This really burns me up!! What about you? [Archive]

Doggie_Wood

Mar 11, 2009, 6:43 PM

IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN A THOUSAND OF US PEONS PAYING OUR TAXES TO GIVE THE PRIVILEGE TO MADAM QUEEN PELOSI TO FLY BACK AN FORTH TO CALIFORNIA

Remember the big media flap about Sarah Palin's clothing expenses?

Americans! Where are you? Are you awake?

We haven't heard any comments from media on "Queen Madam" Pelosi's snit about having to ride home in the small private, economy jet that comes with the Speaker's job. Remember how Madame Pelosi was so aggravated that this little jet had to refuel while transporting her to California every week? Remember that she insisted on a luxurious 200 seat jet to fly her to California nonstop, instead? Hello Folks! Are you awake?

Washington legislators who observed the Madam's Big Fat jet grinned with glee as Joe The Plumber informed all of us that Nancy 's luxury Jet will require hard working American taxpayers, to buy thousands of gallons of expensive jet fuel every week. She only works 3 days a week but her gas guzzler luxury jet flights home, to California, costs to taxpayers $60,000 one way! As Joe noted, 'Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday night,' so there goes another $60,000. (and everyone thought CEO pampering was unreal)!!

Folks, that is $480,000 per month or an annual cost to taxpayers of $5,760,000. And she complains about the cost of the war?!? She "could" take the smaller jet which she says would cramp her style -- but since her flying in style takes precedence over war costs -- what do you say?

Military families in this country do without while this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our country, spends lavishly to fly herself and associates to and from California every week. Does that burn you, too?

Madame Pelosi expects you and I to conserve our carbon footprint by driving smaller cars and buying a bicycle pump to over-inflate our tires for better economy while she and her hypocrite cohorts waste tax payer dollars. Ticks you off, too?

THIS is an example of how Congress spends our hard earned money through their "personal waste" and "ear marks

Hephaestion

Mar 11, 2009, 7:48 PM

Where to start?

Apparently our soldiers have been needing to borrow rare flack jackets, shout bang after 5 bullets and fly around in leaky aircraft that blow up while the MOD have been spending the limited military funds on doing up their offices in prime site location with the most luxurious furniture under the sun

.

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Mar 11, 2009, 7:54 PM

Tell bitch ta take the train...lol
Good one Doggy.
Hugs
Cat

sdnaustin

Mar 11, 2009, 9:28 PM

Falke

Mar 11, 2009, 9:32 PM

Well, just for clarification and to back up what Doggie put up...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

But, I do agree. For one, is she REALLY so important that they have to worry so much on security? Also, the fuel stops only take around a hour on a corporate jet the size of a GIII. (I flew a Falcon 20, alittle smaller than the G but it would be faster to fuel due to a single point fill VS the over the wing method.) This still gets her home faster than using the airlines and really, what can be so important that she can't spare one hour either way? The excess expense just to she can save a hour is overkill, pure and simple.

sdnaustin

Mar 11, 2009, 9:39 PM

Falke

Mar 11, 2009, 10:41 PM

Reading the Constitution...yes, she is pretty damn important...third in line to the presidency. And you should read your own link...not one flight on the 200 seater has been recorded...and I'm really confused that the GOP has time to make up such stuff...did they run out of gay and bisexuals to oppress?

I stand by what I said, there is no need for the 75'. *No, I am not saying this because she is who she is, or because she is a she, or because she is a Democrat* Oh, I would recommend that you re-reading that as well. She did use the 75' once due to other aircraft being unavailable.

MarieDelta

Mar 12, 2009, 1:11 AM

You know what burns me up-

The way our Government is fixing to give money to the idiots who got us here in the first place.(CEO's of Maj corps)

Another thing that gets me is the way our government toadies up to these people every time. these are the same fools who lobbied for (and got ) changes to the bankruptcy laws. So what have they done (other than whineabout how tough they have it) to help you and I out of this mess ? Not One Thing. They care less about you and I than their pets.

