homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Rants, Raves, Rumors!   » I think this guy has a cure

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: I think this guy has a cure
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 01, 2008 01:48      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
________________________ Hi All

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES BY CHARLEY REESE: Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason, they have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto. REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.

So if pro= for something

So if con= against something

Then Congress must be against Progress

The problem with this solution is that in the Senate 66 would be left over for two years and then 33 for two more.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 01, 2008 03:53      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

Nope.

Those 545 people have promised the impossible, the voters knew it was impossible, but voted for them anyway.
And then they get mad when they fail to deliver?

Hardly seems fair.

Case in point: George W Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.
His policy: huge spending increases, huge tax cuts, and balance the budget.

Any voter able to find his own way to the voting booth knew that was fairy-god-mother economics, but millions voted for the fscker anyway.

And what did GWB do?
He spent trillions more, and he cut taxes, just like he said he would.

<GWB-fake-folksy-texan-accent>2 out of 3 aint bad.</GWB-fake-folksy-texan-accent>

Especially when 3 out of 3 is impossible.

Film-makers call it "Suspension of disbelief" - the ability of audiences to put their rational brain in neutral for a couple of hours and 'believe' the hero killed 27 bad-guys with 19 shots from a 6-shooter without reloading, or survived a nuclear explosion by diving behind a convenient tree, if that's what's required to enjoy the movie.

Movie-goers prefer an appealing fantasy over cold hard facts any day, and so do many voters.
It's the fantasy-land voters who are truly responsible for the mess politicians make.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Metasquares
Highlie
Member # 4441

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 01, 2008 06:13      Profile for Metasquares   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that's a republic for you.
Posts: 664 | From: Morganville, NJ | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 01, 2008 08:17      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
______________________ The Famous Druid & Metasquares, I have to agree that while the premise of a Republic is, good some times it fails to deliver the goods.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 01, 2008 09:46      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd like to see our country start by getting rid of the gerrymandering problem. Politicians don't need to be accountable when they pick their own districts, which allows them to marginalize moderates and third party voters. My own district is a good example of some creative redistricting, as it's one of the four dividing up my county.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
garlicguy

Member # 3166

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 01, 2008 11:34      Profile for garlicguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:


...'believe' the hero killed 27 bad-guys with 19 shots from a 6-shooter without reloading, or survived a nuclear explosion by diving behind a convenient tree...


So...Druid... You're saying those things aren't real?

Must be the McDonald's Nutrition kicking in again.

--------------------
I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posts: 3752 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nuclear Doughnut
Geek Larva
Member # 16341

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted April 04, 2008 20:25      Profile for Nuclear Doughnut     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by garlicguy:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:


...'believe' the hero killed 27 bad-guys with 19 shots from a 6-shooter without reloading, or survived a nuclear explosion by diving behind a convenient tree...


So...Druid... You're saying those things aren't real?

Must be the McDonald's Nutrition kicking in again.

Well lets see... 27 bad guys in 19 shots
that means 8 of those shots had to go through one person and into a next. Entirely possible. From a six shooter? Yeah you could do it. With 4 Shooters [Smile]

So how would you implement it? There is no logical way to pull this off.

Hail to the Republic For which it stands!


So what do you think we should do about this? If you are so dead set against it what do you propose. Give us a plan.

I say until the goverment no longer serves my needs I'll be able to take all my friends in PA that own guns and take over the Govt Single handedly.

-- On the first day of Hunting in Pennsylvania, the total number of armed citizens exceeds the armies of all countries except 2 and ours is well equipped with enough ammunition to take out a good sized army easily--

Posts: 21 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 04, 2008 21:59      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nuclear Doughnut:
So what do you think we should do about this? If you are so dead set against it what do you propose. Give us a plan.

The plan is to turn off the I-want-to-believe field, think about what the politicians are saying, and compare it to what they've actually done in the past.

If what they're promising is the political/economic equivalent of a perpetual-motion device, or if they've an established track-record of promising one thing and delivering the exact opposite (eg Republicans who talk about small government and balanced budgets, but deliver big government and record deficits), don't vote for the fsckers.

If we voters stop rewarding politicians for telling fairy-stories, they'll stop telling them.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nuclear Doughnut
Geek Larva
Member # 16341

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted April 07, 2008 13:36      Profile for Nuclear Doughnut     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And the Democrats don't do the same thing?

They say they will increase aid to everybody and cut federal spending.

A paradox in it of itself.


If we were to take out everything that people "promise" and look out for what they have done.

