OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

Page 8 of 8  
We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull shit

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yawn.... Another clueless guy tilting at windmills. There is nothing to suggest that the electoral college is a problem or makes any difference in who's elected. Even if it flipped an election once in a while to the other guy, that sure wouldn't solve anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, is there any way to restore freedom, and have the Fed return to the limits of the Constitution?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:

Yawn.... Another clueless guy tilting at windmills. There is nothing to suggest that the electoral college is a problem or makes any difference in who's elected. Even if it flipped an election once in a while to the other guy, that sure wouldn't solve anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The US has a fairly balanced system of checks and balances. Ultimately it is the electorate who decides these things, however indirectly, and however late and after the fact. Of course the SCOTUS decided that corporations are people and now the bosses of industry are as free to throw money at the electorate as anyone, except they have far more ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is hardly news. The original SCOTUS discussion of the constitutional rights of corporations goes back to the mid1800s or so when SCOTUS decided that the taking clause also included taking things from corporations. The cases specific to the first amendment run back at least to the early 1930s or so. A scan of the Citizen's United opinion (and a quick find run on person and personhood) did not find any mention of the word(s). I never did get around to the concurring or dissenting opinions to see if the word pops up lower in the decision food chain.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's about as likely as you realizing Top Posters are a PITA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:32:54 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

You're incapable of controlling yourself? You must be a Democrat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, if the continue the electoral BS, we have less power? I think that's the point.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 21, 10:46am, snipped-for-privacy@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt, more govt employees, more govt programs, and most importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the country?
I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is nuts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The fed debt increased several trillion under GWB, so both sides of the aisle appear to be deficit spenders. Perhaps time for a third party?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt, more govt employees, more govt programs, and most importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the country?
I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is nuts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 21, 11:12am, "Stormin Mormon"

It actually increased by about $5tril in eight years. And I agree the Republicans were also spending too much money. But there is a difference. The deficit then was steadily declining and was down to $160bil. By comparison, under Obama the deficit has gone up by $6tril in just three years. Some of that is attributable to the recession. But the govt today is taking in more money than ever before, yet we still have a $1.2tril deficit.
So, whatever excess spending the Republicans were guilty of in the past, what's going on now is an order of magnitude worse. And the Republicans, particularly the Tea Party folks, have apparently gotten the message and actuall are willing to tackle the spending problem.
So, just blindly throwing out everyone and replacing them with someone else whether they are a Republican or a Democrat is a failed strategy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmm. Attributable to the recession. My view is that the O regime and over taxataion and over regulation are the cause of the recession.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
to $160bil. By comparison, under Obama the deficit has gone up by $6tril in just three years. Some of that is attributable to the recession. But the govt today is taking in more money than
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 21, 1:34pm, "Stormin Mormon"

I don't know how you can attribute the cause of the recession to Obama. It was the sub-prime mortgage collapse and the housing market which started the recession. And that clearly started the last year of the Bush administration. I would agree that had Obama taken a different approach the economy would be doing better today and we would have a stronger recovery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Everything's Obama's fault. Just like the last recession was Clinton's fault. I blame socialists for all the world's ails.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:

I don't know how you can attribute the cause of the recession to Obama. It was the sub-prime mortgage collapse and the housing market which started the recession. And that clearly started the last year of the Bush administration. I would agree that had Obama taken a different approach the economy would be doing better today and we would have a stronger recovery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I blame top posters for all the world's ails. They are just as bad as socialists.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just for that, I'm increasing your taxes. A lot.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:

I blame top posters for all the world's ails. They are just as bad as socialists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Granted that both sides are deficit spenders, there is still a clear difference, exemplified by the fact that the deficit has increased as much _each year_ under Obama as it did in _all eight years combined_ under Bush.
A viable third party alternative would be great -- but where is it? Too many of the Libertarians are obvious moonbats, and all of the other parties are even worse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think you mean the national debt, not the deficit. And I think you better check the math on that one. The deficit increased about $5tril under Bush. If it increased $5tril each year under Obama, it would now be $25tril, which it isn't. He's increased it by $6tril in 3 years, which is more than the $5tril in the eight years of Bush and certain shocking enough.

That;s for sure. Even some of the Tea Party are out to lunch. Back when they were raising the national debt last summer, Michelle Bachman kept saying she would not raise the limit no matter what. She insisted that the country could do just fine going cold turkey, ie going instantly to a balanced budget. That would have meant that starting in Aug last year, the govt would have funds to cover only 60% of the current spending rate. Now I'm all for cutting spending and I think there is a LOT that could be cut. But reducing it 40% instantly? She kept saying, "We can pay our troops, fund the military, we can pay social security and the interest on the national debt. Problem is that if you add up all that, and the similar committments like federal pensions, etc, there is nothing left to run things like the FBI, TSA, FAA, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.