NCAAbbs

My Rep also had an October surprise. Not too bright.

Quote:This doesn't happen every day: An incumbent member of Congress, in the middle of a re-election battle, says that storing nuclear waste shipments from around the world in her district may be a good idea.

U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt does say that, and her support for studying the idea has become an issue in her re-election campaign, especially in rural Pike County, in the far eastern end of her sprawling Southern Ohio District, where the nuclear wastes would be stored.

Quote:"All I can tell you is that when it became known that she supports this, every Jean Schmidt yard sign in the county went down overnight," said Geoffrey Sea, a writer whose home abuts the Piketon plant.

Now I'm all for figuring out what to do with Nuclear waste, but this seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

Quote:"It would be short-sighted not to seek the money to study this," Beekman said. "It's beyond me why anyone would oppose doing a study to see if this will work."

In an area where the nuclear industry seems to be growing as well. If they can be smart about their proposals to the DOE they could make state of the art facilities and generate alot of money.

Probably too much to hope for that she's a democrat incumbant huh?

I hope the Daily Show picks up on this. Last nights show was hilarious. They had this one sign Dumb**** McDoesntexist. (D) Raise your taxes and surrender to the Terrorists. Right after they show the sign they have clips of all the RNC guys sticking to talking points on SUnday talk shows about generic Democrats. It truly was brilliant and funny.

She's an incumbent Republican in a close race.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:She's an incumbent Republican in a close race.

Damn.

She's the one who called Murtha a coward.

Southwest Ohio is very republican (especially outside of Hamilton County, where Cincinnati resides).

However, I think even the republican base is getting sick of the people who keep getting put up for office by their party (not that the democrats are any better). This is the kind of stuff that makes me turn more and more libertarian every day. At this point I think I am voting for the libertarian governor candidate.

People get disillusioned with their reps, and either turn to third party candidates or stay home, resulting inthe election of democrats. After a while, usually one term, they usually get re-energized to get those idiots out of office, but in the meantime, they let the Dems have their way. This is what is happening this year.

Just heard on the radio that 146,000 new jobs were created last month. Oh, the misery!!!! Thank goodness Nancy will correct that.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:People get disillusioned with their reps, and either turn to third party candidates or stay home, resulting inthe election of democrats. After a while, usually one term, they usually get re-energized to get those idiots out of office, but in the meantime, they let the Dems have their way. This is what is happening this year.

This is the part I never get. It's like cutting off their nose to spite their face.

People think that it will teach republicans a lesson by staying home and letting them lose. In the mean time their taxes will go up, defense spending will go down the president will have no hope of getting any judicial nominee through that isn't a marxist. So they have less money, they're less safe and what they believe now has no hope of standing up in courts. Way to show the republicans folks.

The time to effect change is in the primaries, not the general election.

Alarmist much, ninerfan?

I don't get that reasoning. If the republicans are doing such a great job then why are people so ticked off at them? Maybe it is because they are not as fiscally conservative like they want you to think. They have disenfranchised mainstream conservatives.

I suppose I'll be reading a rant about how the liberal media has pulled the wool over the eyes of the public. But I think that many people are sick of the lack of leadership from the republicans. They haven't done much to help this country's cause.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Alarmist much, ninerfan?

I tell you what, if you can assure me that a democratic majority won't raise my taxes, won't gut defense and intelligence spending and will confirm the kind of judges I believe should be on the bench I'll rush right out and vote for them today. Something tells me I'm not in danger of having to cast that vote.

Quote:I don't get that reasoning. If the republicans are doing such a great job then why are people so ticked off at them? Maybe it is because they are not as fiscally conservative like they want you to think. They have disenfranchised mainstream conservatives.

Perhaps you don't get that reasoning because you never saw me say they were doing a good job. And you're right, they have disenfranchised mainstream conservatives.

My point is that the time to show that dissatisfaction is in a primary. Staying home, or voting democratic out of spite, does absolutely nothing to change the fundamental problem. Do you really think the cure for rampant spending is to elect a democrat? You really think that if you want your taxes to stay low that electing a democrat will accomplish that?

Quote:I suppose I'll be reading a rant about how the liberal media has pulled the wool over the eyes of the public.

You may, but not from me.

Quote:But I think that many people are sick of the lack of leadership from the republicans. They haven't done much to help this country's cause.

I'd say lowering taxes that have helped foster a terrific economy is helpful. I also believe the defense measures they've taken to help fight terrorists are helpful (I'm sure you'd disagree). But their spending and their refusal to deal with the borders are the two biggest gripes I have with them. However there's no chance in hell the dems will take a different course on those items so staying home and not voting will do nothing to help the situation.

Primaries are a tough place for moderates to succeed. Those further on the right have an easy time of painting moderates as soft on Republican issues and catering to Democrats (and vice versa). On the other hand a moderate can do well in a general election by pulling votes across the aisle that feel upset about their incumbent.

