OK, I'm all ears.

[Mariner]

we agree, CSM. We had it in the 1990s--It was called "pay as you go," and was a major reason Clinton and the Congress were able to balance the budget. Who ended it? G.W. Bush. So, if you're a Republican, why not fight to change how your party does business?

As for supporting corporations, that's done in Communism--the state takes over. We all know that when the state backs off, inefficient corporations die. I may be a liberal, but I'm not stupid when it comes to the creation of wealth: capitalism is without doubt the best mode of creating wealth. Why exactly do corporations need so much support, CSM? You honestly think we wouldn't eat if we reduced or eradicated corporate subsidies to agricultural businesses? (By the way, very little of this corporate welfare goes to individual farmers--most goes to giant companies like ADM.) There is no justification for these tax breaks or for the sick political system that allows such companies to make contributions. Remember when John McCain stated honestly that he had made legislative decisions based on contributions, and that so had every other member of Congress? We should work to end the system that permits corporations to get influence for money.

Dillo--I have a significant disability myself (I'm deaf) and I work with and do research in disabled populations. I couldn't agree with you more that disabled people need no pity. I certainly want none. But we're not talking "bangles and baubles" here, we're talking meals and rent. And even when I say that a mentally retarded person deserves a gov't handout if he/she is truly unable to work, I still make every effort to assist my patients in finding competitive work, and a remarkable number do succeed. I would never argue that it's better for them to sit at home (and neither would most of them). I have one guy with unbelievable disabilities who's saved $50,000 towards a house. He works two full-time jobs. I admire him totally. But other people I know simply couldn't do this, and no amount of wishing will make it so. Some of them work in supported employment settings, which is great too, though it does require state taxes to support the job coaches who help them get and keep their jobs.

A little compassion is in order here, folks. Let's remember that schizophrenia is 1% of the population, bipolar disorder another 1%. Either of these illnesses could strike any of you any day, and you'd suddenly find yourself in need of that safety net that you're so eager to tear down.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

we agree, CSM. We had it in the 1990s--It was called "pay as you go," and was a major reason Clinton and the Congress were able to balance the budget. Who ended it? G.W. Bush. So, if you're a Republican, why not fight to change how your party does business?

As for supporting corporations, that's done in Communism--the state takes over. We all know that when the state backs off, inefficient corporations die. I may be a liberal, but I'm not stupid when it comes to the creation of wealth: capitalism is without doubt the best mode of creating wealth. Why exactly do corporations need so much support, CSM? You honestly think we wouldn't eat if we reduced or eradicated corporate subsidies to agricultural businesses? (By the way, very little of this corporate welfare goes to individual farmers--most goes to giant companies like ADM.) There is no justification for these tax breaks or for the sick political system that allows such companies to make contributions. Remember when John McCain stated honestly that he had made legislative decisions based on contributions, and that so had every other member of Congress? We should work to end the system that permits corporations to get influence for money.

Dillo--I have a significant disability myself (I'm deaf) and I work with and do research in disabled populations. I couldn't agree with you more that disabled people need no pity. I certainly want none. But we're not talking "bangles and baubles" here, we're talking meals and rent. And even when I say that a mentally retarded person deserves a gov't handout if he/she is truly unable to work, I still make every effort to assist my patients in finding competitive work, and a remarkable number do succeed. I would never argue that it's better for them to sit at home (and neither would most of them). I have one guy with unbelievable disabilities who's saved $50,000 towards a house. He works two full-time jobs. I admire him totally. But other people I know simply couldn't do this, and no amount of wishing will make it so. Some of them work in supported employment settings, which is great too, though it does require state taxes to support the job coaches who help them get and keep their jobs.

A little compassion is in order here, folks. Let's remember that schizophrenia is 1% of the population, bipolar disorder another 1%. Either of these illnesses could strike any of you any day, and you'd suddenly find yourself in need of that safety net that you're so eager to tear down.

Mariner.

