone telling me what I should believe. I have educated myself from a very young age on the world's religions, on my family's religion and have struggled with many questions to come to where I am spiritually.

And I highly doubt most liberals are atheists. I strenuously charge you with the responsibility of proving that with verifiable research or retracting your erroneous statement. I'm sure studies have been done and the information is available.

I make every effort to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect them and their beliefs whether I agree or not. I guess I'll be referring to myself as a radical or a progressive or a leftist, since I no longer fit into the "Liberal" category, due to belief in God and the realization my opinion is only an opinion.

If you think liberal politics are bad, wait till you get a load of radical politics. See Noam Chomsky.

And if JFK had been President in 2000, the same thing would have happened to him that happened to Clinton. Marilyn Monroe and a host of others played Lewinsky with JFK, but the opposition didn't care back then because it wasn't (rightly so) considered fair game to go after one's private life.

[TailHeavy]

Originally posted by Eric Swenson:
Send the money to anyone else, i want a new President..one that has a brain that works.
Who said C students make great Presidents?
Or better yet, bush can use my refund to take a few public speaking classes (after the brain is inserted)

Eric ...think about it. Graduating from Harvard with a "C" average doesn't sound easy to me. Maybe you have done much better at college than that, and that's why you feel that people like me with a "C" average aren't smart enough to appoint and lead people.

[NipponDave]

Music to my ears, Newbie.

[SassyCat]

Originally posted by Mark Wood [groundloop]:
Hang in there, Logan5. After 100 posts or so the discussion usually loops back to where it started. Kinda like fashions if you want to wait 30 years to wear those bell bottoms you've had stashed in the closet.

mw http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/smile.gif

Is this at 100 posts yet??? http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/rolleyes.gif
Logan I know what u mean. Sometimes you just want to write. (NO DEBATE, it's just a SIMPLE QUESTION!!!) http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/biggrin.gif

Yup, my bellbottoms are in my closet just waiting till their in style again, for the.. 4th or 5th time??? http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/tongue.gif

Sass

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"And I highly doubt most liberals are atheists. I strenuously charge you with the responsibility of proving that with verifiable research or retracting your erroneous statement. I'm sure studies have been done and the information is available. "

If your sure, why did'nt you quote from one or more? Geez, talk about passing the buck.
I know of no such studies, and if there were, how accurate could they be since they'de be based on volenteered info.
Perhaps I was a little rash saying prob the majority of liberals were athiest, as I was just going on gut instinct based on the many things I see liberals as being in favor of, ie abortion and no school prayer among other well known examples.
I guess I'm just a simple guy who judges people and groups by their actions instead of their stated goals.

[Mark Wood]

AAAOOOOGAAAA! Off Off Topic alert called on Steve.
2 demerits.

mw

[The_Giver]

Originally posted by NewbieX

Republicans are (also) master porkers


ROFLMAO!

This is funny in so many ways. http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/biggrin.gif

-O Geoffrey

... he said porker :P

[This message has been edited by The_Giver (edited 06-20-2001).]

[NewbieX]

Burden of proof falls on he who makes the assertion. If not, I could run around saying all conservatives are taking their cue from Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson which isn't true at all. It's not passing the buck, it's demanding that heresay and wives tales don't pass as information and debate. Passing the Buck is making an assertion and then demanding that it be proven/disproven by someone else.

The abortion debate and separation of church and state (school prayer) have many other components besides individual spirituality. Let's start with freedom over one's own body and religious freedom. Or we could debate the "humanness" of a potential human. Do human ovum or sperm have rights? At what point in fertilization, growth, development does an embryo, a zygote a fetus become fully human. Do children have full human rights? No. Then why should an embryo have full child rights. Or we could talk about the separation of church and state, which seems to me, was a pretty large concern of the founding fathers and of many current religious leaders.

The liberal stance on this is that religion should not be coerced or sponsored by the state. As for abortion, it's a realization a) that unwanted pregnancy does happen b) that women will go to extremes if legal abortion is not available c) that neither the unprepared mother, the state or adoptive families can handle all unwanted pregnancies. It's not that people think abortion is a good thing or like the idea of killing babies or flaunt their power in the face of God. It's that the alternative is possibly a very bad thing. Not to mention, that motherhood is a very big commitment and I don't beleive anyone should be coerced into it by the state or by anyone.

If you can prove to me that the Christian Monotheistic God absolutely exists and no other Theistic belief system exists and that that God thinks abortion is a sin and that God thinks religious freedom is a sin and that God thinks school prayer is the way to go, then you've got me hook, line and sinker. Until then, religion is personal belief and in my opinion should remain there, rather than in the realm of government. This doesn't make me or anyone an atheist, it makes us consistent with the constitution of the USA. Simply, religious belief shouldn't be legislated.

That's what I'm saying about honest communication, debate and compromise. We can try to understand where one another is coming from, rather than you assuming I'm a dirty heathen and me assuming you are a bible-thumper.

I didn't say the thing about pork either, but I think we can all agree that one of the services our representatives in Washington provide is to bring federal money home to the state, ala pork. "StateX is the best place for this FederalX to be built and run at the cost of WhoppingX bringing jobs and economic stimulation to StateX".

Represenative Democracy, gotta love her despite the fact she's pretty cranky and awfully demanding.

Was it Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". He was right.

I find it a travesty of the worst kind that corporate oligarchy is currently being practiced by both major parties and is currently passing as Democracy in these United States. While powerful politicians on both sides rant on about a few marginal debates and extremists on either side get all whooped up about it, the corporations (human invented institutions which favor the few over the many) are running rampant over the rights of real citizens, namely human beings.

Now we can all go pay our inflated Visa bills, our inflated energy bills and return to work making money for those that already have much and wonder why it seems we have less and less time for families, communities and ourselves. That neighborhoods disintegrate and children are raised on TV, that the 1st world becomes ever more frenetic and diverted and the 3rd becomes ever more impoverished, while the DOW marches on to higher and higher corporate earnings are some interestingly related events.

I'm not saying business is bad in itself, I'm saying it shouldn't be allowed to exert more pressure on gov't than do citizens themselves which is unfortunately the case today.

For some reason (way beyond my understanding)this is less compelling than tax stratification, what people do with their uterus and a myriad of other marginal "issues", which the dems and pubs constantly debate.

Maybe it's less compelling because no one in power really talks about it. Look at John McCain. You can be a war hero and POW, a dedicated public servant and a thoughtful politician who actually drafts legislation, but mention something about taking some power away from corps and you're a disloyal pariah. Who wants to bet Feingold and McCain and a handful of others with the balls to fight entrenched power are working at non-profits in a few years?



[This message has been edited by NewbieX (edited 06-20-2001).]

[me11owman]

These things are much less interesting when they denegrate down to...."I'm right and your not" sort of posts.....

[Steve McBride]

I'm gonna get some more planes of course.....

Steve

[me11owman]

Right on Newbie.... http://www.ezonemag.com/disc/smile.gif
Tell it like it is!

[jrgii]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
"But with Bush letting gas going up to $3.00 a gallon "

Letting? What, do you think he can stop it by presidential decree?

The only way to drop prices is to up supply.

If you were the prez, how would YOU up supply?

Force OPEC to increase production!