I, for one, will never stay home for an election. I'll continue to vote for the best candidate and not set myself up with a false dichotomy of having to choose either rep or dem. I say more people need to look at third parties with a serious eye. I'll also say that third parties need to appeal to moderates more and less to their extremist elements.

Sorry about the liberal media shot, I guess I just think people are smart enough to see politicking in the media when it is happening. Those who refuse probably aren't going to change their minds anyway, they are hearing what they want to hear.

NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1%income bracket. But something tells me if you had that much dough you'd have better things to do than sit around here with us.

NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1% income bracket. But something tells me if you had that much dough you'd have better things to do than sit around here with us.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I, for one, will never stay home for an election. I'll continue to vote for the best candidate and not set myself up with a false dichotomy of having to choose either rep or dem. I say more people need to look at third parties with a serious eye. I'll also say that third parties need to appeal to moderates more and less to their extremist elements.

I'm right there with you. I'm not saying I'd never vote for a democrat, I have in the past. But the problem is the leadership of the democratic party today is not moderate. Take Harold Ford or Heath Schuler for example. I could vote for either of these guys because they share many of my views. But when they get to congress they will be grossly out numbered and their moderate tendencies won't be able to effect change. They will be led by Harry Reid and Nancy Peolosi and it is their views and their agenda that will carry the day. And people like Ford and Schuler can vote with them or be rendered absolutely ineffective in their jobs.

Quote:Sorry about the liberal media shot, I guess I just think people are smart enough to see politicking in the media when it is happening. Those who refuse probably aren't going to change their minds anyway, they are hearing what they want to hear.

No worries. Bias is there without a doubt but at the end of the day most people I think are smart enough to cut through the crap.

dwr0109 Wrote:NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1%income bracket.

Perhaps. But I've always been a believer that higher taxes stifle the economy as a whole. And that top 1% drive a lot of the engines of the economy these days.

However from what some dems are saying (see Charlie Rangel) they would simply allow the current tax cuts to expire. Those were across the board my tax burden would increase in such an event.

Quote:But something tells me if you had that much dough you'd have better things to do than sit around here with us.

Sad, but true. lmfao

Voting down party lines is ridiculous, IMHO. I vote for the best candidate. Many times it is the republican, many times the democrat, and many times the 3rd party people.

Also, one house switching out of republican control is not a bad thing, IMO.

dwr0109 Wrote:NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1%income bracket. But something tells me if you had that much dough you'd have better things to do than sit around here with us.

I see you're sipping the Kool-Aid.

...besides, deficit is shrinking, jobs are plentiful, growth is unreal, market is closing high, investments are up, unemployment is at 4.6%, housing is up....

.....tell us DRW, why the "F" should the taxes go up AT ALL!!!???

Also, all those "evil rich" people that you bitch about, well, guess what, they are the ones, and get this, PRODUCING THE JOBS.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I don't get that reasoning. If the republicans are doing such a great job then why are people so ticked off at them? Maybe it is because they are not as fiscally conservative like they want you to think. They have disenfranchised mainstream conservatives.

So, who should I vote for? The guys who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, or the guys who don't even talk the talk? Or in fact, talk the wrong talk?

Disappointment in Republicans not doing everything i wanted or everything they promised is NOT a reason to vote Democratic, when the Dems are promising to oppose everything I think important. I would rather have the Republicans doing only half what they promise than have the Democrats do even half what they threaten.

Truly, Niner was right, it IS cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Voting for a party/person who has no chance is OK - after all, that is partially how Texas went from Democrat to Republican in only half a century. But remember, third party votes usually benefit the frontrunner. In every case, they benefit the candidate you absolutely would have listed last on your list of possilbly getting your vote. Votes are two edged - they are important not only in who you vote for, but in who you took that vote from.

Rebulicans staying home benefit the Democrats. Republicans voting third party benefit the Democrats.

RebelKev Wrote:.....tell us DRW, why the "F" should the taxes go up AT ALL!!!???

Simple... because our spending outpaces our tax revenue. Either cut spending, or raise taxes. I hate seeing our government continue to run in the red...

mlb Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:.....tell us DRW, why the "F" should the taxes go up AT ALL!!!???

Simple... because our spending outpaces our tax revenue. Either cut spending, or raise taxes. I hate seeing our government continue to run in the red...

....and a Democrat is going to start cutting spending? Pigs haven't started flying that I know of, at least not in Augusta.

dwr0109 Wrote:NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1% income bracket. But something tells me if you had that much dough you'd have better things to do than sit around here with us.

Where does that top 1% start? Do you have any idea, or is it OK as long as it isn't you?

IIRC, the top 1% are already paying about 1/3 of taxes. Define fair share.

