It's not my country but...

[Dudley]

"Check, check. Is This On?"

Sonora, it was Shrub who stepped on his pecker today. It wasn't awful, just stupid. Here, from MSNBC.com:

BUSH AND CHENEY walked up on a stage for a
Labor Day rally in this Chicago-area suburb, but apparently
did not realize that their microphones were on.
Bush, smiling and waving, leaned over to Cheney and
said, “There’s Adam Clymer. Major league ass—— from
The New York Times.”
Cheney agreed, chiming in, “Oh, yes. Big time.”


I assume that "hole" was the missing word.

 

[RonG]

Sorry for some missed exposition

I am very aware of Jimmy Carter's four year malaise. I did go slanghand to lump the 8 years of Nixon/Ford with the 12 years of Reagan/Bush for convenience sake. None of them, Carter included, balanced a budget. I do apologize for any misleading but the fact is that for almost a quarter century, the Republicans held the White House and talked a good game of balancing the budget but couldn't do it.

The other factor that gets brought up is the Democratic Congress doing the spending. All 8 budgets submitted by Reagan were larger than what was proposed by Congress so it can't be palmed off that easy.

So, to avoid being too partisan defending a group I don't even belong to, Carter was an awful president and we were right to get rid of him. But we have found a combination right now who seem to be able to spend less money than they take in and we should not believe that is as easy as their opponents make it sound. It's been a heckuva long time since anybody else has been able to do it.

 

[Sonora]

Hey Ron

What do you think about McIntosh (for those that aren't from IN, he's challenging for gov.) saying he'll cut taxes 25%? I can't help but wonder how he'll do it.

Have you seen his commercial where the family is sitting on the front porch with their 6-7 kids saying that they need all the help they can get and this cut in taxes will give them $300 dollars? They need to get new shoes for the kids. I'm sorry folks, but if you couldn't afford the kids why did you have them? I would LOVE to adopt another cat or two, but I'm financially not in a position to do so right now. Do you think I can get a break on my taxes so I could get more cats?

 

[RonG]

Sorry, more hoosier stuff ahead

Sonora,

Actually McIntosh or O'Bannon (our gubernatorial candidates in IN) both have plans to cut taxes. McIntosh, like most Republicans favors % cuts across all tax brackets and his plan of 25% is basically workable due to our large surplus (this is why the current gov was able to suspend gas taxes for awhile when the price went so high, they are turning a profit). O'Bannon is less clear on his plans. The state is in deep trouble on property taxes and in violation of a state court order to revise the valuation process so really both guys need to work on that first(although it is a legislative problem, executive leadership is desperately needed to get this done). The hidden deal in this race is the right to fill Evan Bayh's seat if he ends up with a cabinet job in a Gore administration, if all that occurs.

So, nothing is really gonna happen until they get property taxes fixed and hopefully they can do something about textbook rentals which are killing local school districts before they give out a measly $300 to curry favor with the electorate.

If you want to talk more, email me.

 

[Bliss]

Doh!

Jimmy Carter wasn't president in 1988.

Nobody said he was. Ron and I were both refering to the two decades prior to the double term of the current Democratic President. Two decades lead by Nixon, Ford, Carter (also a Democrat), Regan and then Bush.

What are you smoking and can we all have some?

[Edited by Bliss on 09-04-2000 at 06:21 PM]

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Re: Sorry for some missed exposition

But we have found a combination right now who seem to be able to spend less money than they take in and we should not believe that is as easy as their opponents make it sound. It's been a heckuva long time since anybody else has been able to do it.

You're absolutely right that we're in a better position today with regard to the national budget, Ron, but this budget issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. It's essential that one examines the historical context in which decisions were made and events occurred before he can start naming heroes and villains.

The reasons the United States began its trend of deficit spending were largely twofold:

1. The cold war: instead of completely dismantling its military after WWII as we had done in previous wars, the US began what was probably the longest sustained military build-up in the history of the world. But we weren't only building up our military, but handing out huge sums in international aid to fund the resistance of communism elsewhere. We fought 2 wars and funded many others. We threw millions of dollars into a space race that was much more about cold-war politics than it was about science. And don't forget it was 2 democratic presidents, Kennedy and Johnson, who were largely responsible for the escalation of the Vietnam War.

2. The expansion of the welfare state: The tremendous expansion of federal social welfare spending began with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society". Have you seen the huge slice of the federal budget pie taken up by medicare expenditures? None of that existed before Lyndon Johnson.