Speaker Pelosi may or may not deserve the Jet , but the government decided that they agreed and they let her have it.

Yes I agree we need to get our guys better equipment, but what did Bush & co choose to do with that money? Hire "mercenary": security firms , like Blackwater and Haliburton to do things that our military could have(and has ) done for much cheaper.

So yeah I am burned up about a few things here. But, as usual, our men are left fighting with rags on their feet. Some things never change.

TaylorMade

Mar 12, 2009, 1:19 AM

Reading the Constitution...yes, she is pretty damn important...third in line to the presidency. And you should read your own link...not one flight on the 200 seater has been recorded...and I'm really confused that the GOP has time to make up such stuff...did they run out of gay and bisexuals to oppress?

I don't think Judicial Watch is an arm of the GOP. Here are their docs, obtained through the FOIA. (http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/mar/judicial-watch-uncovers-documents-detailing-pelosis-repeated-requests-military-travel)

And here's a link from Politico... (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19873.html)

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Mar 12, 2009, 6:41 AM

Tell bitch ta take the train...lol
Good one Doggy.
Hugs
Cat

Take the train ova 'ere an ya entire public expenditure budget wudn las 2 long... wudn b no dosh left for fitin daft things like wars can tellya that Cat..:tong:

Hephaestion

Mar 12, 2009, 7:41 AM

Doesn't the average person move to or rent near the place where they work?
Would save on commuting time and costs whatever the frequency of usage.

Seems to be good enough philosphy for Presidents and Prime Ministers

Agree with Darkeyes - war best avoided. Will be interesting to see whether soldiers can claim human rights violations for deficient kit etc currently under legal scrutiny in the UK. This is of course a little perverse as they would then better equiped to rain on other people's human rights. But as Dylan sang - God is on our side.

Doggie_Wood

Mar 13, 2009, 10:52 AM

Wow that would burn me up too! Except it not really all true.

As always you got to take the internet urban legends such as this, and run it through the fact checker. Snopes.com is usally your best bet:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

If it were me, I'd be more upset at the person that is spreading inaccurate rumors and myths and getting you all worked up over nothing.

(reprint)

For all the folks who have believed what Snopes.com says about everything political – please read the whole article and decide for yourself

Now we ALL know !!!

For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.

But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.comclaiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are a very Democratic (party) and extremely LIBERAL I found this to be true during the recent elaection where anything NEGATIVE about BO was false--A much better source, at least not Bias is "true or fiction".As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

Doggie :doggie:

Falke

Mar 13, 2009, 10:58 AM

Doggie_Wood

Mar 13, 2009, 11:35 AM

Hey Doggie, I am sorry and I am not saying this from a combative stance but....

Do you have a better source than Wiki for this? As, if you make your essays somewhat believable and add citations, you can post a completely misleading things there.

Here ya go - have fun :bigrin:

http://pappysbalderdash.blogspot.com/2009/03/whos-checking-snopes.html

The lowdown on Snopes: ”Author unknown” (http://www.tom-phillips.info/story/story_lowdown.on.snopes.html)

“As with everything on the web: verify, verify, verify!”

Some other ‘reference sites’:

Truth or Fiction (http://www.truthorfiction.com/)

About.com - Urban Legends (http://urbanlegends.about.com/)

Scambusters (http://www.scambusters.org/)

jamieknyc

Mar 13, 2009, 1:10 PM

12voltman59

Mar 13, 2009, 1:14 PM

Doggie---as far as this issue is concerned--there is plenty of reporting on this issue and the major points of what you posted about this have been disproven----Pelosi has only used the larger aircraft on a few occassions---she doesn't go back to California every week for one thing and only goes back home to Calfornia when the Congress is in recess---and the use of the larger plane, when it happened was due in large consideration for post 9/11 security reasons--the ability to fly nonstop from DC to Calfornia and back did come out of those security concerns--Pelosi herself never asked to use a larger jet per se--she only wanted one that could make the trip non-stop without having to make the intermediary full pit stop when the plane was heading west against jet stream--like it or not--Pelosi is third in the line of succession, by the words of the Constitution itself, to assume the presidency of this nation and for security reasons---it is only right and proper that whoever the person is who fills that role--in this highly security obsessed age----is using a safe and secure aircraft---

What is she supposed to do--fly coach class on Southwest or some such airline???