I guess what gets my goat out of all this is that while the President is certainly not blameless, he did not singlehandedly get this country to the state it is in now. There are a plethora of congressmen and senators who have as much or more power as any president to percipitate change. That august body includes such notable figures as John Kerry, Ed (Ted) Kennedy, Hillary Clinton et al who are very quick to foist the blame on Bush, hold Clinton up as the savior, yet I see absolutely NO solutions or proposals forthcoming from them. Saying "I have a plan" is not sufficient...show the plan, explain it to me so that it makes sense. "Trust me!" doesn't work for me.
Most of those congressmen and senators have been in office for years; some of them decades, and NONE (Democrat or Republican) has seen fit to foster change.

As for the political system accepting contributions...corporations have a vested interest in seeing the government creat an environment conducive to their success. Special interest groups are also actively engaged in seeking that same goal. Both entities make large contributions in the hope of influencing the political arena. Foriegn entities (corporations and governments) do the same. The truth is the money has to come from someplace...The days where the common man can run for political office are gone...

As for compassion. I have compassion BUT I have to take care of me and mine first. I guarantee you that NO ONE out there has MY interests at heart except ME. Why? Because I can work, am reasonably intelligent, am a white male and all that other crap. If I were disabled, black and pregnant I would have every bleeding heart organization in the country trying to exploit my situation to their advantage and oh by the way a side effect would be that my situation MAY improve. I am a realist. No one is going to help me do anything....not the government, not you, not the ACLU ... not anyone. I therefore must take care of myself and my family first. It raises the hackles on my neck when some one or some organization tries to take what few assets and resources I have to help those supposedly less fortunate in the name of compassion, yet show none for me.

 

[Mariner]

when it comes to special interests, the entire system is quite twisted. It saddens me that you have to be a millionaire to run for Congress. It doesn't seem very democratic.

On the other hand, I still have no trouble taking Bush to task for his particular part in our current situation, which is to propose massive deficit spending. If his purpose is to reduce the size of government, I think it would be far more sane to start vetoing appropriations bills, and to start a conversation with the American people about the amount of gov't that we're willing to pay for. Why are we selling our kids down the river like this? No one is responsible for Bush's budgets other than Bush himself.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the dollar hit its lowest mark against the Euro in history today. As the dollar falls, the risk rises that the foreign investors who currently keep us solvent to the tune of $600 billion per year, will decide to invest elsewhere, e.g. in Europe, which now has more international Fortune 500 companies than we do, despite their supposedly oh-so-awful high taxation and social services.

Mariner.

 

[sagegirl]

I work with people who are on welfare every day. They have disabilities, mental illnesses, and subnormal intelligence. Why does a beef farmer deserve a subsidy more than one of my patients? In my view, it would be better to let capitalism work and raise the price of beef to its real value.

Mariner.

Mariner: I have to say there is no mandate that says our government should collect and redistribute wealth. I have a problem supporting someone who has burned out there brains on alcohol or whatever, and now wants to be supported by this system. Our liberal, Christian society says we should treat each other kindly and provide for those who cant provide for themselves. It is not a bad concept but it is sure open to abuse and has become more than a safety net......it has become welfare diabolical. I have my own opinions on some solutions to this and prison reform,(which I also tend to think becomes a form of welfare when it provides better living standards for those who have committed crimes against our citizens than law abiding people ).

I dont want anybody laying on the sidewalk cause they dont have a place to call home, so I for one say we have to do something. My motto is that if each and every one of us take care of our families, and then takes care of our neighbors, then everybody will be taken care of. The government has to be there to pick up the slack, but we sure need to be watchdogs on this.

And Im a vegetarian so I dont support subsidies for the beef farmers.....or anybody else, not even for my own worthy causes.

 

[CSM]

when it comes to special interests, the entire system is quite twisted. It saddens me that you have to be a millionaire to run for Congress. It doesn't seem very democratic.