Obamba- hasn't done shit
Clinton- Her husband runs everything
McCain- Well... He's been there too long.

Posts: 21 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 07, 2008 14:51      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nuclear Doughnut:
And the Democrats don't do the same thing?

They say they will increase aid to everybody and cut federal spending.

A paradox in it of itself.

Um, no.

The "handouts for everyone" approach is the Republican parody of the Democrats, it's not what the Democrats actually promise at election time.

Look at what politicians actually say, not what their enemies say about them.
Then look at what they actually do, and compare it with their promises.

The Democrats always promise to be fiscally responsible, and the evidence shows that they deliver.

The Republicans promise fiscal responsibility, and balanced budgets. What they actually deliver is pork-barrels and huge deficits.

Have a look at this graph...
 -

Since 1950, all of the increase in federal debt has happened under just 3 presidents, Reagan, Bush, and Bush.
Since 1950, every Democrat president has reduced debt.
Since 1977, all of the reduction in federal debt has happened under 2 presidents, Carter and Clinton.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nuclear Doughnut
Geek Larva
Member # 16341

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted April 07, 2008 19:02      Profile for Nuclear Doughnut     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alright I'll give you that Clinton did his job on lowering national debt. The way he did it was through raising taxes.
Clinton didn't fight a war at all Spending goes up when you have to drive the tanks.

Reagan and Bush also had a war Reagan had the StarWars defense system/ Coldwar. Bush 1st had the gulf war. So no crap that we have to spend more during wars.

If you look at today the prices of operating things is astronomical. Yet look at the national debt right after Truman. Even more than we have now. Truman was a Democrat

If you also look Nixon (republican) didn't spend anything.

Ike also was a republican.

We would still be fighting the cold war if hadn't been for reagan. During the War The Soviet Union was putting 50% of their GDP into their millitary. While we were only putting about 10%. He figured that the best way to beat the russians is to outspend and outproduce them. That's how we got into massive debt.
Another thing to remember was Yesteryear's democrats are today's republicans...

Posts: 21 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 08, 2008 03:42      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nuclear Doughnut:
Alright I'll give you that Clinton did his job on lowering national debt. The way he did it was through raising taxes.

Ok, so here's your introduction to evidence-based thinking...

You wave-away the fact that Clinton delivered what Bush and Raegan merely promised with a blanket statement "he did it by raising taxes".

How about you look at the figures first?

Find some actual numbers on Clinton's spending and taxes (preferably as % of GDP).

How much did he increase/decrease taxes?
How much did he increase/decrease spending?

You might be surprised by what you find.

Oh, and when you look at the data, try not to use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post, "More for support than illumination".
Ask yourself "What does this data tell me?", not "How can I twist this to fit my purpose?".

For example:
It's true that debt was higher under Truman than it is now, but the graph shows it coming down.
Truman reduced debt as did presidents of both parties between WWII and Carter, even while fighting wars in Korea and Vietnam. There's nothing in the graph to justify painting Truman as the villain.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
geekygoddess
Highlie
Member # 15702

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 08, 2008 04:36      Profile for geekygoddess     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know we are breaking every rule in these forums, we're talking about religion, sex, and politics, OH MY!!! [Eek!]

--------------------
"It is better to press ones shirt, than ones luck"- Confucius

Posts: 661 | From: Edinburgh, United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 10, 2008 02:59      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_________________________ The problem still is that the people we are sending to Washington are not doing their jobs! Any one there that is not lowering the debt is wasting our time and money. Don't tell me how much money you brought back to my district, tell me how much you did not take away from us.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 10, 2008 03:36      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good luck with that MoMan, it'll be a long time before any half-way responsible government will be able to afford tax cuts.

Uncle Sam collects around $2.5 trillion per year in taxes, and has $9.5 trillion in debt.

That's four years taxes.

And it's growing, for every dollar Uncle Sam collects in taxes, he spends $1.08.

Lets imagine the next president gets really serious about reducing the debt, and cuts that $1.08 in spending to $0.90, so 10 cents in every dollar of tax paid goes to paying off the debt.

It'd take 40 years to pay it off.

Who'da thunk cutting taxes while increasing spending could cause such a mess?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 10, 2008 06:28      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_________________________ Why is it that most people do not understand that decreased spending not tax cuts lowers the debt. Is it not simple?