This to me--is simply--with all the other profoundly serious issues that we face----a "tempest in a teapot"--it is largely one of those non-issue, issues that the right wing blogosphere and talk radio yack heads like to bring up to muddy the waters and get their followers all in a tizzy.

Like the lyrics from a great Johnny Cash song: "It don't mean nothing--move on!"

There are lots of other real, substantitve issues that people need to get concerned about.

If you are going to get your BP up to stroke levels--worry about some other more important issues---like the fact that they still don't have any sort of plan to get the banks to get their shit together!!!

That is one point that I will dog the Obama adminstration on----they are dropping the ball on that one to be damn sure!!!!!

chulainn2

Mar 13, 2009, 5:27 PM

Hey Dog, lets take the bikes up to DC and kick that royal bitch in the ass.

In a time where so much is being made about our first black president, Ann Coulter made the following observation in her column of 2/25/2009:

"But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?"

a great quote but i don't want to turn this thread into a piss on ann coulter- it was just a quote someone sent me. so don't go there.

Falke

Mar 13, 2009, 5:45 PM

"But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?"

Thank you, There is now iced tea all over my monitor.

12voltman59

Mar 13, 2009, 6:11 PM

Ann Coulter should know about mental defect--she is one whacked out skank!!!! :bigrin::bigrin:

darkeyes

Mar 13, 2009, 6:21 PM

"But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?"

Can me remark bout how a mentally retarded man wos elected twice asya Pres, Chu hun??:bigrin:

Doggie_Wood

Mar 13, 2009, 6:48 PM

What is she supposed to do--fly coach class on Southwest or some such airline???

It's been several years ago (post 9-11), I can't remember where I flew from (Delta Airlines) but we did have a stop in Atlanta, GA - and who guess was on the plane? Former Presidrent Jimmy Carter (he came thru and shook everybody's hand)- and Pelosi is snipit about a private plane - sheeeeesh! The former President rode in First Class (I would expect that) and he had his enterage of secret service escorting him.
Now, Southwest doesn't have first class seating but other airlines do. - and if a former Pres can fly commercial - why can't she??

If you are going to get your BP up to stroke levels--worry about some other more important issues---like the fact that they still don't have any sort of plan to get the banks to get their shit together!!!

That is one point that I will dog the Obama adminstration on----they are dropping the ball on that one to be damn sure!!!!!

I couldn't agree with you more on that point - but that's subject to another thread.

Doggie :doggie:

Hephaestion

Mar 13, 2009, 7:37 PM

Can me remark bout how a mentally retarded man wos elected twice asya Pres, Chu hun??:bigrin:

Oh you mean before the alzheimers set in

I got the wrong President didn't I?
.

sdnaustin

Mar 13, 2009, 9:06 PM

I had no idea Pelosi has personally pissed in Doggies corn flakes, cause I can't think of any otehr reason why he takes it so personally that she gets treat the exact same way that fat-fuck Dennis Hastert got treated.

Jimmy Carter flew commercial...ok, great, he CAN'T be President again. He has some security for life, but nother compared to a sitting leader.

All the major news has disproven this attack on Pelosi, from CNN to ABC, to Huffingtonpost...yet he doesn't back down, he changes the subject. The key points in it (that she flys home is a 200 seater every weekend) is a lie. Period. Doesn, didn't, problably will never happen...next!

Pelosi is NO ALLOWED to fly commercial. After 9/11 the speaker no longer has that option...Hastert didn't, Pelosi doesn't, the next person won't. GET OVER IT. McCain Lost...Palin is a red-neck loser...the last smart republican left office 100 years ago, and we've been fucked by their incompetant morons ever since.

Pelosi isn't perfect, but she's done a lot for the gay/bi/transgendered community, and that is why she makes people like Coulter so mouth-foamy. By spreading these lies you are helping the hate-mongers that push things like prop-8. Is there a gay/bi word for being an Uncle Tom? A Mary Cheney? A Mark Foley? Not sure if there is, but if there isn't we need one.

Doggie_Wood

Mar 14, 2009, 12:08 AM

I had no idea Pelosi has personally pissed in Doggies corn flakes, ..............

I don't eat corn flakes - next .... :doggie:

McCain Lost...Palin is a red-neck loser...the last smart republican left office 100 years ago, and we've been fucked by their incompetant morons ever since.

This isn't about who won or who lost dummy - it's about the waisteful spending practrices of our Government (repubicans and demecraps alike) - your money, my money, our money - so don't start that redneck shit with me. (if you listen to Jeff Foxworthy - you might be a red-neck) :doggie:

Pelosi isn't perfect, but she's done a lot for the gay/bi/transgendered community, and that is why she makes people like Coulter so mouth-foamy. By spreading these lies you are helping the hate-mongers that push things like prop-8. Is there a gay/bi word for being an Uncle Tom? A Mary Cheney? A Mark Foley? Not sure if there is, but if there isn't we need one.

And I'll post my finale with this statement:

Although I am a bi-sexual male, born and bred in Texas, with contry raising in my blood - I am also a fiscal conservative - I do not believe in nor will I ever support socialized medicine, labor unions or other forms of non-conservative or liberalized agendas. Our government (primarily the congress) is out of control on fiscal spending and they need to be brought to heal. They are suposed to be servants not masters of the people.

BTW - did you know that the new (Hope) administration has spent more tax-payer dollars in it's first 90 days than George Bush spent in his entire first term?

Food for thought on the direction we are currently headed.

Doggie :doggie:

void()

Mar 14, 2009, 1:45 AM

First let me clear the air on a few points. I am atheist, meaning religions do not bind. I am not invested into any one ideology, political party, creed either. I am a meager proletariat that is just able to attempt covering the bills each week. I was publicly educated, high school alone. I am well read and versed in having an open mind, continually learning.

That out of the way, I normally do not bother much in opining on politics. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they can all stink, you can't ever argue those facts or opinions away. A genuine observation, a pinch of a few axioms later, I comment.

"You have to spend money to make money."

"You can not get blood from a rock." ( Except in an odd case where I once saw someone do that using a bit of majick. Atheism does not imply lack of spiritualism, albeit salted with skepticism. )

Those considered it appears the government is priming the pump the tried and sure Roman way. "Hey all you silly fat cats that allegedly represent us meager proletariats! We are all, as in globally, fucking broke in case you've not read the double bang headlines lately! Stop squeezing the rock or the blood you see may just be your own."

The Roman way? "If we can't have the well, no one else shall either, poison it!"

Quite similar to the cry of "Kill them all, God shall sort his own!" Which was used in the times of the Inquisitions, Burning Times. I agree with Rage Against the Machine more every day ... "ain't it funny how the new sound is just the same as the old sound, like the noose round" And, "there is a right to obey and a right to kill".

Excuse me, off to find some Suicidal Tendencies, the Heavy Metal group. Gads knows, I've enough of them otherwise ... <chuckling>

Perhaps not exactly the most apro place to ask, but I shall at any given.

If anti-depressants do not prevent or cause depression to cease, why are they called *ANTI*-depressants? Isn't that like false advertisement?

graytwo

Mar 14, 2009, 3:03 AM

If anti-depressants do not prevent or cause depression to cease, why are they called *ANTI*-depressants? Isn't that like false advertisement?

Sheesh! Great response to the Doggie post.. Not quite understanding the 'rant' and 'flame' about that post but each to their own I guess. Glad Doggie isn't on the radio or Rush would have a major competitor.

Yeah, that ANTI- thing griefs me out also. Most things labeled ANTI- don't work as advertised. View the schuckster known as Billy Mays, http://www.directcreative.com/blog/kaboom-the-selling-magic-of-billy-mays just to re-verify.

Oh well, let the rants, roars and name calling continue, just shows the lack of education and view of a bigger picture. Dam, I hate being labeled as a liberal 'cause I can see past the end of my nose.

darkeyes

Mar 14, 2009, 7:57 AM

Oh you mean before the alzheimers set in

I got the wrong President didn't I?
.

Ya dus.. but ther wos 'im an all..

By way..me dad used 2 hav a poster of Reagan carryin Thatcher based on "Gone With the Wind" wiva bloody gr8 mushroom cloud in background.. Talk bout mentally defective.. tee hee (them not me dad.. 'es luffly..):bigrin:

Doggie_Wood

Mar 14, 2009, 12:22 PM

Glad Doggie isn't on the radio or Rush would have a major competitor.

Why thank you ever so much for the compliment graytwo ...... but, does that mean I have to start smoking cigars again? :eek:

Oh, and by the way, we see past the end of our noses too. We look more to the future than you might think.

Doggie :doggie:

graytwo

Mar 14, 2009, 2:27 PM

Why thank you ever so much for the compliment graytwo ...... but, does that mean I have to start smoking cigars again? :eek:

Oh, and by the way, we see past the end of our noses too. We look more to the future than you might think.

Doggie :doggie:

Hi Doggie! don't restart smoking cigars :eek: Learned a long time ago that talking about sex, religion or politics just gets you in trouble on any type of discussion board unless that is what the prime focus of the board is about. Since this one is about "bi-sex" ?;) and how we all are trying to cope with our feelings about being 'one of those types' by adding politics to the mix just muddies the water and clouds the issue.

Yup I can see past my nose also but those darn bi-focual glasses I wear makes walking up and down stairs a thrilling experince. :)

Think of it this way, We're all in a sinking ship and when the water is flooding around us, it's more important to bail and fix the ship to keep it from sinking rather than finger point as to "who" drilled all the holes that let the water in..

just my thoughts

AdamKadmon43

Mar 14, 2009, 4:49 PM

Doggie_Wood

Mar 14, 2009, 7:37 PM

Hi Doggie! don't restart smoking cigars :eek: Learned a long time ago that talking about sex, religion or politics just gets you in trouble on any type of discussion board unless that is what the prime focus of the board is about. Since this one is about "bi-sex" ?;) and how we all are trying to cope with our feelings about being 'one of those types' by adding politics to the mix just muddies the water and clouds the issue.

Yup I can see past my nose also but those darn bi-focual glasses I wear makes walking up and down stairs a thrilling experince. :)

Think of it this way, We're all in a sinking ship and when the water is flooding around us, it's more important to bail and fix the ship to keep it from sinking rather than finger point as to "who" drilled all the holes that let the water in..

just my thoughts

Point well made graytwo. And conceeded to pitch in on the repairs.
Politicaly though;
Let's just say that we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. :)
Let's face it, the bureaucrats have gotten way too big and powerfull for us peasants to do anything about it. ;)

Doggie :doggie:

chulainn2

Mar 14, 2009, 7:45 PM

TaylorMade

Mar 14, 2009, 8:38 PM

Whtehr or not Rep. Pelosi deserves a private jet (remember that Congressmen/women get paid a fraction of what they could get in the private sector), the same people who complain about it would be hollering if their commercial flight was delayed by security arrangements because the Speaker of the House was traveling on the plane.

It wasn't the Speaker of the House... but I have had a flight delayed b/c Sen. Joseph Lieberman was flying to FLL. I was irritated, but I was cool with it. Lieberman was friendly and flew coach with us plebians. He said hello, I said hello...

And I passed out, knowing SOMEONE wasn't wasting the money of the citizens of CT. :)

*Taylor*

BrotherJack

Mar 14, 2009, 8:53 PM

I really don't have any opinion about all this one way or the other.

It is just that I noted my posts are down to .33 per day and I thought that maybe I should try to bump my average up a bit...... That's all.

Thanks.

And have a good evening.

Just bored were you Adam? How sad! Nothing better to do....like the shopping or clean house? Feed the cat? Feed the housemates?

Dogwood.....getting back to the original post......you are right.....it is appalling that so much fuss should be made of the person....who the hell is she anyway?

I have heard that Jennifer Lopez demands this and that when she appears anywhere......what seem like thousands of rooms for the millions in her entourage....even certain flowers do decorate her dressing room.

If these people want to have all this...they should pay for the privilege and not have others paying for their privilege.

Doggie_Wood

Mar 15, 2009, 12:31 AM

your off on your numbers Dog. he has spent more money than the Presidents combined since George W. err the W means Washington!
Pelosi/Obama plan, spend, raise taxes and lets not forget the upcomming carbon tax on industries- just what this country needs now in a deep recession!! and they called George W. Bush an idiot.

You know, we had a very similar economic situation back in the 80s.
And we came out of that struggle quite nicely.
here's a little history on how to jumpstart the US economy:

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and popularized the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Today, supply-side economics is often conflated with the politically rhetorical term "trickle-down economics."

The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes. Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high incomes and capital investments who are deemed most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth. Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income earners, who are more likely to spend additional income.

Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.

Plain and simple - Reaganomics

Doggie :doggie:

and BTW - the bill that just passed had a little over 2/3 spending and under 1/3 tax cuts - what the economy needed was 2/3 tax cut and 1/3 spending - but that is A typical of our government, just like gun laws - they want to make more laws instead of strictly inforcing the one that are already on the ledgers.

darkeyes

Mar 15, 2009, 9:16 AM

Let's face it, the bureaucrats have gotten way too big and powerfull for us peasants to do anything about it. ;)

Doggie :doggie:

.. nev mind Doggie..afta all.. dontcha all havya guns for jus such an eventuality?? Or wos that all jus hot air an an excuse 2 keep hold of 'em?;)

Doggie_Wood

Mar 15, 2009, 12:35 PM

.. nev mind Doggie..afta all.. dontcha all havya guns for jus such an eventuality?? Or wos that all jus hot air an an excuse 2 keep hold of 'em?;)

don't worry your cute lil' tush Fran :tongue: - I still have my guns (rifles and pistols) if such an event happens. But in clarification, there is just not enough cohesivenessin our society to back the bureaucratic bullies down.
I hate to say it, but I will, America is becoming spintered. We are getting away from or more so, drifting away from that which made us the greatest country in which to live (in a biased view of course :bigrin:)

And a cute tush it is I sure ;)

Doggie :doggie:

MaybeSayMaybe

Mar 15, 2009, 4:49 PM

I read something yesterday that kind of surprised me. It was in Barron's, and it was was written by Thomas Donlan, who in my view has some really sharp views about capitalism and the way it works in the real world.

He talked about the Dutch tulip mania of the 1630's. Almost everybody knows that the Dutch went haywire over a bunch of tulips and created an enormous bubble that popped. Donlan pointed out that everybody was trading contracts in the tulips that today would be called futures contracts. That is, an agreement to buy a certain amount of a certain thing (in this case tulips) at a certain price at a certain time.

When the tulip prices crashed, nobody could pay up on the outlandish futures contracts. So what did the government do? They reclassified the futures contracts as options. Take the "That Is" sentence above, and throw in the clause ", IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT." Needless to say, few did.

And the shit hit the fan. The Dutch economy was in a shambles. If anybody tried to sue to make the buyer pay up, the courts would say that options were unenforceable contracts, because they were the same as gambling, and gambling debts were outside the court system.

So what happened? The economy was in the shitter, and then the most amazing thing happened after about three years. The economy was no longer in the shitter. Things turned around pretty quickly, and the the tulip mania quickly became grist for the academics of the future.

There are several lessons here. Read into it whatever you like.

Hephaestion

Mar 15, 2009, 9:05 PM

Doggie - I need some clarification on where the tax cuts would take place. Who would the tax cuts be aimed at - the supply side or the demand side or would it be to both?