The dems have a long history of talking about taxing just the top X%, but when push comes to shove, their taxes and increases hit the middle clas first and hardest. Example: You can go to the Conngressional Record and read the rhetoric about how unfair it was that millionaires could get the benefit of a $2,000 IRA deduction. So they voted in a phase-out, starting at $25K for singles, $40K for couples. Democratically controlled Congress.

The Dems want to kill the tax cuts, which covered all Americans. Just because they are the BUSH tax cuts.

Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush have all sponsored tax cuts, and each time they have helped the economy. The Democrats have specifically said they want to reverse the tax cuts.

They have new taxes they want to enact, too, like a windfall profits tax. That will just serve to depress domestic exploration and production, like it did the first time. They don't care if it increases America's dependence on Arab oil, as long as they can tell (erroneously) the public that they are keeping individual taxes down by taxing those bad capitalistic coprorations.

dwr0109 Wrote:NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1% income bracket.

Or if you have kids, since the Democrats have said they won't extend the $1000/child tax credit.

If the Dems go back in power, it will fall back to $500/child.... so count your children and multiply by $500.... that will be (at least part of) your tax increase.

RebelKev Wrote:....and a Democrat is going to start cutting spending? Pigs haven't started flying that I know of, at least not in Augusta.

I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

We hashed and rehashed this idea 2 years ago, but we should really overhaul the entire federal tax. Instead of taxing income we should be taxing spending. Give a break to the people 10% over and at or below the poverty line or something along those lines. Our tax code is antiquated.

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Republicans controlled the congress and spending in the late 90's. You can credit them for the surpluses if you think it was due to government.

I however credit the economy and the increased tax revenues that came in.

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Seems like a lifetime ago doesn't it? We couldn't stand prosperity could we? Think if those votes that were supposed to go to Gore that went to Buchanan were actually counted for Gore. What a different world we would have today.

Quote:Think if those votes that were supposed to go to Gore that went to Buchanan were actually counted for Gore. What a different world we would have today.

The thought gives me nightmares on a daily basis.

Alot of credit has to go to the Republican house and Senate too. Although alot of these guys around here wouldn't admit it. The govt. does work best with split branches of govt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Machiavelli Wrote:Think if those votes that were supposed to go to Gore that went to Buchanan were actually counted for Gore.

If you can't figure out that the hole next to the arrow is the one you're supposed to punch, your vote probably shouldn't be counted anyway.



"I want to vote for Al Gore... look, there's a arrow next to his name and it points to a hole... let me punch the hole above it!"

Funny that this year in Palm Beach, Democrats sued to prevent signs from going up at the polls saying "A vote for Foley will be counted as a vote for Negron." A butterfly ballot confuses voters, but leaving a name on the ballot of a person not running doesn't? Yeah, okay....

Machiavelli Wrote:Alot of credit has to go to the Republican house and Senate too. Although alot of these guys around here wouldn't admit it. The govt. does work best with split branches of govt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I 100% agree with this. It helps control spending, IMO. Since Bush got into office the "conservative" republicans have been spending money like it's going out of style. Time to cut some spending (especially this special interest crap) and start paying down the damn national debt.

mlb Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:....and a Democrat is going to start cutting spending? Pigs haven't started flying that I know of, at least not in Augusta.

I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

You mean the Republican-controlled congress? Or did you think Clinton was a dictator?

Machiavelli Wrote:We hashed and rehashed this idea 2 years ago, but we should really overhaul the entire federal tax. Instead of taxing income we should be taxing spending. Give a break to the people 10% over and at or below the poverty line or something along those lines. Our tax code is antiquated.

For once, we agree.

http://www.fairtax.org

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Republicans controlled the congress and spending in the late 90's. You can credit them for the surpluses if you think it was due to government.

I however credit the economy and the increased tax revenues that came in.

Beat me to it. I responded before scrolling.

RebelKev Wrote:You mean the Republican-controlled congress? Or did you think Clinton was a dictator?

You forget that it was a democratic congress that passed the balanced budget amendment in 1993. That hamstrung the congress from overspending for quite a while. However, you are correct, the republican controlled congress did help keep that budget surplus alive in the late 90's. Of course, the republican controlled congress also has spent all the money that the US collected in surplus and quite a bit more since 2000.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So, who should I vote for? The guys who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, or the guys who don't even talk the talk? Or in fact, talk the wrong talk?

Clearly you failed to read the rest of my post where I said I refuse to listen to those who setup a false dichotomy.

Plus I can word the same statement above in a way that'll make it hard to vote the same way. Should I vote for the lier or the truth teller? Where does that get us?

