Comment speaks volumes

Wake up juan, it's not Bush's fault anymore. Of course if I had received a "shellacking" Tuesday I would try to change the subject too.

I think the comment represents well the attitude of legacy politicians. They are more concerned with public image than public well-being.

I could also care less about who is in charge in DC. In a few weeks, they will agree to increase the national debt to almost $16Trillion, and pass a budget with a deficit of at least $1Trillion.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
I think the comment represents well the attitude of legacy politicians. They are more concerned with public image than public well-being.

I could also care less about who is in charge in DC. In a few weeks, they will agree to increase the national debt to almost $16Trillion, and pass a budget with a deficit of at least $1Trillion.

How is taking offense at being wrongfully called a racist worrying about public image? What would Dems do if the entire world was one race and they couldn't trot out that worn out race card every time they were losing an argument?

BushIIe is an empty vessel. Why would the comments of a rapper get anything more than an acknowledgment, much less the characterization as the lowest moment of his 8 year Presidential term. There is no argument to lose, the man made a factual statement about his stunning self-obsession.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
BushIIe is an empty vessel. Why would the comments of a rapper get anything more than an acknowledgment, much less the characterization as the lowest moment of his 8 year Presidential term. There is no argument to lose, the man made a factual statement about his stunning self-obsession.

So now people can't defend themselves against public attacks? Typical demspin. The statement was made in public and televised, not in a bar or whatever where a few people were just talking. I still want to know why dems only want to talk about the blacks that were affected by Katrina. To me that is as racist as it gets, for the dem populace to totally ignore the fact that whites suffered too. Oh but wait, I forget, blacks and dems are allowed to be racists.

Jenn, he's just a sore loser after having his ass handed to him Tuesday. He can't defend his liberal leaders failure so he has to back in time. Just enjoy watching him squirm.

Jennifer, you ignorant racist. There, I said it. For all the world to read. And I bet I know how that makes you feel, I bet you could care less what I think about you and your personal beliefs as that would be fairly normal adult reaction. So then, why is BushIIe concerned at all about the opinions of a stoned rapper???

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Jennifer, you ignorant racist.

juan, I do believe this is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. No pun intended.

Everyone is a racist who doesn't buy your POS president' snake oil.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
Everyone is a racist who doesn't buy your POS president' snake oil.

Do you care if most people think you are a racist?

JuanHunt, I don't care if people like you think I am racist. I know you are brainwashed by the liberal press the way you quote their lies. If you are intelligent enough to read the tax tables you will see that Bush gave a tax cut to all tax paying Americans. If only the rich got a tax cut please post it on here to prove me wrong.

Thats Right!!! You dont care!!! Why does BushIIe care about the opinion of a thug rapper???

Juan...please practice a little self respect and quit whinning. I am almost embarrassed seeing you grovel..

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Thats Right!!! You dont care!!! Why does BushIIe care about the opinion of a thug rapper???

Why does it matter to you? Obama was called a racist as well. I bet you got ticked over that one.

quote:

Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
Juan...please practice a little self respect and quit whinning. I am almost embarrassed seeing you grovel..

I'm not, I'm enjoying every second of it.

I'm not groveling, but as Rush said, I do hope the RepubTeaCons fail and the development of a legitimate third party will be closer to fruition.

If the Republicans fail a third party will be the least of your worries.

I'd love to know what juan's "third party" would be like.

I won't speak for Juan, I would like to see a third party that had candidates who were intelligent, experienced be it in business or government and educated. A party who would not take donations from corporations for campaigning. One which had candidates sign a pledge with the penalty of resignation if they were involved in any way with lobbyist. Those are just three points I would like to see in a third party candidate, or pertaining to the last two on my "wish" list, practiced by the two major political parties now.

First, find a pol that will pledge to pass a balanced budget amendment, and do it.
Make it illegal to use paid lobbyists. Make it illegal for pols to go to work in industries that they once oversaw.

quote:

If the Republicans fail a third party will be the least of your worries.

Too late for that. The Republicans have failed the American people at every opportunity they've been given, and based on the promises of the newest crop we have no reason to believe this will be any different. This is not to say that Democrats have served us well, they haven't either. I just don't think you should get your hopes too high that anything is going to change.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:

quote:

If the Republicans fail a third party will be the least of your worries.

Too late for that. The Republicans have failed the American people at every opportunity they've been given, and based on the promises of the newest crop we have no reason to believe this will be any different. This is not to say that Democrats have served us well, they haven't either. I just don't think you should get your hopes too high that anything is going to change.

At least there is hope. That runaway train to socialism has been slowed, hopefully it can be derailed.

quote:

At least there is hope. That runaway train to socialism has been slowed, hopefully it can be derailed.

Not really. Wiping out entire government departments wouldn't eliminate the deficit. As long as defense, Social Security, and Medicare are off the table for cutting, we won't balance the budget.

While I'm all for tax cuts (for ethical reasons), we're kidding ourselves if we think we can tax cut our way to prosperity. Let's look at the 2010 budget estimate:

GDP: $14.59 trillion
Revenue: $2.38 trillion
Expenditures: $3.55 trillion
Deficit $1.17 trillion

No administration has ever had a budget less than the previous year's, but let's pretend we can do that and keep it the same. Our revenue was 16% of GDP, but well use historic figures and estimate 20%. That would mean our GDP would have to grow to $17.75 trillion to cover the $3.55 trillion we spend. That's 22% GDP growth- not happening. Let's say we tried to cut taxes by 10%. All things being equal, revenue would fall around $240 billion dollars. But, that $240 billion would be in the market, where the theory predicts it would pay for itself. To pay for itself, it would have to add $1.2 trillion to the GDP, which is virtually impossible.

We need to trim over a trillion dollars from what we spend, and that can't be done unless we eliminate things that virtually all politicians agree we shouldn't eliminate.

SS and Medicare are going to have to be adjusted.

Neither can support the larger older population.

I'm not sure what either party will allow, but if nothing is done, both will be toast in a few decades.

quote:

SS and Medicare are going to have to be adjusted.

Neither can support the larger older population.

I'm not sure what either party will allow, but if nothing is done, both will be toast in a few decades.

No politician will address those problems. It's political suicide.

As for "being toast," it's not that simple. You either go bankrupt or you don't. You can't say "I can't afford this payment, so if you call it off I'll pay everything else." We have to either legally phase out those programs, or we have to hit a wall where we declare that we can't pay for it and are bankrupt; not in an individual program, but as a nation. Going bankrupt as a nation will have consequences far greater than phasing out these programs.

Both could be adjusted for the needs of the population.

At age 70, SS checks are automatically sent out. I don't think Warren Buffet, George Soros, or George H Bush need them, do you?

Adjustments to social security and medicare must be made to assure it is self supporting and doesn't contribute to the deficit. So far, it is. I've made suggestions before how this might be done and will not repeat them. High income earners who draw social security are taxed on their benefits.

Defense can absorb some cuts, as well. Perhaps, 20 percent, at least.

Much of the present rise in the deficit may be traced to the three trillion dollars in extra spending added by Obama to supposedly help the economy.

AT LAST, something we can agree on Elinterventor. These sacred cows of social security and medicare MUST be addressed. But they will not for at least 10 years, in order for the older population to naturally thin out. By the time this happens, there will be very little left of the republican party but there may be a new more informed third or rebranded democrat party to address this.
As for defense cuts, another sacred cow which could use at least a 20% cut but immediately take the troops out of Germany and Japan. That was IS over.