.

Doggie_Wood

Mar 15, 2009, 10:11 PM

Doggie - I need some clarification on where the tax cuts would take place. Who would the tax cuts be aimed at - the supply side or the demand side or would it be to both?

Supply-side macroeconomics argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.

"trickle-down economics."

Keynesian macroeconomics contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand thus targeting cash-strapped, lower-income earners, who are more likely to spend additional income.

By utilizing the concept of a properly balanced distribution of tax cuts, between both supply and demand, surrounding a 2/3 tax cut to the public (non governmental) and private sectors and a 1/3 government spending proposition, aiming to boost and stabilize during the interim should provide whole relief.

The amount of economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.

Doggie :doggie:

and BTW - the big shots at the companies being "baled out" and still recieving multi-million dollar bonuses because the companies are "contractually obligated" should donate the bonuses (or at least a major percentage of it) to charity to assist the homeless and damaged households of the failing economy. If they don't, may they be stricken with numerous forms of terminal difficulties in their life.

Bicpl4u2pa

Mar 15, 2009, 11:27 PM

Jimmy Carter flew commercial...ok, great, he CAN'T be President again. He has some security for life, but nother compared to a sitting leader.

.

Why cant Carter he be President again? He only was elected and served ONE term as President. He is limited Constitutionally to two terms. Carter and Bush served only one so even Bush Sr could be President again!

Savy people learn to read between the lines and constantly question politicians, media, cops, etc for the spin everyone puts on anything. When I read Snopes it just SMELLED that they weren't totally objective and they sounded defensive as if justifying Pelosi's position.
BTW, when has any politician EVER come forth and asked for something they anticipated being controversial? They dont! They let someone else take the blame....DUH!! Only sheeple believe the propoganda without delving deeper and think of the many possibilities.

anda692

Mar 16, 2009, 1:37 AM

After 9/11 GW Bush ordered that the speaker of the house must be protected and would use military planes. Judical watch is a Republican backed organization, but if you bother to read the files that they obtained via the freedom of information act, you would see that their conclusions don't match the facts. In fact the facts are the direct opposite of what Judical Watch asserts.
We tried supply side economics before and we got even bigger deficets than we had before. That was under Reagan. We did supply side II, under Bush and we got even bigger deficets, no job growth, and now a recession/depression.
Now we are trying a tax cut for 95% of workers and a stimulus package. If the stimulus package works as well as the ones that FDR used, and we do another if necessary, then things will work out fine.
I would like to point out that tax cuts only work if you are working and paying taxes. If things had kept going the way Bush left them, very few would be working.
One last point, our roads and bridges have gotten very bad. North, where I live, south and mid-west, where I have traveled , the roads are falling apart. They need to be repaired. Probably, they should have been fixed by the states but they couldn't be bothered. So, if nothing else comes of all of this, at least we can drive safer.
Thats my 2 cents :2cents:

Hephaestion

Mar 16, 2009, 7:29 AM

I had a dream last night in which....

I believe that it was a Mr Soros who said that the Banks in the UK should have been allowed to collapse and then deal with the aftermath.

Someone in Govt opposiiton worked out that it would have cost 10 percent of the amount so far paid to reimburse the savers plus the £700k per annum (on £60 million lump sum) of one banker would have fallen to £27k per annum

So it would seem good sense to allow a company to fold and then to re-create it after a cheap buy out. The buyer could then pick and choose what conditions should prevail to re-engaged staff and if appropriate - recognise previous savers. The rest can sue under their contracts for a proportion of the the assets of the defunct company with the knowledge that when bought under standard contract law that "remuneration need not be adequate" (so you can sell something to someone for whatever price agreed unless it is to specifically defraud the Inland Revenue - so there are rules). As with cemetaries in London that need only be the smallest denomination available - 1p in that case.

The principle could hold true for whatever company is being dealt with. Remembering the elctorate, obviously a wise government would not behave unreasonably where necessary.

...When I awoke the sun was shining.