I'm not here to debate the merits of either of these programs, but it's indisputible that both were extraordinarily expensive and equally popular with the country. Medicare has become a holy shrine at which all politicians worship, and winning the cold war is legitimately one of the United States' 3 greatest contributions to the world history (the others being the demonstration of the feasibility of republican government and helping defeat the axis in WWII).

The last 40 years have seen a breathtaking increase in United States expenditures, and both political parties have contributed roughly equally. And through it all, the people have continued to give their tacit approval by continuing to elect the people signing the checks. For most of the years in question, beating the Soviets and expanding social welfare programs were simply more important than a balanced budget. In retrospect, I'm inclined to believe they were right.

My main point here is that it's rather silly to criticize past leaders for not balancing the budget when the people of the United States were asking to beat the Russians, go to the Moon, and give every old person health-insurance.

It's almost as absurd as a trying to find republican on an internet sex bulletin board.

 

[Guest]

Woah, dude!

Originally posted by Bliss
What are you smoking and can we all have some?

I was smoking marijuana but I wasn't inhaling.

 

[Bliss]

LOL! Now you've got American politics down! Run for office, whydontcha?

And stop calling me Dude!

 

[MADDOG]

I still love Clinton. He was a great President and a cool guy. The only thing he ever did wrong was fuck a Fat Chick.

MADDOG

 

[Bliss]

With a cigar!

______________________________________________
Had to beat Olisver to the punchline just once!

 

[Thor's Hammer]

<--not arguing, sort it out, but....

1968-1976 RMN (R)
1976-1980 Jimmy (D)
1980-1988 RR (R)
1988-1992 GHWB (R)
1992-2000 WJC (D)
2000- ?? ?? (?)

Yes, the dates overlap since the President is sworn in on 1/20...I did not bother to be that accurate. From 1968 to 1992 (24 years) the tally is R-20,D-4.

 

[Expertise]

Actually I heard a news article today stating that the candidate in the lead after the Labour Day weekend has won in over 90% of the elections for which statistics were available. It went on to say that this trend was of little value here as it was a virtual dead heat.

I guess that is why both candidates will spend in the neighborhood of 67 million EACH between now and November.

YEA! A race of the cripples.

 

[April]

Re: Re: Sorry for some missed exposition

It's almost as absurd as a trying to find republican on an internet sex bulletin board.

*timidly raising hand* I'm a Republican. Err, well, I used to be. I'm no longer a registered voter. And if I ever do register again, I'm strongly thinking about registering Independent. If you can still do that, that is. Or was that a joke, and I missed it? I found the following on the net. Thought y'all might be interested.

In fact, a president with a minority of the popular vote has won the Electoral College vote 15 times in U.S. history, most recently in 1992 and 1996, when Clinton won only 43 percent and 49 percent of the popular vote respectively.


In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by several percentage points but still won the Electoral College vote over Samuel Tilden of New York.

by Ellen Sung, Policy.com

 

[Never]

Ahh, Republicans, I love them. Any more elephantes?
(La elephante es gris y grande.)
(La elephante es gris y grande.)
(La elephante es gris y grande.)
(Por favor, ningún alimento los cacahuetes de los elefantes.)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It never has to make sense.

 

[Weird Harold]

About the Electoral College

[BIn fact, a president with a minority of the popular vote has won the Electoral College vote [/B]

I'm not conversant with all of the States rules for choosing the members of the Electoral College, but I think they follow fairly closely the two states I do know.

In both Oregon and Nevada, the popular vote is a mandate to the elctoral college representatives to cast a vote in accord with the popular vote. In Oregon, that is (or was when I was registered to vote there) accomplished by voting for the electoral college members rather than the presidential candidates. Essentially, voting for the representative of the candidate, rather than the candidate directly.

In Nevada, who represents the state in the electoral college is irrelevant, they are bound by law to vote in accordance with the popular vote.

In both cases, if more than one vote is required to meet the constitutional requirements, they are bound by the popular vote only for the first ballot.

The peculiarity of having a landslide in electoral votes without a majority of the popular vote, derives from the possiblity of a large excess of popular votes to gain the electoral vote in one district, and skinning through with a bare majority to gain others. I.e winning one Electoral vote by a million votes, and losing all of the others by a total of a thousand votes, leaves an excess of 900,000 popular votes in an electoral loss ratio of 1/(all but one).


The electoral college made a lot of sense when there was a communications lag of several weeks in just the original thirteen states. It doesn't make nearly as much sense in today's world where communications lag is mere seconds and vote counting technology can count the popular vote in just hours.