On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:20:23 +0000, Mike Hide wrote:
Nope, no budget surpluses since 1961. The federal government's spending
has exceeded it's revenue every years since 1961. The mythical surpluses
were realized by the feds taking the surplus trust fund collections and
counting them as revenue, but not counting the IOUs dropped into those
funds as an expenditure in the current budget calculations. Those IOUs
are however counted in the national debt, which tells the real story.
Since all these trust funds contain nothing but debt, you curiosity may be
piqued to ask why anyone would rob/plunder/raid them. The next question
you might ask is how is the debt contained in these trust funds to be
collected so the monies may be distributed to the recipients in future
years. When you have thought about this for any amount of time, you'll
wonder how our politicians can give all the pious speeches about the evils
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:19:58 -0700, Doug Winterburn
They forced a trend back from annual deficit spending to a
balanced budget via reductions. But now look at it.
And by November, thanks to the Shrub, we'll be closer to $7T.
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
Huh? The American right cites Chamberlain as the prime example of
appeasement and uses its failure to justify the war against Saddam.
Ike's ratings have improved over the years, an example of the fallacy of
rating presidents too soon after their terms.
Nixon went to China in 1971, the shooting war against them ended in 1953.
Wrong. The war in Vietnam was an extension of the one started after by the
French with our support. After they were defeated at Dien Bien Phu during
the Eisenhower (Republican) administration we inherited the mess. My earlier
post said that Lyndon Johnson escalated the war, not started it. Both John
Kennedy and Johnson were hard to classify according to the current
definition of emocrat, since they were both strong Cold Warriors. Kennedy
especially was quite conservative in his first two years, only becoming
socially liberal in the last year of his term.
-- > I don't disagree, but remember also that the extra year gave Germany
had not gone to Europe to try and defend France etc from the German
invasion. the British ended up with the French on one flank and the Belgians
on the other they both pulled out leaving the British fully exposed trying
to fend off the full might of the German offensive.
The British were pushed back to Dunkirk where by the Grace of God they got
1/3 of a million troops out. If you also recall the Russians were also in
cahoots with Germany at that time. But sadly had to leave all their
equipment behind. To give you an idea of what was left, my father was
stopped by a tank commander on the English south coast road near Dover. It
turned out there were two tanks left to defend the whole south coast
As far as eastern Europe was concerned, basically Austria wanted an alliance
with Germany. German troops were basically welcomed there and Sedatenland
was always a disputed area. The straw that broke the camels back was the
invasion of Czechosolvakia. So the UK did not exactly Let Germany have
eastern Europe. mjh
Charlie, how do you keep yourself from slitting your wrists every morning
and just ending it all? Oh, and if you don't think people called Reagan
racist, homophobic or bent on destroying the world then you weren't
I'm old enough to know that the shitbirds don't ALWAYS win.
Oh, and if you don't think people called Reagan
asleep at the wheel, but I don't recall hearing, or reading, of anyone calling
him a racist or a homophobe. I do recall some people getting nervous for his
propensity to create confrontations, and for his allowing a lot of criminal
activity, but that doesn't require racism or homophobia.
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
We had evidence of some of that just recently in the CBS movie on Reagan --
the one that couldn't air because it reeked of bias. He was portrayed as
homophobic re the AIDS epidemic. As far as racist I have to admit on that
one I believe it was more assumed. As in, "Well he's a rich republican, of
course he's racist." I couldn't give you a quote now where somebody came
out and said it, but with all the people who hated him, I find it hard to
believe it wasn't an issue. He was going to destroy the world because he
was senile and had his trigger happy finger on the button. I certainly got
a sense of that during his administration.
I'll give ya 2 points on that quote from Adams. Interesting.
A good President? That's not evendebatable. He is almost certainly going down
I'm sure you know this Charlie but have just conveniently forgotten. As a
percentage of GDP, there are many times in our history that the national
debt has been higher than it is now. So, you don't have to dream it, it's
happened many times before. But I get it...you're exaggerating for effect.
Never did the understand the bad press Neville got , one thing he did do was
to play for time so the UK could prepare for the coming war. As far as
invading a sovereign country, didn't Bill do that when he invaded Haiti to
install his puppet there Aristide or the like . Of course that was ensure a
better government and better conditions for the populace, funny how the worm
turns isn't it .....mjh
as a result of terrorist attacks against US! Thank GOD that we have
VOLUNTEER forces to help defend this country and it's freedoms and ideals!
George Bush has been nothing other than a stalwart defender of democracy.
Of course things are tough in Iraq, because the worst thing that could
happen to those theocracies is for democracy to take hold. They are going
to fight their asses off to keep their women barefoot, ignorant and totally
submissive. The thought of actual freedom and education scares the hell out
of them, because it takes their power away. Any of you anti war shitheads
have daughters?? Imagine them living in those conditions as opposed to the
"infidels" in the United States where they can raise a family of FREE
children who choose their course in life as opposed to having their life
dictated to them. The problem with Saddam being gone is what??
George Bush will be appreciated by history as an American President who
actually had the balls to defend this country and to have a long term vision
to establish freedom and democracy in a region which largely still exists in
many respects in the 7th century.
Thank God for George Bush.
As a matter of fact this shithead does have a daughter. And exactly
what part of her life is, as you say, FREE? I'd really like to know
just what FREE means to you? Free to do what? Free to protest at a
political rally perhaps? How about free to travel unimpeded amongst the
various States? How 'bouut free to NOT say "under God"? How 'bout free
to reject the "Standard White Jesus"? How bout this: Free to think for
herself and express her opinion without fear of being labeled a heratic
This shithead also has a son. Is he going to be FREE to protest wars
in far off places? I seriously doubt it. More than likely his life
will be wasted in some far off place where the locals would just as soon
he went home.
Um, ya know not everyone in the world HAS to be an American. How dare
you think that your way of life is the ONLY way of life. Have you heard
of the Ugly American? Well we're all pretty hideous right now, and a
lot of it comes from folks like you who think their way is the only
way, their God is the only God, America is the only way.
who aren't thanking their God for Bush right now.
And before you trash me as a wimpy, leftist traitor, remember that YOU
said that we're fighting for freedom. And that includes the freedom
to dissent. The freedom to reject the dominant paradigm. And yes,
God forbid, the freedom to think for myself.
Hmmm....I just traveled to Wisconsin from Illinois. I don't recall being
"impeded". In fact, I've driven in quite a large number of states and don't
recall having to go through any checkpoints at the state lines.
Is your daughter being forced to say "under God"? Where do you live?
There seem to be lots of Jews and Muslims in this country that are free to
do so. I can name a long list of countries where the opposite is not true.
Oh, no. Your daughter might be "labeled". Call the ACLU. As long as the
government isn't tatooing "heratic" (sic) on her forehead, anyone doing the
"labelling" is just excercising their own right to free speech.
Is he planning to join the Army? I hope you're not talking about a draft,
because that's just a bunch of Democrat panic talk.
He said "establish freedom and democracy" not make it a US territory. Are
you saying that some people in the world deserve to live in totalitarian
regimes? Do you believe that there is not an innate yearning in the human
soul for freedom?
First, unless you count "less than 2" as "several", there aren't "several
billion Muslims" in the world to start with. Of those, I think it's a
mistake to believe that they all think the same way. .
I missed the post where people wanted to think for you.
Where? In "protest zones"? I can't attend a Bush rally without
breaking some law. And if I chose to do that I'd probably get kicked
in the head and have my hair (what's left of it) pulled out.
Oh I get it. Duh. "Here" being this psuedo reality which allows
us to vent our views and frustrations rather than going down town and
shouting on the street corner, or waving a sign as the motorcade rolls
by. Gee, this is medium is real effective protest isn't it?
A man was arrested in Texas for not "producing his papers". Sounds like
an impendiment to me. BTW, have you flown lately? I can tell you
stories 'bout people (myself included) being hassled simply for asking a
question. Freedom of speech indeed.
As in "one nation under...".
In case you haven't noticed, there's a battle going in this country
between those that believe that the "Christian Way" is the only way
and the rest of us.
Got me there. My point is, many people in this country (Cheney is
the standard example) seem quite ready to call anyone who dissents,
"unpatriotic". This is what we're dying for?
Panic talk? I sincerely hope you're right. As for me, the cynicism I've
developed in the last few years just won't let me believe it.
No. I heartily agree that _liberty_ and democracy are worthy goals and
MAY be the choices of others. My point is that is shoving it down their
throats is not only arrogant, it's wrong.
Do you honestly believe that we're over there to allow them to set up
their own government? Their own way of life?
What do you s'pose is going to happen if the Iraqis vote for a
theocracy? Then what? My point is, we (America) are not going to
let the Iraqis set up their own system. It's going to be a system of
which we approve - nothing less will be acceptable.
Read this http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0924-13.htm and tell me
If democracy is so great, then why aren't we at war with half the
world? (I know, I know, it's only 38.4%, right?) Our hypocrisy is
showing. And the worst of it is that Bush seems perfectly willing
to flaunt it.
Okay, how's this: There's a few more of them than there are of us. Is
that better? Does that change the argument?
pretty boring), it's just more desirable to the "powers that be"
that I don't think at all.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
I'm not wild about the protest zones, but Bush rallies are not the only
places where political dissent can occur.
No kidding? There was a guy in Texas? Sounds like martial law to me. By
the way, I can't find anything about it (Googling for "man arrested in
Texas" isn't effective). Care to post a link? And yes, I flew just last
month, again with no hassles. So basically, I don't know what the hell
you're talking about.
Tell me where children are being forced to say the pledge of allegiance.
Sorry, I haven't really noticed. I think your idea of "religious battles"
would be in stark contrast to most of the rest of the world. Are there
people who believe the Christian way is the right way? Yes there are.
However, I don't see Muslims or Jews or atheists being rounded up or their
mosques and synagogues burned.
You're going to have to provide a link for Cheney calling dissenters
unpatriotic. The only hits I got in my search were for Teresa Heinz Kerry
calling Cheney unpatriotic.
The fact is that you have no basis for making this claim except someone at
the DNC wishing to generate FUD (apparently, it's working).
Yeah. If I lived under a totalitarian regime, I sure wouldn't want liberty
shoved down my throat.
One or two at a time, please.
I'll bet you do. Actually, it's neither. I was correcting your gross
exaggeration of the numbers.
My point was that they don't all think the same.
So, suggesting that your freedom to think for yourself was just another
Kerry keeps claiming that Cheney called him and/or Edwards unpatriotic. The
irony is that Cheney went out of his way to laud Kerry's heroics and
patriotism. Never fearing to blunder into the fray, Kerry goes off lying
about other's statements to people, like Jake, who have neither the time nor
interest to pay much attention to this stuff.
You need some lessons. First of all, Iraq is not a theocracy. Iraq was/is a
democracy. Of course, Saddam was the only choice on the ballot, but that's a
Speaking of opressed women, Iraq had a higher percentage of doctors per
capita than the US and many other western nations, and many of the Iraqi
doctors were women. Same with other professions. There were many prominent
senior level women scientists in Iraq, including the two women currently in
US custody. Women in Iraq enjoyed more freedom than most if not all of the
other middle eastern countries.
You're so wrong. Once Saddam nationalized the oil industry and applied some
of the revenues towards improving the educational infrastructure, Iraq
developed one of the best educational systems in the middle east. Rather
than restricting education, Saddam, true to his character, went so far as to
imprison Iraqis who failed to show up for school. Should I mention that in
Iraq university education was free to both men and women?
Here's a better definition of shithead: One who sends the country's
daughters off to fight an illegal war and refuses to pay respect to their
souls when they come back in a body bag.
Having the benefit of free university education, Iraqi women had more career
options than 20% of American women at the bottom of the socio-economic
ladder. The irony of the situation is that one of the few ways these women
could ever hope to get a post secondary education is to enlist and head off
to fight an illegal war in Iraq. Just imagine how much farther ahead the US
and the world would be if the cost of the war so far, roughly $250 billion,
was put towards helping the lower socio-economic groups become better
The problem with Saddam being gone? For one, the Shiite majority, which
makes up over 60% of Iraq's population, will in a few bloody and civil war
torn years gain political control and result in a theocracy much like Iran.
So much for women's rights.
George Bush will likely go down in history as a bumbling inarticulate
mis-speaking failed statesman, a religious fanatic who brought turmoil,
destruction, unrest, and civil war to Iraq and the middle east. That's just
my guess, of course.
Here's what the world thinks of him so far http://www.betavote.com/ . So
much for historical appreciation.
I'm sorry, mp, but this post of yours is the biggest load I've read here
yet. As for the statement above, what happened to the 500,000 American dead
solders the Garafolo's kept telling us about? Now you're an expert on the
future of Iraq? As for the rest of your post, it sounds like someone trying
to convince us of how wonderful Cuba is because they SUPPOSEDLY have low
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.