Killer Joe
New member
That's not the sound byte I heard. Fox News played it and I heard laughter...
Election '06
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
D
DarthFerret
Guest
I listened to it on a talk radio show, and he purposely played the 10 seconds after his statement, just to point out that there was complete silence.
Tag Guard
Tag Guard
Killer Joe
New member
Didja vote because Today is the DAY!!!!!!!
I was third in line this morning at 7:00 a.m. EST to vote. It was a big fold out computer. It was pretty easy to use, but I don't know why there was this guy at the plug pulling it everytime I voted
j/k
I was third in line this morning at 7:00 a.m. EST to vote. It was a big fold out computer. It was pretty easy to use, but I don't know why there was this guy at the plug pulling it everytime I voted
j/k
L
Limited
Guest
Can I ask - who did you vote for?
D
DarthFerret
Guest
That is gonna be a tough question there Limited. Most of us are in different States, therefore are not voting for the same people...
I am not embarassed to say I voted for the Ind. canidate for Texas Governer. Kinky Freedman.
Tag Guard
I am not embarassed to say I voted for the Ind. canidate for Texas Governer. Kinky Freedman.
Tag Guard
Killer Joe
New member
I won't tell you who but I will say that I followed my political compass which says that I am a way to the left Libertarian.
L
Limited
Guest
I've checked Kinky Friedman's website (glanced at) and though it seems a bit whimsical, I like what I read.
(but really, how can anybody be against helping the poor and increasing the quality of education?)
Is he religious? Is he pro-life or pro-choice?
(but really, how can anybody be against helping the poor and increasing the quality of education?)
Is he religious? Is he pro-life or pro-choice?
turgy22
Nothing Special
A lot of people are against that if it means paying more taxes. Maybe they send their kids to private school and don't want to spend money on the public school system. And a LOT of people don't like helping the poor. They feel that a lot of poor people are simply lazy and trying to live off government benefits.Limited said:
No issue is black and white.
Tag Guard
E
EricBess
Guest
Anything that increases money for education is good in my book as long as the money is actually being used well. For example, I'm against putting in an additional layer of administration to figure out why our schools are having problems. Is anyone actually asking the teachers??? I personally think that there would be plenty of money in education if it were being used right and would rather see reform than increased taxes.
And for the record, I have 5 kids and 4 of them are currently in public education (the 5th is only 3).
And for the record, I have 5 kids and 4 of them are currently in public education (the 5th is only 3).
Killer Joe
New member
Well, THAT was interesting. The house is 235 Dems and 200 Reps and now Pulosi is the speaker as of right now and no apocalypse, hmmmm. Maybe I was wrong.
Wait, wait, wait, I WANTED Pulosi to be speaker, yeah, now I got it right, um, er, ....I mean left.
The Senate looks weird too, 47 Dems, 2 Indy's and 49 Reps with two contests still too close to call; Montana and Virginia. Both have the dems up by a *squeek* but I'm sure a re-count of sorts will happen, maybe even state sponsored ones. So lets say that the dems win both of those then it'll be 49 Reps, 49 Dems and 2 Indy's, right? Again, weird, but I like it.
The dems have a real chance of screwing up here now because if they oppose the war effort then the Reps really have a leg to stand on for the '08 prez race.
I stayed up real late watching the whole thing and it was surreal....
Wait, wait, wait, I WANTED Pulosi to be speaker, yeah, now I got it right, um, er, ....I mean left.
The Senate looks weird too, 47 Dems, 2 Indy's and 49 Reps with two contests still too close to call; Montana and Virginia. Both have the dems up by a *squeek* but I'm sure a re-count of sorts will happen, maybe even state sponsored ones. So lets say that the dems win both of those then it'll be 49 Reps, 49 Dems and 2 Indy's, right? Again, weird, but I like it.
The dems have a real chance of screwing up here now because if they oppose the war effort then the Reps really have a leg to stand on for the '08 prez race.
I stayed up real late watching the whole thing and it was surreal....
Killer Joe
New member
The statement is based off of the fact that the Reps are in DEEP trouble with the war and clearly are looking for a scape-goat/ donkey. All they need is a reason to bash the dems and to say a big collective "I told ya so!" to the public. I think there are more conservative voters out there who didn't vote to punish their party but a reason like the one I mentioned will get them back and in spades, too for the 08 prez race.
Killer Joe
New member
Well, sort of....I'm just saying that now that the dems foot is in the door they have to make 'nice' with the their commrades in the house and senate and not become the sterotypes that the reps peg them as, i.e. raise taxes right now, bigger gov't, pull out of Iraq with no plan et al stuff.
I would feel better about the sitaution if the dems had a better senate count as in 55 to 45 rather than what it might be; nearly 50-50.
I don't know for sure, but that's just my thought, I could be wrong.
I would feel better about the sitaution if the dems had a better senate count as in 55 to 45 rather than what it might be; nearly 50-50.
I don't know for sure, but that's just my thought, I could be wrong.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Actually, I think I kinda like the way things turned out (other than having to listen to my mom and dad complain about having a Dem Gov in Missouri). I do believe that because of the way that the GOP depicted the democrats, and with them not being able to "cut and run" because of that, the GOP will have a much bigger push in the 08 elections.
The one thing I think that is really funny, is that when Clinton was in office the Dems were saying that since the economy was great, we should continue to put Dems in office (nevermind that it all started with Bush Sr., but we will not get into that right now). Isn't our economy in one of its stablist points in our countries history? Interest Rates are good, Unemployment is better than average, and property ownership is going up on a steady basis (with a little slack the last few months...but still going upwards..). Funny how they never mentioned this during the campaigns? <snicker>
Anyway, all-in-all, I do not see where there are going to be a lot of changes...however, time will tell
Tag Guard
The one thing I think that is really funny, is that when Clinton was in office the Dems were saying that since the economy was great, we should continue to put Dems in office (nevermind that it all started with Bush Sr., but we will not get into that right now). Isn't our economy in one of its stablist points in our countries history? Interest Rates are good, Unemployment is better than average, and property ownership is going up on a steady basis (with a little slack the last few months...but still going upwards..). Funny how they never mentioned this during the campaigns? <snicker>
Anyway, all-in-all, I do not see where there are going to be a lot of changes...however, time will tell
Tag Guard
Killer Joe
New member
I never heard a Republican say there was fiscal fortune during ANY year of the Clinton administration regardless of who started it, but in weeks after Bush got elected in 2000 there seemed to be this windfall of economic boon, or at least thats what was reported.
Here's another thing, the Democrats better be careful NOT to over criticize the President right now, after all he did DISMISS Rummy, and fake smiles or gestures or not the President is still the President and his party may not like his WAR effort plans but they sure in hell still like HIM!
If the Dems start treating him the way the Repulicans treated Clinton then the Dems have a LOT to lose.
My advice to the new House and Senate: Tread lightly!!!!!
Here's another thing, the Democrats better be careful NOT to over criticize the President right now, after all he did DISMISS Rummy, and fake smiles or gestures or not the President is still the President and his party may not like his WAR effort plans but they sure in hell still like HIM!
If the Dems start treating him the way the Repulicans treated Clinton then the Dems have a LOT to lose.
My advice to the new House and Senate: Tread lightly!!!!!
Presidents have absolutely nothing to do with the economy, despite their taking credit or blame. Pre-2000? Great stock market. 2000? Stock Market crash BUT surplus in the federal budget. Bush elected? Deficits in budget. BUT thanks to low interest rates (and stock market slowly making a comeback), economy chugs along (although I believe there were some years of "high unemployment" then).
Presidents talking about the economy is all a red herring.
Presidents talking about the economy is all a red herring.
turgy22
Nothing Special
Spiderman's right. In fact, government in general has very little to do with the economy. If you look at the stock market, it actually has a very predictable trend - about 5 strong years followed by 5 weak years - and if you track it over a long period, it resembles a sinusoidal wave that moves gradually up. The government's responisibility is simply to track the direction of the rise or fall and minimize its effect. They don't want the economy to rise or fall too rapidly. Quick rises tend to lead to quick drops, so stability is the key. During the late Reagan years, the economy was in a natural upswing, so he looked like a good president. Shortly after he left office, it started its downward trend, which Bush took the heat for. A few years after Clinton left office, it began another swing up and he actually made a mistake, I believe, by letting it rise too quickly (in large part from the .com boom, which I don't think any economists really knew how to handle), which inevitably lead to the massive hit immediately after Bush W took office (and, in fact, started while Clinton was still pres.) However, I think W made a mistake by cutting taxes at the same time as that economic hit, which led to a further decline and then 9/11 sent it spinning even further down. Now it's five years later and the economy's starting to rise again, which would be a much more opportune time for a tax cut, since people are more willing to spend it.
Anyway, my point is that the economy is going to go wherever it wants to go and politicians have very little impact on that.
What politicians do have an impact on is how the federal government makes and spends money. They make money through taxes and spend it on government programs, such as education, welfare, defense, social security. My biggest problem with the current government (from 2000-2006) was that they were completely irresponsible, always spending more money than they were making, leading to record deficits and a much larger national debt than we had in 2000 (currently at $8.5 trillion). So where is all this money coming from? Mostly from China. Think about that. Our government currently owes China, a communist republic, trillions of dollars. It's almost as though we have a mortgage on our government to China. They own our country, but we just get to use it. And that scares me a lot. Because at any time, they can stop lending us money or use that as leverage in an international conflict. So we can either start paying that money back or use it to beef up our military and then invade them. Personally, I'd prefer to pay the money back.
So how does that relate to responsibility? Whenever the same party controls the White House and Congress, it seems like there is absolutely no accountability when it comes to spending. Whatever the president wants to do, congress lets him do (because they need to act like they support him) and money gets spend like crazy, without the tax revenue to support it. Only when we have separate party control (such as Clinton with a republican congress or Reagan with a democratic congress) are there any limitations on executive power and a chance to balance the federal budget. And only by balancing the budget do we have a chance to repay our country's debt.
However, I'm pretty jaded, in general, by our current political system in this country. Politicians today spend more time and money trying to get re-elected than they do actually serving the country. It's almost like that's their job now - to get re-elected - and that's where they put their effort. Literally billions of dollars are wasted every year because politicians vote to spend money on pork-barrel projects in order to support campaign contributors who will help them win the next election. It really pisses me off, both parties do it and it's unlikely to change any time soon.
Tag Guard
Anyway, my point is that the economy is going to go wherever it wants to go and politicians have very little impact on that.
What politicians do have an impact on is how the federal government makes and spends money. They make money through taxes and spend it on government programs, such as education, welfare, defense, social security. My biggest problem with the current government (from 2000-2006) was that they were completely irresponsible, always spending more money than they were making, leading to record deficits and a much larger national debt than we had in 2000 (currently at $8.5 trillion). So where is all this money coming from? Mostly from China. Think about that. Our government currently owes China, a communist republic, trillions of dollars. It's almost as though we have a mortgage on our government to China. They own our country, but we just get to use it. And that scares me a lot. Because at any time, they can stop lending us money or use that as leverage in an international conflict. So we can either start paying that money back or use it to beef up our military and then invade them. Personally, I'd prefer to pay the money back.
So how does that relate to responsibility? Whenever the same party controls the White House and Congress, it seems like there is absolutely no accountability when it comes to spending. Whatever the president wants to do, congress lets him do (because they need to act like they support him) and money gets spend like crazy, without the tax revenue to support it. Only when we have separate party control (such as Clinton with a republican congress or Reagan with a democratic congress) are there any limitations on executive power and a chance to balance the federal budget. And only by balancing the budget do we have a chance to repay our country's debt.
However, I'm pretty jaded, in general, by our current political system in this country. Politicians today spend more time and money trying to get re-elected than they do actually serving the country. It's almost like that's their job now - to get re-elected - and that's where they put their effort. Literally billions of dollars are wasted every year because politicians vote to spend money on pork-barrel projects in order to support campaign contributors who will help them win the next election. It really pisses me off, both parties do it and it's unlikely to change any time soon.
Tag Guard
You know, I've never quite understood why there is a term limit for the president, but not for congresspeople (the Supreme Court I understand why they're appointed for life). Is it because congresspeople are voted directly into office by the people, so presumably if the people know what they're doing, they can change congresspeople (as seen generally this past election)? While the president is at the mercy of the Electoral College?