MarieDelta

Mar 16, 2009, 7:31 AM

and BTW - the big shots at the companies being "baled out" and still recieving multi-million dollar bonuses because the companies are "contractually obligated" should donate the bonuses (or at least a major percentage of it) to charity to assist the homeless and damaged households of the failing economy. If they don't, may they be stricken with numerous forms of terminal difficulties in their life.

They "should" but they wont. Many of this countries weathiest made their money the old fashioned way - they stole it.

I dont think any laws would change that, I dont expect them to look down from where they sit and even know where the rest of the world is, or care.

Just my two cents

~m

rissababynta

Mar 16, 2009, 10:40 AM

Ok, I don't know enough about this stuff to make that great of a comment, and although I know that things like taxes can greatly effect me and my family, I kind of don't care enough to try to wrap my brain around it either. So I'm going to make this very easy...

If it's true, this sucks.

There you have it, a nice, simple opinion that I hope sums it all up :bigrin:

PS, I just realized that the green grinning smiley has the same cheesey grin as my avatar tee hee.

vittoria

Mar 16, 2009, 3:16 PM

I've been hanging out at this website lately, (for lots of intellectual banter... and funny fkkn sh*t) and this is something i thought was interesting...

http://www.averagebro.com/2009/03/i-always-knew-there-was-something-fishy.html

Complete with youtube vids and stuff.

Now I'm going to watch my movie V for Vendetta and laugh at everyone.

Again.:cool:

nothings5d

Mar 16, 2009, 7:50 PM

Doesn't the average person move to or rent near the place where they work?
Would save on commuting time and costs whatever the frequency of usage.

Seems to be good enough philosphy for Presidents and Prime Ministers

The President's constituency is the entire nation, a Senator's constituency is their state, and a Representative's constituency is their Congressional District. Anyone in any of these political offices is required to maintain a residence within the bounds of their constituency so that they don't lose touch with their constituents. The President has the option of living very close to his work. Senators and Representatives don't.

Now, before anyone starts anything about Senators and Representatives losing touch with their constituency anyway. I live in Ohio's District 2, Jean Schmidt knows nothing about where I live. I would bet good money that if I told her that I lived in Waverly she would give me a blank stare and ask me where that was. I didn't say it worked, I just said it's the rule.

Doggie_Wood

Mar 16, 2009, 9:09 PM

Why cant Carter he be President again? He only was elected and served ONE term as President. He is limited Constitutionally to two terms. Carter and Bush served only one so even Bush Sr could be President again!

You are correct - Carter could legally run for the Presidency again and so could Bush Sr.
Carter is really not an electable candidate due to his past revelations while in office, and his age.
Bush Sr. however would be a more electable candidate than Carter but in all likelyhood, would not be elected if he chose to run, which he wouldn't.

Doggie :doggie:

Hephaestion

Mar 17, 2009, 5:42 AM

The President's constituency is the entire nation, a Senator's constituency is their state, and a Representative's constituency is their Congressional District. Anyone in any of these political offices is required to maintain a residence within the bounds of their constituency so that they don't lose touch with their constituents. The President has the option of living very close to his work. Senators and Representatives don't.

Now, before anyone starts anything about Senators and Representatives losing touch with their constituency anyway. I live in Ohio's District 2, Jean Schmidt knows nothing about where I live. I would bet good money that if I told her that I lived in Waverly she would give me a blank stare and ask me where that was. I didn't say it worked, I just said it's the rule.

Thanks for the explanation and point of view.

For me I would expect that my representative would be familiar with my wants before his/her election. I would then expect them to be at the assembly and thumping desk on the electorate's behalf.

Where this doesn't appear to happen I barrack them. I do this directly via letters and emails and through pressure groups. I expect them to be present at the assembly arguing over important issues and not taking tea with the locals. Local opinion could be sampled through the representative's support staff and office through e.g. video conferencing if face to face is wanted.

I also use an organisation called "They Work For You" to keep me informed of what my representative is up to - or not, as the case may be.

Regards