Quote:Voting for a party/person who has no chance is OK - after all, that is partially how Texas went from Democrat to Republican in only half a century. But remember, third party votes usually benefit the frontrunner. In every case, they benefit the candidate you absolutely would have listed last on your list of possilbly getting your vote. Votes are two edged - they are important not only in who you vote for, but in who you took that vote from.

Rebulicans staying home benefit the Democrats. Republicans voting third party benefit the Democrats.

I subscribe the philosophy that voting third party, if they don't win, sends a message to those who are elected.

Quote:You forget that it was a democratic congress that passed the balanced budget amendment in 1993. That hamstrung the congress from overspending for quite a while.

A balanced budget amendment has never been passed. In the 90's the push for a balanced budget began in 1994 with the republican takeover of Congress. It was part of the Contract with America. The amendment was actually introduced into the house in 1997 and the balanced budget agreement was signed in July of that year.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Republicans controlled the congress and spending in the late 90's. You can credit them for the surpluses if you think it was due to government.

I however credit the economy and the increased tax revenues that came in.

The economic expansion that Clinton took credit for began in 1990, Two years before he took office. It ended in 1999, 1.5 years before he left office.

I credit the Reagan tax cuts and the once-in-forever development of internet businesses. A lot of the instant millionaires in tech stocks paid a lot of taxes on those gains.

Where do you righties stand on that. I believe you should use a tax cut to stimulate an economy, but there should be some sort of fiscal disciplne. Something about spending more than you can bring in doesn't sit well with me and it shouldn't sit well with conservatives either. When Delay said after 12 years of Republican control we have finally cut the pork to the bone all of us should of been up in arms. I read Niner's Motley article about the deficit, but it seems a little like whistling past the graveyard to me. Do you guy's remember the socialist argument we had that one time. Ahhh I look back on it with fond memories.

Machiavelli Wrote:We hashed and rehashed this idea 2 years ago, but we should really overhaul the entire federal tax. Instead of taxing income we should be taxing spending. Give a break to the people 10% over and at or below the poverty line or something along those lines. Our tax code is antiquated.

I say a national sales tax, exempting groceries, gasoline and medicines.


But some Democrat would screw it up, proposing an extra tax on....something, anything. Boats, cars, diapers, whatever is politically expedient. Add more and more special taxes, eventually we are back more or less to where we are.

My personal feeling is that you should avoid deficit spending except in times of war or recession. I also believe that spending should always be cut outside those times before taxes are raised.

But deficit spending isn't always a bad thing.

Machiavelli Wrote:I believe you should use a tax cut to stimulate an economy, but there should be some sort of fiscal disciplne.

That pretty much sums up what us "righties" think. Take less, spend less, have a Merry Christmas.

But once the economy is stmulated than the tax cuts should go away. Use the cuts for a stimulus. You know over the summer when the gas prices were so high, that acted like a tax. We still made it through OK. Now why don't we tax it again for a year or so when it's down to 2.10 a gallon. Pay off the debt, I'm happy, the country is happy.

Machiavelli Wrote:But once the economy is stmulated than the tax cuts should go away. Use the cuts for a stimulus. You know over the summer when the gas prices were so high, that acted like a tax. We still made it through OK. Now why don't we tax it again for a year or so when it's down to 2.10 a gallon. Pay off the debt, I'm happy, the country is happy.

The country is never happy when you take more of their money away.

And as we've seen, tax revenues actually go up when taxes are cut because the economy generates more revenue to be taxed. The economy is consumer driven and it always performs better when consumers get to keep more of their money.

You know I don't show a deaf ear to that argument. But I see our deficit sky rocketing. Even take out the Iraq and Afghanistan spending and the deficit is going crazy. Another reason you can't trust these s.o.b.'s is they exagerate where they think the deficit will be. Let's say they think it's going to come in at 350 billion. They tell you it's going to be 420 billion. When it comes in at 370, the blowhards say, "hey look, it's 70 billion short of our estimate". The tax cuts and our policies are obviously working. You just can't trust em' I tell ya.

Owl,

TAX the oil.... and TAX it hard!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's how the Euro's have socialized medicine. I just didn't go there did I. You guys do know that's a big reason (not the only)why Japan and soon to be China is mopping the UAW.

Machiavelli Wrote:Owl,

TAX the oil.... and TAX it hard!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's how the Euro's have socialized medicine. I just didn't go there did I. You guys do know that's a big reason (not the only)why Japan and soon to be China is mopping the UAW.

I guess you like paying $7/gal. What a champion of the people you are.

Raise to cost of living to make bad medicine available to more people more slowly.

Sure, let's tax all the domestic companies until they close their doors. That will teach those bastards to make a profit. Then let's cry about the unemplyment that causes and blame it on outsourcing. all you are going to outsourse is our oil industry.



I know you're a teacher, but isn't your retiement invested in anything?

Taxing oil might be an option if our public transportation was as good as those in the cities of Europe.