On the other hand, I still have no trouble taking Bush to task for his particular part in our current situation, which is to propose massive deficit spending. If his purpose is to reduce the size of government, I think it would be far more sane to start vetoing appropriations bills, and to start a conversation with the American people about the amount of gov't that we're willing to pay for. Why are we selling our kids down the river like this? No one is responsible for Bush's budgets other than Bush himself.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the dollar hit its lowest mark against the Euro in history today. As the dollar falls, the risk rises that the foreign investors who currently keep us solvent to the tune of $600 billion per year, will decide to invest elsewhere, e.g. in Europe, which now has more international Fortune 500 companies than we do, despite their supposedly oh-so-awful high taxation and social services.

Mariner.

And again I say, that budget the President proposes has to be approved by Congress. You cannot get around that. So if you hold Bush partially responsible, so you must hold 500 some odd other people responsible as well. Also dont forget all the pork those congressional folks throw in the budget too. Bush didn't add the 16 billion dollar big dig project to the budget....

 

[Mariner]

I agree that there's no government mandate to redistribute wealth. The problem is that if government does not redistribute wealth, then wealthy people are too darned good at figuring out how to keep all the money for themselves. They don't show adequate concern for the needs of their workers, and they don't make sure that the playing field remains level, so that other people can have a chance to catch up to their level of success. Instead, they use every trick they can think of to maximize their profit, from establishing monopolies, to keeping as much of their company's profit for themselves as they can, to giving donations to legislatures and lobbying in order to change laws in their favor.

And so they should! I have no problem with wealth-creators trying to create more wealth. I know plenty of such entrepreneurs myself, here at Harvard Business School. But there has to be a counter-balancing force.

Take the example of a strip mine operator. Such a person will pile up tailings and release toxic chemicals into streams with no regard for people downstream or for people who live in the neighborhood. And it would not make sense to ask such a person to protect the environment and the neighbors, because he/she has no real incentive to do so. The incentives come in two forms: embarrassment and regulation. Environmentalists and neighborhood activists generate the embarrassment. Regulators, working off laws established after there have been enough abuses of the environment or the neighbors by a particular industry, do the rest.

Before we had redistributive taxation, we had robber barrons and 12 hour workdays 6 days a week. Now we seem to be headed in that direction again. I'd have to find the specific numbers, but the trend is that the management keeps more and more of each worker's earnings for the company. If I remember right, it was something like the worker earned $1 for every $1.70 of profit he created for his employer in the 70's (when redistributive taxation was at its peak), and it's something like $1 for every $2.50 of profit now. Average CEO salaries are now 900 times that of the lowest-paid worker, and rising. Bush's tax policies worsen these income disparities by decreasing taxes on CEOs relative to workers. The Republican position against raising the minimum wage keeps the lowest-paid workers down.

The sad fact is that the continued existence of the middle class seems to require government intervention. Take a look at where middle classes originated from historically--the people stormed the castles, took land away from the aristocracy, redistributed it amongst themselves, and gradually created merit-based arrangements that levelled the playing field. The monopoists were only brought down by massive anti-trust laws, labor protests (which created the concept of weekend), and redistributive taxes.

CSM--I'm sorry, I don't buy it. If Bush wanted to balance the budget, he could propose a balanced budget and ask Congress to accept it. Instead, he proposes wildly out-of-balance budgets and demands lock-step loyalty from his Congress, while producing rosy budget scenarios, none of which has even come close to being true. If he was really unhappy with Congress's pork-filled appropriations bills, he could simply veto them. Face it--he's purposefully driving us into huge debt to countries like Saudi Arabia. Why is he doing this? Well, liberals will tell you they suspect he's trying to produce a crisis in 10-15 years that will require Medicare and Social Security be disassembled. As for how conservatives justify it, that's what I've been waiting for you guys to explain to me.

Mariner.