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 10, 2008 07:09      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nuclear Doughnut, I suspect that as a self confessed extreme rightie that you cannot believe anything good about that spawn of Satan, Clinton, but it is true that when he came to power, he did an about face and dropped much of the platform he was elected on, and made clearing the deficit one of the main goals of his first term. It got him a lot of criticism at the time, but it was the right and fiscally responsible thing to do. At the very least you must admit that the Republican party moulded by Reagan has a record that is hard to square with their claim to be responsible stewards of the economy. Your Iraq war excuse would be more reasonable if Bush had not declared Iraq early on as a long term commitment. He should have budgeted accordingly, but he appears to be an economic illiterate, and a poorly advised one too.

Coming from the UK, I see the choice between the two main parties in the US as being between two right wing parties, though one is burdened with a very narrow and rigid dogma, but can tell a very attractive and optimistic fairy story, while the other has more connection to the complexities of the real world. Characterising the Democrats as "tax and spend" is inaccurate, taxes in the US have always been low, but unless you are willing to return to a 19th century laissez faire capitalism as advocated by Ron Paul, with an almost certain huge increase in social division, and in the size and discontent of your underclass, you have to recognise that government spending cannot be always reduced, and so tax cuts are not the answer to every fiscal ill. I would in fact go further, the statistical evidence that tax cuts have provided any significant stimulus to the US economy is arguable at best.

Lastly Moman, I agree with the Druid, it's not fair to pin all the blame on our politicians. Under a democracy we get the government we deserve, and the qualities and failings of an electorate are reflected back to them in their chosen representatives. Having a dumbed down media that feeds on sensation to keep the attention of a channel hopping audience doesn't help, and leads to quick and easily digestible political fairy stories, sound bites, and trivial gossipy issues like Obama and the Rev. Wright. But again through the wonderful mechanisms of market capitalism, if we stop lapping it up, they will change.

It's up to us.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 10, 2008 10:53      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_________________________ Calli Again you and I stand on the same side of an issue, That graph does not paint a totally clear picture as the country was paying down the costs of WW2. I remember when the excise tax went off of manufactured goods somewhere around 1960.

One of the big failings is the US tax code, get rid of it put on a sales tax, excise tax or VAT and then we will know that the rich are being taxed at the same rate as the poor. Exported goods no tax, it is unfair for someones maid to be taxed at a higher rate than the boss.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stereo

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 748

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 10, 2008 12:57      Profile for Stereo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very interesting points have been made until now. So if you allow me, I'll add a neener-neener one.

Since the '90s, Canada has constantly been paying off the debth, at the expense (pardon the pun) of reduced service and higher fees (and sometimes, taxes). And now, the actual governement can decrease taxes, as interest on the part of the debth already paid back lowers the budget needs.

Which sounds to me like the Republican got it all in reverse: it's not "lower taxes, then spend less" (as in, more money in people's pocket -> better economy -> less needs to invest to support the economy and the people); it's "spend less, then lower taxes."


Additional comments, not directly on the topic - you may skip if you want to:

Too bad, lowering taxes mean that you have to pay taxes in the first place to get some money back, when the cuts affected the poorer segment of the population the hardest, i.e. those who don't pay taxes to begin with. (I'll try to be fair: there are some cuts that do affect the poorests, as the reduction of the sale's tax. But then again, the more you consume, the more you profit from it; those who spend most of their money on shelter and food - mostly untaxed - see very little more money.)

--------------------
Eppur, si muove!

Galileo Galilei

Posts: 2289 | From: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 12, 2008 04:42      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
______________________ I have serious problems over a wage or income tax as a lot of wealthy people have what is called unearned income or reinvest tax credits. My proposal Vat, or a no sales tax on food and medical, but all other manufactured goods taxed at a rate that would cover the governments bills.

Now the second problem, who to vote for. I am afraid that either Dem. would cut and run, making a bigger mess. Fundamentally the three are very close on fiscal responsibility, universal health care goes to the Dems. With the US present health system why is infant mortality so high, because the poor cannot afford health care.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
1lear
Newbie Larva
Member # 16679

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted April 12, 2008 10:07      Profile for 1lear     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do the Candidates not perform what they say once elected.....

A. Do candidate lie because they are liars?
B. Lie because they want us to hear what we want to hear?
C. Because they are more of a Con-didate than a Can-didate?
D. All of the above

Some of the mess we are in is our fault-We make the candidates lie about what they are going to do to get our votes.

If a Con-didate actually says something like "We are in a mess but I will actually try to keep money in this country and stop sending Trillions to help out other countries until we are back on our feet" would we vote them in?

--------------------
Funniest Damn Website Around
Learn PHP by Examples

Posts: 8 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time  
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam