That has to be the best description of Obama rise in political statue. He really is the Paris Hilton of politics. I am not a McCain fan but give us a break. As a country are we so desperate to elect person that has accomplished nothing in his political career as President. Hitler drew crowds 200,000 in Berlin. Obama is not a Hitler....but he attracted the same size crowds and offered unrealistic promises of changes in the world.

In the last 100 years who can name a European leader that has made a huge positive impact in the World. I know they started 2 World Wars and since the end of the second one they they only keep their freedom under the protection of the United States. Nobody can tell me that if we would have left Western Europe to handle their own affairs politically, economically and militarily after World War 2 they would not be under the Iron Curtain right now. Instead of the European Union....they would just be states in the USSR.

Obama is in the best position of anyone in the history of our country to narrow the gap in racial divide in this county. The man is BIRACIAL, he is not a black man.....he is half white and half white and if he had to balls to stand up and address the press and anyone else that if they are going to label him.....label him as a biracial American. He won't do it because black America will label him a traitor and even though they won't vote McCain....he risk blacks won't vote at all. The polls show that over 90% of the black vote will vote Obama.

If he really wants change....he would insist that he is offended when he is labeled as a black man running for President. He would insist that if he is to be labeled that he is a biracial American and not a blackman.

That's true Beachman, Have you seen his new commercials now? He knows he has the black vote already, so in his commercials he surrounds himself with only white people, talks about his white mother, and how he was raised in Kansas. Can't blame him for that, he knows what he's doing as far as getting votes.

McCain has accomplished damned near nothing during his entire political career and he certainly has not done a damn thing for his home state. The asshole just wants to cut every program that actually does some good for society and spend more on the war machine.

I have lived in Arizona since 1982 and know what a complete fraud McCrazy is. The guy is just plain mean and the only thing he cares about is building his myth on any television program stupid enough to allow his senile blather.

I'm still trying to figure out how being a POW is going to make someone a better presidential canadate. That commercial is on all the time here in Michigan.

Being a POW is more gives McCain more credentials than Obama has. What has Obama done.....his open ties to to radial extremists should scare all of us.....he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate.

As much as everyone complains about Bush and his popularity rating.....his rating is more than twice that of the Democratic control Congress.


Can someone explain to me how by voting to increase the majority of Democrats is Congress and electing the most liberal Democratic Senator in Congress as President is going to put this country in the right direction.

Beachman,

You pop up on this board about one month a year, usually just to argue politics. Do you also just get laid once a year, and you're coming on here to argue politics just coincides with your annual location prep to get laid?

Wouldn't it be something if the Dems did a Swifty-boat style job on McCain, like the reason he was taken prisoner was because they caught him smoking pot, or he was captured when they snuck up behind him while be was beating off to Playboy pictures, or something like that? For those who don't know, Ann Coulter once launched something like this against a legless vet who was running for office, claiming he didn't lose his legs in combat, but rather that he fell down drunk or some such, and the guy lost the election.

A few months ago McC's stance on Iraq sounded just like the anti-anti-Vietnam war stuff of yesteryear, vowing to stay for 100 years if he had to. I guess when you're as old as him 100 years doesn't seem such a long time -- ok, cheap shot.
Then in 2000 the rumor was going around that he deliberately didn't try to get out of POW camp because he knew being a suffering hero would help him run for president some day. I'm no McC fan, but that is a crock and a half. Maybe Rove himself thought that up.
I had a history prof who used the expression 'wave the bloody shirt' when talking about people who run for office based on their military service. It'll be touchy for McC because the sitting president (and I DO mean sitting!) didn't do any military time, and it might make Sonny (as Colin Powell refers to W in his memoir) take some shots at him.
I think with Obama in office it'll be a whole new game, upsetting the apple cart if you will, or at least that's what I hope. I'm all for it, give the kid a shot. Dare I make a stupid pun? These two candidates are as different as black and white.


If Hillary got the nomination I would have reluctantly voted for McC. That woman is evil.

The Democratic controlled Congress has low popularity ratings precisely because they have been moderate. The anti-war people are dissatisfied with them, and the pro-war Bush people are as well. Given the highly polarized electorate this spells low approval ratings, even if Congress is not hated with the intensity that Bush is.

However, the intensity of the disapproval for Congress is nothing like that for Bush and his ilk. But Bush's disapproval ratings as measured by pollster's simple-minded questions may be less than Congress's owing to his ability to keep his extreme-right base--aka Beachman and a few other extremists--happy.

I just finished reading What Happened by Scott McClelland. It is a very good read, and there is a certain sincerity that you know the guy is telling the truth and not just selling books.

Bush had an underlying plan. He believed that creating a democratic Iraq would create a beacon for democracy and create a stable and peaceful Middle East. I honestly believe that Bush still believes this. He also realized that even a Republican Congress would not authorize the war on this premise alone. So therefore, rather than make the case to Congress, they made a concerted effort to sell the American public of the danger's of Iraq. Once public opinion flipped to over 50%, they essentially rammed the invasion down Congress's throat.

Of course I am paraphrasing, but that's the essence of the book.

I have a question for Mr. Beachman. And perhaps to some of the other posters. Who do you believe is more intelligent? John McCain or George W. Bush?

John McCain. Having actually met him in a small-group environment a time or two, he comes off as being fairly sharp, although he has a serious mean streak and temper that has me wondering if he'll explode at some point during this election cycle. Still, that doesn't mean he's not intelligent.

Bush, I'm not sure there's much going on inside his cranium. I've never been inside a room with the guy but from his actions, he seems more than a bit lazy and not particularly interested in learning things. That, to me, is a real sign of low intelligence - no curiosity about people or the world in general.

I have also spent some time with McCain over the years and he seems like an ok guy. I have never personally seen him blow up, but I have heard stories. Maybe he is in pain. Maybe he is not getting laid. I have no idea how good a president he would make. I still find it hard to believe that this is the best we have (on both sides).

Being an ex POW doesn't give you any experience to be president. But, I do think we should show him a certain amount of respect for his service to our country. Disagree with his politics, but call him names and disrespect the guy? not cool. It is so funny to see guys that have not done shit with their life bagging on other people that have. It is kind of like the guy sitting on the couch chowing potato chips that doesn't have an athletic bone in his body criticizing a guy playing in the NFL. Its just funny.

I would say I am in the middle on most issues, except for taxation and the redistribution of wealth. So putting everything else aside, does anyone here think they do not pay enough in taxes? If so, how much more do you want to pay?

Oh no. McCain scrubs his own website calling him a celebrity.

Pot-Kettle-Black-Hypocrite

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/mccain-calls-se.html

Guess they have never heard of Google Cache...


http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:Y9cUrjxnT4cJ:www.johnmccain.com/informing/News/NewsReleases/b1b85afb-cd0c-4a74-997d-dfee1a3f8098.htm+celebrity+mccain+-obama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us&client=firefox-a

It is obvious we can't go on with 1/2 trillion dollar deficits each year. So for the time being it would appear that we collectively are not paying enough in taxes.

AZguy's question asking whether there is anyone here who believes they are not paying enough in taxes reminds me of the similarly simple-minded question used by some to justify the Iraq war: "So you don't think the world is better without Saddam Hussein?" The problem is these sorts of questions entirely ignore the surrounding context.

Sure, if Saddam Hussein could have been removed from power without costing more than 4,000 U.S. lives, many more wounded, countless Iraqi civilian lives, and more than one trillion dollars of our money, I would have liked to see him removed from power.

Sure, if we could have today's tax rates (or lower ones) and have the economic and stock market strength we enjoyed in the 1990's, as well as the strong dollar (and without deferring the debt from our spending to future generations) I would like that too.

But both are pipe dreams borne of overly simplistic thinking.

(Message edited by LAguy on August 02, 2008)

The McCain "celebrity" attacks against Obama now show how desperate his campaign has become.

What is ironic about this entire thing is McCain is the son and grandson of admirals and he married into money with a woman worth 100 million dollars.

Barack was raised by a single mother, but lived and worked hard (the "American dream") and has degrees from two Ivy League schools in Columbia and Harvard.

McCain's wife says the only way to get around Arizona is by small private plane. (With video)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/cindy-mccain-in-arizona-t_n_112695.html

Who is elite and out of touch?

McCain runs an ad showing thousands of Germans cheering Obama (gee, isn't that actually nice to see since Bush is burned in effigy everywhere he goes?) and then compares him to Britney and Paris. The Hilton's contributed $4600 (the maximum allowable) to the McCain campaign!

Jon Stewart, always funny, but usually on target has a nice commentary on that.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=178207&title=dick-move-of-the-week-mccain

This choice is so incredibly clear. If you listen to each talk for five minutes, you can see the differences. One is old and senile and out of touch. The other is young, energetic, intelligent, articulate, and just "gets is."

If McCain gets elected you will see this country enter economic depression. You can look forward to Phil Gramm (he of the Enron commodities loophole and the mortgage deregulation crisis) shaping America's economic policy for years to come.

Gramm is also the one (a multimillionaire himself) who said we are just in a mental recession and should stop whining about the economy. Who is out of touch? People have lost their homes and jobs. But Gramm says they are just a bunch of whiners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NVjq2py7BA&feature=user

So the only thing left to attack now is painting him as a celebrity. They can't beat him on anything else.

All aboard the McCain double-talk express!

No one is going to like to hear this. But fairly soon, we may have to have the tax rates of Europe if we are going to continue to spend the way we have.

Again, what is ironic about this is Bush called Congress a kid with a new credit card.

http://a.abcnews.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3859719

Lest we forget Bush inherited a 500 billion BUDGET SURPLUS!

Oh yeah, Bush maintains two separate books for the Iraq and Afghan wars. They have all been funded by emergency spending measures. Bush spent 1.3 TRILLION on Iraq and chides Congress for 22 billion in domestic spending? But his rhetoric works.

"What the Bush Administration Said the War in Iraq Would Cost: $50-$60 Billion

"Total Economic Costs of Iraq War Through 2008: $1.3 Trillion [JEC Report, “War at Any Price?” 11/13/07]

"Projected Costs of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Through 2017 Even If U.S. Does Drawdown to Korea-Like Levels: $3.5 Trillion [JEC Report, “War at Any Price?” 11/13/07]

"Cost to a Family of Four to Fund Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Through 2017: $46,400 [JEC Report, “War at Any Price?” 11/13/07]

"President Bush Lecturing Democrats on Fiscal Responsibility: Priceless''

Laguy, the question was not about Iraq, it was about taxes. I agree 4,000 american lives was not worth it. It would not have been worth it for one. And just think of the possibilities for new ideas and energy development we could have created with that 1.3 trillion, not to mention the 4,000 lives lost. Its disgusting.

As far as Bush goes, why do you think there are so many pissed off repubs? Talk about getting off track with spending. I am trying to stay in line with my no name calling, but it is not easy when it comes to Bush.

My point is redistribution of wealth through taxation does not work for me. I feel like I pay plenty in taxes and would like to see our government get spending under control.

I am no McCain fan. For me, both sides suck.

I too would like to see spending under control. But even taking into account that to some extent lower taxes can stimulate economic growth, the hole Bush has dug for us with his massive deficits are simply not possible to address solely by getting spending under control. This is particularly the case given that much of the budget is not discretionary spending.

Those of us who had to pay higher taxes first as a result of George H. W. Bush's tax increases, and then Clinton's were repaid ten times over when the markets responded well to the fact some fiscal responsibility was being introduced into the budgetary process. As far as I'm concerned, if I pay a little more in taxes and as a result get much more in stock appreciation and so forth, I'm not going to complain about the taxes. I just don't see a good way out of the financial mess W. has gotten us into without some upward movement on taxes. Note I'm not saying whether these tax increases should be in personal income tax rates, windfall profits taxes, the closing of certain loopholes related to foreign activities of corporations, or whatever.

Indeed, I would be happy with any reasonable solution that closes the budget deficit and addresses other related problems without tax increases. But simply repeating the mantra (or a variant thereof) of "read my lips, no new taxes," accomplishes nothing and only gets in the way of finding the best solution to our budgetary problems.

I should add that I also have a philosophical problem when one talks about redistribution of wealth as though everything one owns or has the benefit of has been fully earned. The fact of the matter is 95% (not a precise statistic, but illustrative) of what you and I "own" is only here because a bunch of dead people (our ancestors) worked hard to get us to the point where we are. When you get on that airplane to monger in Brazil, or Asia, you did not build the airplane, did not invent the wheel, discover the principles of aerodynamics that make modern aviation possible, and so forth. It is exceedingly unlikely that whatever work you have done throughout your life comes remotely close to the work that was expended to make it possible for you to take that one flight. Multiply that by all the benefits you receive throughout your life and one would be hard pressed to conclude what you have done to "earn" the money you use to pay for these things comes close to what others (throughout history) have done to provide the benefits to you.

Indeed, those of us who are well off are enjoying benefits that are so disproportionate to what we have personally contributed to this earth, the most appropriate response IMHO is to be grateful for all the benefits we have been given by posterity, not complain about "redistributing wealth." Hey, I like my toys as much as the next person, and clearly there need to be incentives for people to work hard so our society continues to progress, but give me a break with this notion (implicit in those who object to any re-distribution of wealth) that you have earned everything you enjoy and those who have not been so fortunate (many times owing largely to circumstances of birth) don't deserve some crumbs.

By the way, close to 20 percent of your taxes go to paying interest on the national debt (one of a number of categories of spending that are not discretionary). AZguy, I guess you should be happy about that since at least that portion of your tax dollar isn't being used to re-distribute wealth, at least not in the traditional sense. But I, for one, am not happy about that and if raising taxes to try to get this national disgrace under control is the only viable option, I'd be for it.

just a couple of quick things. Although W. was out of control on spending he didnt do it by himself.

Second, I dont want to hear about circumstances of birth. If you only knew, you would understand why. This is not the place to discuss it.

You are right, I had no part in creating the wheel, but everything I have I busted my ass for, so yeah I have a problem when someone wants to be generous with my money so they feel good about it.

I am not complaining, I have a great life, I just think I am paying my fair share now.

wow, this discussion is sucking the life out of me. Now I remember why I stopped responding to political stuff on here. Back to pussy. AZ

> By the way, close to 20 percent of your taxes go to paying interest on the national debt

Yes, these guys put the country into debt as soon as possible. Remember that first round of rebate checks that went out in 2001? Unheard of! Up till then rebates were handled as deductions on tax returns. Consider how much per day that interest is costing, and consider who's pocket it goes into. And then think about the informal acquaintanceships out there, like who plays golf with who, hunting buddies, etc.

'Deficits don't mean anything, Reagan proved that'
Dick Cheney said that during the first W term.

The way they worked the oil was nothing short of genius: put up the price of oil as much as possible, depress the dollar as much as possible (oil is bought and sold internationally with greenbacks), therefore maximizing the number of dollars taken in. Yeah, it'll all come crashing down at some point, but they'd be out of office by then.
These guys know they pissed in the beer and that the GOP doesn't have chance this year, which is why Bro Jeb isn't running.

Bendejo: The question I have about what you wrote is whether these guys really knew what they were doing, or were just plain reckless and stupid. I doubt W is smart enough to hatch and execute a plan such as the one you describe. Although I know many think Bush was Cheney's dupe and Cheney was the mastermind of everything, that may be giving Cheney too much credit in the brains department, which I think people sometimes do by default given Bush's intellectual deficiencies. But I have read some things by members of the medical community that note with Cheney's history of four heart attacks, and so forth, he very well may be operating on less than all cylinders upstairs. And although Cheney may look like some sort of evil genius, I am more inclined to think he is more a bumbling idiot like Bush, although perhaps not quite as stupid.

Just my impossible-to-verify sense of what is going on with these two guys. I just hope the next President isn't someone who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, where if his current pronouncements on budgetary policy are any indication he got a failing grade in arithmetic. Shouldn't there be some standards for becoming President?

I agree with Laguy so the obvious solution is to get your luggage then haul ass running past customs into the terminal area and US soil. Then you can remain silent with legal protection !

The long standing "supply-sider" plan has been as follows:

1)Cut taxes
2)Ring up large deficits
3)Large deficits will create necessity to cut spending
4)Cut "unneeded" government programs - basically stuff Republicans don't want/use

"Starving the program to death" was how some on the Reagan team called it. I call it cutting off your nose to spite your face. But, it seems to be a standard line of thinking. "The only way to change things is to blow the existing things up". Not very bright in my book, but remember, these guys are true believers and think that most of the New Deal and Kennedy/Johnson programs like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, etc need to go away. I would argue they would roll back prior to the Teddy Roosevelt Administration if they could and pretty much eliminate all government regulation as well.

I hate redistribution of wealth too:

(1) redistribution of Prescott Bush profits from trading with the enemy to the little georges;

(2) redistribution from Conrad Hilton to his spoiled little daughter.

(3) redistribution from Admiral McCain to his worthless grandson;

(4) redistribution of good money paid for a bottle of budweiser to Stepford Wife Cindy;

Bring back the DEATH TAX, lets get rid of all these spoiled little brats that are poisoning our politics.

Taxes are the price that must be paid for a civil society. The republicans have squandered our trust and redistributed our taxes to themselves.

My take is the underlying idea was to improve the fortunes of self, family, and friends. What happens to the country was only of fleeting concern, if at all.
W looks at the presidency as a job: after 5pm, on weekends and holidays, can't be bothered, and the country has been more or less run by his staff.
W doesn't have the balls to stand up to Cheney. I wouldn't say he's an evil genius, just ruthless, and his bright boys come up with these things, such as the premise that the office of the VP falls in neither the executive nor legislative branch. As with any other executive, all the real work is delegated out. I believe it was Cheney's idea (or sure, perhaps someone fed it to him) to have another Vietnam: a perpetual war that would amplify the movement of money out of government coffers and into select private industries.
And then there's the publicity coup: Cheney and Roger Ailes, the guy who runs Fox News, are old chums who both worked for Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41. I don't think any other administration has had a such a direct media outlet. Other celebrities connected to the Nixon WH are Ben Stein and John McLaughlin, and probably a few others I don't know about.
I also have some suspicions of underhanded tactics which I won't go into, but I hope to live long enough to hear the insiders' tales of how this regime operated. Scott McClellan's book is going to look like Huckleberry Finn. It's starting to leak out, check this for a start
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/
and look for "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency."

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Obama is proposing a $1000 tax cut, funded by windfall taxes from the oil companies. So, you guys that want to cut our taxes, why don't you like this tax cut?

Also, please let's not get into the derisive comments about the candidates this year, geez, you guys who hated Kerry last time around, don't tell me that you hate Obama already.

Last note: Beachman, are you still worshipping George W. Bush?

I'll take tax relief however I can get it, so if Obama wants to give me back $500 they took from me, I'm all for it. As for funding it by increasing taxes on the oil companies? Sounds nice politically but I don't believe for a second tht the oil companies would not just turn around and pass the tax right on to consumers and since gas prices are a problem,,,, that would be bad.

As for what do I have against Obama. Mainly I just hate liberal politicians. Nothing personal against Obama.

I am Sancho has unwittingly identified the problem. We all like tax cuts so long as no one has to pay for them.

It just doesn't work that way. The price of the Republican tax cutting orgies is we now pay nearly 20 percent more in taxes just to pay the interest on the national debt, which primarily resulted from reckless Republican tax cuts.

Pay now or pay later (with compounded interest). Nothing is free, not even tax cuts.

I am an of course an advocate of cutting spending as well. The second greatest failure of the current administration and previous Republican congress was failing to cut spending to go along with along with the tax cuts and you better believe they are paying the price whiten their own party for that fuck-up. While I don't like what the stand for at all I don't feel so bad about the Democrat's gaining the House and Senate in '06 since it at least brought us back glorious gridlock.

The problem is even under the most aggressive spending-cut regime, the cuts will not come close to putting a significant dent in the present national debt, particularly given that so many parts of the budget do not represent discretionary spending (e.g., interest on the national debt). Indeed, if you cut certain taxes without cutting spending or increasing taxes elsewhere, you are going to feed inflation, the result likely being higher interest rates and an increase in how much interest we pay servicing the national debt.

What to cut? Well, take out of the Federal budget non-discretionary items like: interest on debt, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, civil service retiree pensions, military retiree pensions, that kind of thing. Then figure out what's left, and how much of that would need to be cut to balance the deficit.

I'm thinking at least 35% of discretionary budget. Within that, even though it's discretionary, you have things you can't legally eliminate. Like the Army, or VA hospitals. So now carve around "essential services" - which is defined as "stuff you personally see benefits from"to "fat", which is "stuff you don't personally see benefits from". As long as everyone agrees on what's 100% essential and what's 100% fat, it will be easy to carve a half a trillion bucks out of that budget pie.

Explorer,

Looks like you've gone back in the threads a bit. I wonder how many of the pro-Bush guys back in 2004 think of the current situation? And I wonder how many of those will now listen to us? Probably zero, but you never know.

If the left were proposing massive cuts in Federal spending I would be all with you but every time I hear Obama open his mouth he promises some kind of new multi-billion dollar program for something or other.

Republican politicians promised spending cuts in '02. They lied. They paid and are paying for their lies.

I would say that 100% of everything the government does costs 400% what it actually should. The problem is not lack of funding. The problem is the massively inefficient nature of the Federal government itself. There is plenty of fat to be cut.

BTW, Social Security is an abomination worse than anything else. Social security has charged me 7.5% and my employers 7.5% of my earnings for my entire life. Had I instead been allowed to contribute that 7.5+7.5% of my income to my 401k for my entire working life, even including a few stock market crashes and zigging when I should have zagged once or twice, I can easily calculate that I could retire at 50 and live well or retire at 62 being fabulously wealthy. Social Security offers me neither. But once the monster was put in motion there is no easy way to get out from under it.

The Republicans were not wrong in '00 '02 '04. The problem is that those in Washington did not follow the parties own principles. The ideals are fundamentally solid. It's the fact that they did they did not follow their own agenda that is the problem.

Sancho,

Please give 3 examples of fat programs that need to be cut. Don't just say "military spending" or "school lunches". Specific examples that you know of where X was spent on a program when it should have been Y.

I have witnessed first hand, seen with my own eyes, MASSIVE waste by the US forest service, by the TSA (another abomination), FAA, Department of Energy, Social Security, all branches of the military..........

If I were to start typing a list of times I have with my own eyes seen $1000 here, $1000 there, $10,000 here, $10,000 there squandered by the Federal Government, never mind millions and billions all in one pop, I would have time for little else.

You want big. How much of the money spent on federal Katrina aid actually aided the situation and how much was squandered? I'll bet you about 75% of what the feds spent was squandered. The problem was not lack of funds.

If I give more money to the TSA will it fix the fucked up airport experience? If I put the same guys who fixed my airport security in charge of fixing my health care will I come out ahead?

I agree with I am Sancho. The Bush Administration totally wasted our money and has been utterly incompetent when it comes to setting up and administering TSA, Katrina aid, and so forth.

The only way to get this thing under control is to elect a smart President who will surround himself with smart moral people.

Vote for Obama!

Maybe Obama has a love child like John Edwards.

On the other hand, maybe I have misunderstood I am Sancho. Perhaps what he is saying is that because there is corruption in many police departments we should eliminate police; because the military has often overpaid and wasted money (as in $1,000 toilet seats, etc.) we should not have a military, because TSA has its problems and wastes money we should just eliminate any airport screening and let terrorists walk freely onto airplanes, and so forth.

If this is what I am Sancho is suggesting as a way to lower taxes, I have to respectfully disagree. My view is we should address the problems, learn from them, and solve them. I also believe it is more likely that putting smart people in charge rather than stupid people would be more effective at solving these problems, but hey, maybe I'm an elitist.

Maybe Beachman has a brain tumor like R. Novak.

I have changed my mind and decided to vote for Obama.

Since as many of you may know, I converted to Islam on my recent trips to Indonesia and since Obama himself studied Islam at a Madrasah in Indonesia in addition to his longstanding friendship with Louis Farrakhan and membership in the Nation of Islam. Obama is the obvious choice for me now. Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.

Although I cannot entirely rule out that I could convert to Buddhism, Catholicism or Communism between now and the election. In the event I converted to Buddhism or Catholicism I would then have to revert to voting for McCain since I would then be an infidel to Obama. Although if I converted to Communism I suppose I would still vote for Obama.

Well, at least I am Sancho was kind enough to finally provide us with the evidence he is clinically insane!

It's that bad acid I took back in '85.

Ok Sancho, not quite the specifics I was asking for, but now let's put it this way. Give me two examples of government programs that benefit you that you would be willing to give up to help the cause.

After reading Sancho's Islamic-based post above, may I suggest as one of his two examples Federal Aid to the Retarded?

That's a trick question, because before I could give you two examples of government programs that benefit me that I would be willing to give up to help the cause, I would have to think of two examples of government programs that benefit me.

Here is what has always baffled me. The vast majority of the government services that I could point at and say benefit me on a regular basis are for the most part, provided by the city, county or state. Now none of those are going to win any efficiency awards, especially the State of California but none the less they do provide the majority of the tangible government benefits I could point to and say hey, there's a fire truck that is going to come if my house is on fire or I need a street to get to work in the morning.

But. The city, county and state put together don't take even nearly the tax bite the Federal government does. Why do they take far less yet provide far more services? Easy. The Federal government wastes it.

Not including Medicaid, the Federal government distributes more than 200 billion dollars a year to state and local governments.

(Message edited by LAguy on August 04, 2008)

The government is a reflection of the people. When will we the people stop paying with credit for all the luxuries like cell phones for every member of the family, more than just basic cable, huge houses with huge utility bills, eating out at restaurants the majority of the time etc., etc. etc.

We have become a society and culture of entitlement and the politicians from both parties have become an extension of the people's greed and entitlement. They just keep feeding us hat we are and the media is not a watchdog anymore...the media is an extention of the both parties.

Yea, but I bet they have to collect 400 billion in taxes in order to distribute 200 billion.

So 200 billion to the states..... that's about $670 per person. IIRC, I paid many times that in Federal taxes. Where did the rest go when I don't see the benefits nearly as much as I do from the state, county and local government.

Sancho,

Prisons and prisoner care take a bite out of the budget

So when you travel to Asia, you don't use an airport I assume, since most big commercial airports are at least partially paid for with Federal dollars? How about the Interstate taking you to the airport? The runways the planes take off from, which are almost all federally funded? The ATC system which keeps your plane from crashing into another plane? Navigation systems, ground communications stations, that kind of thing?

Just going to the airport and taking off, you're using the benefits of good number of federal agencies and programs.

What you are spouting is the common fallacy of a lot of people - you don't understand it, so you assume it's all a waste of your money. Even when you're benefiting from it.

As I've written here and elsewhere before, I'm always amused - and annoyed - when I'm out in the boonies of some red state and have to listen to The Great Unwashed bitching about tax dollars going to waste. I pay over $50k a year in Federal taxes, which is more than most of these people make. Actually, more than a lot of families. Everything is waste to them - until you ask them about shutting down the Air Force base down the road. "No, that's important to everyone." Ok, how about not building the new Interstate interchange? "Oh, that's not waste, we need that for development or to eliminate the 3 minute traffic jams we have." Ok, how about closing the Federal prison? "Oh, that's important, that's not waste, we need prisons". Oh, ok, how about refusing the new Corps of Engineers water works project that's going on over at the river? "Oh, that's not waste, that's critical to stop flooding". So on and so forth.

Whenever any "conservative" says to "cut spending", they never actually give an example for themselves. Just like everyone thinks they're paying more in taxes than everyone else, that they're being treated less fairly than someone else, when they want spending cuts, it means 100% to cut stuff that they don't use, or isn't for their local benefit.

"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy over behind the tree". That's half the "conservative" plan. The other half should be "cut all the shit I'm not using now and hopefully won't need to use in the future, because it's waste otherwise, at least for me. And that's all that counts..."

Step 1: Eliminate all Federal penalties for marijuana under 250 mg.

Step 2: Release from jail everyone convicted of such possession.

That's probably good for a few billions that are now being wasted.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

End the NASA lunar/Mars program. NASA has already screwed up the program. When the Shuttle ends, NASA should be out of the spaceship building business. Let Burt Rutan and Richard Branson and their competitors handle it commercially.

That's save $5 billion a year, maybe more.