 

[freeandfun1]

I agree that there's no government mandate to redistribute wealth. The problem is that if government does not redistribute wealth, then wealthy people are too darned good at figuring out how to keep all the money for themselves. They don't show adequate concern for the needs of their workers, and they don't make sure that the playing field remains level, so that other people can have a chance to catch up to their level of success. Instead, they use every trick they can think of to maximize their profit, from establishing monopolies, to keeping as much of their company's profit for themselves as they can, to giving donations to legislatures and lobbying in order to change laws in their favor.

And so they should! I have no problem with wealth-creators trying to create more wealth. I know plenty of such entrepreneurs myself, here at Harvard Business School. But there has to be a counter-balancing force.

Take the example of a strip mine operator. Such a person will pile up tailings and release toxic chemicals into streams with no regard for people downstream or for people who live in the neighborhood. And it would not make sense to ask such a person to protect the environment and the neighbors, because he/she has no real incentive to do so. The incentives come in two forms: embarrassment and regulation. Environmentalists and neighborhood activists generate the embarrassment. Regulators, working off laws established after there have been enough abuses of the environment or the neighbors by a particular industry, do the rest.

Before we had redistributive taxation, we had robber barrons and 12 hour workdays 6 days a week. Now we seem to be headed in that direction again. I'd have to find the specific numbers, but the trend is that the management keeps more and more of each worker's earnings for the company. If I remember right, it was something like the worker earned $1 for every $1.70 of profit he created for his employer in the 70's (when redistributive taxation was at its peak), and it's something like $1 for every $2.50 of profit now. Average CEO salaries are now 900 times that of the lowest-paid worker, and rising. Bush's tax policies worsen these income disparities by decreasing taxes on CEOs relative to workers. The Republican position against raising the minimum wage keeps the lowest-paid workers down.

The sad fact is that the continued existence of the middle class seems to require government intervention. Take a look at where middle classes originated from historically--the people stormed the castles, took land away from the aristocracy, redistributed it amongst themselves, and gradually created merit-based arrangements that levelled the playing field. The monopoists were only brought down by massive anti-trust laws, labor protests (which created the concept of weekend), and redistributive taxes.

CSM--I'm sorry, I don't buy it. If Bush wanted to balance the budget, he could propose a balanced budget and ask Congress to accept it. Instead, he proposes wildly out-of-balance budgets and demands lock-step loyalty from his Congress, while producing rosy budget scenarios, none of which has even come close to being true. If he was really unhappy with Congress's pork-filled appropriations bills, he could simply veto them. Face it--he's purposefully driving us into huge debt to countries like Saudi Arabia. Why is he doing this? Well, liberals will tell you they suspect he's trying to produce a crisis in 10-15 years that will require Medicare and Social Security be disassembled. As for how conservatives justify it, that's what I've been waiting for you guys to explain to me.

Mariner.

ahem - bullshit - ahem

excuse me

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Here is some interesting information for you all to ponder....

Here is a list of the Pork per Capita by most abusive......3 of the top 4 are BLUE states.....take a look.

You can also look at the total dollars spent (wasted) by each state and total volume for CA and NY alone is: 965,000,000 or over 10% of the total Pork wasted for the 2004 reporting year by CAGW.

States should start reigning in their spending...it is not on the President, since he does not have the line item veto.....over $9BLN in Pork last year alone....wouldn't that put a dent in the deficit (by about $9 BILLION or so dollars?)

How about just the blue states not put any pork into the budget, and then the deficeit would certainly turn around quicker.....

It is not always the rank that is important in the ratings listed....because it is based on per capita ranking....look at the total dollar figures.

Pork Per Capita by State
(National Average: $31.17 Per Person)
2004 State Pork Pop Pork/Capita 2003 Rank
1 Alaska $524,329,000 648,818 $808.13 1
2 Hawaii $494,136,000 1,257,608 $392.92 2
3 DC $181,047,000 563,384 $321.36 3
4 NH $278,578,000 1,287,687 $216.34 21
5 WV $238,594,000 1,810,354 $131.79 5
6 MT $116,444,000 917,621 $126.90 10
7 SD $85,264,000 764,309 $111.56 7
8 AL $360,619,000 4,500,752 $80.12 17
9 MS $218,188,000 2,881,281 $75.73 14
10 ND $46,330,000 633,837 $73.09 11
11 NV $148,327,000 2,241,154 $66.18 13
12 VT $40,716,000 619,107 $65.77 9
13 IA $168,124,000 2,944,062 $57.11 19
14 Id $77,943,000 1,366,332 $57.05 6
15 Ky $226,121,000 4,117,827 $54.91 16
16 NM $99,153,000 1,874,614 $52.89 4
17 RI $49,489,000 1,076,164 $45.99 15
18 Ok $159,811,000 3,511,532 $45.51 33
19 SC $179,609,000 4,147,152 $43.31 8
20 Co $196,304,000 4,550,688 $43.14 24
21 Me $53,902,000 1,305,728 $41.28 20
22 Wa $250,942,000 6,131,445 $40.93 12
23 Ks $108,439,000 2,723,507 $39.82 39
24 Va $290,812,000 7,386,330 $39.37 37
25 Ut $82,510,000 2,351,467 $35.09 28
26 Wy $16,573,000 501,242 $33.06 29
27 De $25,325,000 817,491 $30.98 23
28 Pa $368,922,000 12,365,455 $29.83 36
29 Mo $170,101,000 5,704,484 $29.82 22
30 Md $155,194,000 5,508,909 $28.17 31
31 La $110,047,000 4,496,334 $24.47 18
32 Wi $129,434,000 5,472,299 $23.65 34
33 Oh $268,615,000 11,435,798 $23.49 41
34 Tn $127,870,000 5,841,748 $21.89 26
35 Ar $56,540,000 2,725,714 $20.74 32
36 Ct $67,655,000 3,483,372 $19.42 38
37 In $117,461,000 6,195,643 $18.96 35
38 Ne $32,902,000 1,739,291 $18.92 44
39 Ma $120,756,000 6,433,422 $18.77 48
40 Az $104,658,000 5,580,811 $18.75 30
41 Ga $161,361,413 8,684,715 $18.58 49
42 Il $230,439,000 12,653,544 $18.21 43
43 Ca $642,854,000 35,484,453 $18.12 47
44 Fl $300,131,000 17,019,068 $17.63 45
45 Tx $380,596,000 22,118,509 $17.21 40
46 NY $324,620,000 19,190,115 $16.92 46
47 Mi $148,350,000 10,079,985 $14.72 50
48 Mn $70,569,000 5,059,375 $13.95 27
49 Or $47,979,000 3,559,596 $13.48 25
50 NC $108,710,000 8,407,248 $12.93 51
51 NJ $101,029,000 8,638,396 $11.70 42
TOTAL $9,064,422,413 290,809,777 $31.17

 

[manu1959]

Here is a list of the Pork per Capita by most abusive......3 of the top 4 are BLUE states.....take a look.

betcha a dallah that some tree hugger from california says they don't eat meat and that you are a liar

 

[Mariner]

guys that Democratic pork smells as bad as Republican pork. The thing is, though, the actual amount of pork has increased vastly under the Republican Congress and President Bush. If you don't believe me, believe the (conservative) Wall Street Journal, which has been quietly on Bush's case about this for 4 years now. You don't need a line item veto to kill pork--you just have to make clear to Congress that if the bill stinks too bad, you're sending it back. Clinton did this all the time. Bush has NEVER once done it.

For example, I did not support the "Big Dig" in my own home town. I thought 14 billion dollars could be better spent elsewhere, or returned to us taxpayers. All the Big Dig does is allow people to commute to Boston from even farther away than they do now, thereby encouraging sprawl. Soon enough, the roads will be exactly as crowded as they were before.

