1
   

Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:59 pm
Larry434 wrote:
Well now I'm confused. It's okay for taxpayer dollars to go to the needy, as long as there is no bureaucracy involved?

Yes.

Isn't that a good argument for Kerry's healthcare plan? That would be using an infrastructure already in place...

No. Because that is a government run organization staffed with federal bureaucrats that will obviously have to grow if it is going to take another 40 million or so clients...thus growing government expenditures for personnel and insurance entitlements that the government will pay the large majority of the cost of.

No wonder you are confused...you keep insisting on mixing apples and oranges and you will remain confused.


And is there no government run bureaucracy in place to dole out federal dollars to faith based charities? Someone has to decide who gets what and when.

No wonder I am confused, you keep turning apples into oranges. First your argument was that healthcare was not 'earned' and so should not be provided by taxpayer dollars. When confronted with a program that you support which is also not 'earned' and yet is provided by taxpayer dollars, you flip over to the bureaucracy argument.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:03 pm
O.K., so I don't like apples.

But I do like oranges.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:08 pm
mmm, mandarin oranges...
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:17 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
mmm, mandarin oranges...


With fresh strawberries and spinach with a sweet vinagerette dressing.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:21 pm
mmmm, that sounds delicious. I think we've found something we can agree on. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:36 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
mmmm, that sounds delicious. I think we've found something we can agree on. :wink:




Anything but politics, religion, and BCS standings i would imagine. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:13 am
Larry434 wrote:
O.K., so I don't like apples.

But I do like oranges.


fair enough. that i can accept from you.

look, as a libertarian i'm not real crazy about the government growing ever larger like a blood swollen tick. but, if we are going to keep kicking in taxes, i feel like the money should come back to us in some way.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:50 am
My sentiments exactly.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:53 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
O.K., so I don't like apples.

But I do like oranges.


fair enough. that i can accept from you.

look, as a libertarian i'm not real crazy about the government growing ever larger like a blood swollen tick. but, if we are going to keep kicking in taxes, i feel like the money should come back to us in some way.


Rather than sending my money to Washington, in hopes of getting a portion of it back, I would prefer to just keep it and use it to meet my needs as I prioritize them.

Perhaps more tax cuts are in order?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:05 am
That would certainly be nice. But how likely is it given that we've run up an enormous deficit and there is no end to spending in sight?
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:07 am
FreeDuck wrote:
That would certainly be nice. But how likely is it given that we've run up an enormous deficit and there is no end to spending in sight?


Been doing that in all but a couple of years for 200 years now. And we still have grown to be the richest and most powerful country (with the exception of tiny Luxembourg) on the planet.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:09 am
Running deficits, yes. Running deficits this high, no. It defies logic to think that you can continue to spend more than you make indefinitely. Could you run your household that way? I think no.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:11 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Running deficits, yes. Running deficits this high, no. It defies logic to think that you can continue to spend more than you make indefinitely. Could you run your household that way? I think no.


Yes.

As my income increased, I could carry more debt.

As the U.S. GDP rises, it too can carry more debt.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:19 am
And what if your income did not increase, or did not increase at the rate of your spending? Again, it defies logic to believe that we will grow without bound. We are merely passing debt and high taxes on to our children and grandchildren.

And speaking of children and grandchildren... Have you seen a population pyramid for an industrialized country. As population growth slows and people live longer, our tax base will shrink. We will be relying on fewer people to pay into the treasury. But don't take my word for it. There are many conservatives and economists who are also concerned about our level of debt and our spending habits.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 08:40 am
I spent the entire early morning reading the NYT and I gotta admit that I am full of articles that I want to post.

The thread is entitled looking ahead to Bush's second term. If what he has already done so far and it hasn't even been a month is any indication, I don't think Bush is going to be lazy.

The following are two links to op eds from NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/opinion/17safi.html?th

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/opinion/17kris.html?th

Another policy that Bush seems to presuring is to get rid of all disenters in the CIA and the guy he chose to head the CIA is wasting no time in carrying out the wishes of the President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/politics/17intel.html?oref=login

New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: November 17, 2004


Quote:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.

"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00D12F6395C0C728CDDA90994DC404482&incamp=archive:search

NATIONAL DESK | October 1, 2004, Friday

Quote:
THREATS AND RESPONSES: INTELLIGENCE; New C.I.A. Chief Chooses 4 Top Aides From House

By DOUGLAS JEHL (NYT) 1011 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 13 , Column 5

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1011 WORDS - Porter J. Goss, the new director of central intelligence, has chosen four House Republican aides for senior positions at the Central Intelligence Agency, including the No. 3 job in the agency, former agency officials said ... The decision to appoint the four officials is creating waves in the agency, which...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 11:17 am
Quote:
Yes.

As my income increased, I could carry more debt.

As the U.S. GDP rises, it too can carry more debt.


It's this kind of thinking which has lead so many people into credit problems, and which has lead our nation into credit problems of it's own...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Yes.

As my income increased, I could carry more debt.

As the U.S. GDP rises, it too can carry more debt.


It's this kind of thinking which has lead so many people into credit problems, and which has lead our nation into credit problems of it's own...

Cycloptichorn


Irresponsible people who borrow beyond their ability to repay, yes.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:13 pm
Irresponsible nations which borrow beyond their ability to repay, yes.

That is EXACTLY what we are discussing here is how irresponsible we are spending...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:14 pm
Larry434 wrote:
Irresponsible people who borrow beyond their ability to repay, yes.


And what of irresponsible people who borrow beyond what their constituents (who foot the bill) can pay? I wonder why the concept of personal responsibility (which I agree with) does a profound flip flop when it comes to those who are in positions of power.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:18 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
Irresponsible people who borrow beyond their ability to repay, yes.


And what of irresponsible people who borrow beyond what their constituents (who foot the bill) can pay? I wonder why the concept of personal responsibility (which I agree with) does a profound flip flop when it comes to those who are in positions of power.


Your premise assumes, of course, that the government has borrowed beyond the abilty to pay the debt required to be paid. And that is just speculation, is it not?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:37:00