In regard to whether you should rank states by absolute numbers or per capita, of course you have to do it per capita. California's economy alone is something like the 7th biggest in the world. No fair comparing what California gets back from the Federal Gov't to what Montana gets--CA pays way more in. So you have to compare per capita, which are the numbers I reported near the beginning of this thread.

Simply labelling my several paragraphs of reasoning and statistics "BS" suggests that you don't have an argument, and therefore retreat to name-calling. Do you have a counterexample to my "capitalists need some control from regulators and environmentalists" argument? Can you explain why we taxpayers are cleaning up all these Superfund sites? Would not better regulation and environmental activism have forced the original companies to keep their work areas clean, and saved us all billions of dollars? Would you really rather pay billions on Superfund cleanup than millions to regulate companies from dumping pollutants in the first place? If not, then can you please ask Bush to stop cutting pollution inspectors and gutting the EPA?

Come on, I'm still waiting for the spirited conservative defense of letting Saudi Arabia and China pay our bills right now, to be repaid by our children. That's Bush's policy and there's no way you can talk around it. He has reduced taxes but proposed no reductions in spending. As I keep repeating, his very own budgets contain massive deficits, so he obviously wants it that way. He thinks it's a good idea. Do you? Why?

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

guys that Democratic pork smells as bad as Republican pork. The thing is, though, the actual amount of pork has increased vastly under the Republican Congress and President Bush. If you don't believe me, believe the (conservative) Wall Street Journal, which has been quietly on Bush's case about this for 4 years now. You don't need a line item veto to kill pork--you just have to make clear to Congress that if the bill stinks too bad, you're sending it back. Clinton did this all the time. Bush has NEVER once done it.

For example, I did not support the "Big Dig" in my own home town. I thought 14 billion dollars could be better spent elsewhere, or returned to us taxpayers. All the Big Dig does is allow people to commute to Boston from even farther away than they do now, thereby encouraging sprawl. Soon enough, the roads will be exactly as crowded as they were before.

In regard to whether you should rank states by absolute numbers or per capita, of course you have to do it per capita. California's economy alone is something like the 7th biggest in the world. No fair comparing what California gets back from the Federal Gov't to what Montana gets--CA pays way more in. So you have to compare per capita, which are the numbers I reported near the beginning of this thread.

Simply labelling my several paragraphs of reasoning and statistics "BS" suggests that you don't have an argument, and therefore retreat to name-calling. Do you have a counterexample to my "capitalists need some control from regulators and environmentalists" argument? Can you explain why we taxpayers are cleaning up all these Superfund sites? Would not better regulation and environmental activism have forced the original companies to keep their work areas clean, and saved us all billions of dollars? Would you really rather pay billions on Superfund cleanup than millions to regulate companies from dumping pollutants in the first place? If not, then can you please ask Bush to stop cutting pollution inspectors and gutting the EPA?

Come on, I'm still waiting for the spirited conservative defense of letting Saudi Arabia and China pay our bills right now, to be repaid by our children. That's Bush's policy and there's no way you can talk around it. He has reduced taxes but proposed no reductions in spending. As I keep repeating, his very own budgets contain massive deficits, so he obviously wants it that way. He thinks it's a good idea. Do you? Why?

Mariner.

I dont think anyone here is arguing for unrestricted capitalism ... I dont think many of us have a problem with holding corporations accountable to ensuring they operate in a manner that preserves or even enhances the environment. For me, the issue is HOW the federal dollar is spent. Social programs are what I have a problem with. Giving money to folks who have made welfare a way of life drives me crazy. Giving money to someone else so they have a good education while my children have to make do (because I don't "qualify" for whatever handout they are offering) makes me angry. Having some politician stand there and tell me we need more money for public schools while they send their kids to prestigious private institutions makes me angry. Offering free needles and medical care to drug addicts at various clinics while I have to pay to see a doctor for any kind of medical care drives me nuts. Asking me to pay for some "poor family's" housing while I work my butt off to make a living and provide a home for my own family pisses me off. Spending federal money on a crucifix in a bottle of urine and calling it art makes me angry too. Giving federal money to "blue states" so the socialist movement in ths country can thrive drives me nuts. Sending federal dollars to the "poor, helpless folks in Bangladesh" while my own family has to make do with whatever food shelter and clothing I can provide ticks me off too. Listening to some stinking rich Democrat tell me I should feel guilty because I have no "compassion for the poor or the homeless or the handicap or the elderly" as sit there in my own home with my elderly parents makes me angry. All this anger because I am "rich" ; which means I have a job, I pay my debts and taxes, work my ass off. My annual salary? far less than that jerk telling me I should feel guilty makes!

As for the deficit, agian, I say Bush doesn't do it all by himself. Clinton didn't do anything different than any other president has over the past few decades; sure he sent budget bills back. That was because he wanted to support those socialist programs I feel so strongly about at the expense of the security of the Unites States. He cut defense spending and he cut spending for intelligence services; both had an impact on why the US is in the fix we are in now. The current administration is trying to cope with the damage done and the result of those cuts. It costs money we dont have...
You make it sound like Saudi Arabia and China are going to forclose any minute now.

So be it. Let's cut the social programs and foriegn aid programs, the subsidies for things like art and sports programs in schools, remove the subsidies for corporations like the airlines so they can go under and the farmers so the price of food sky rockets, cut the medical programs like Medicare and Medicaid so that the sick, old, and weak die off faster. Heck, lets even get rid of the military all together and get rid of that expense item. That will put is right where some want us to be; equal with every Third world nation on the planet.


I say again, it is not the poor or the disabled who provide jobs for this country, it is not the president or the politician or the preachers. It is those big corporations and financial institutions who make it possible for the majority of citizens to provide support for their families and oh by the way, send a few bucks to the parasites of society. The day some poor homeless guy comes to my house and hires me to work for him at a decent wage is the day I'll change my mind. Until then...socialism/communisim sucks!

 

[Fmr jarhead]

In regard to whether you should rank states by absolute numbers or per capita, of course you have to do it per capita. California's economy alone is something like the 7th biggest in the world. No fair comparing what California gets back from the Federal Gov't to what Montana gets--CA pays way more in. So you have to compare per capita, which are the numbers I reported near the beginning of this thread.

Simply labelling my several paragraphs of reasoning and statistics "BS" suggests that you don't have an argument, and therefore retreat to name-calling. Do you have a counterexample to my "capitalists need some control from regulators and environmentalists" argument? Can you explain why we taxpayers are cleaning up all these Superfund sites? Would not better regulation and environmental activism have forced the original companies to keep their work areas clean, and saved us all billions of dollars? Would you really rather pay billions on Superfund cleanup than millions to regulate companies from dumping pollutants in the first place? If not, then can you please ask Bush to stop cutting pollution inspectors and gutting the EPA?

Mariner.

The numbers on the chart are rated as "per capita." It still does not change the fact that better than 10% of all pork projects are from "Blue" states that are represented by Democrats who whould have put the pork in the bills in the first place....are you telling me that they should not lead by example? It's everyone's problem (well, the rich, anyway, since we are the ones that actually pay taxes).

There are a lot of things I would like to change that have happened in the past.....I am sure, after I get done with the things in my family history, I would eventually get around to saying that the Copper smelt in Anaconda Montana should have had better environmental controls when it was built around the turn of the century.....but you know, it wasn't the way things were done. I can't change that, but I can support the cleanup of the toxic shit so my son and yours won't have to play in it. If you are starting to make a play toward the support of junk science, and funding it, then you and I will have a disagreement. If you want clean air, and a place to fish and hunt, or even ride your snowmobile, I have no problem with that at all.

If there is any way that we can turn back time and warn JFK about using a convertible we would live in a very different place.....and some of us would not like it. Of course, there is a lot of guessing about how it would all play out, too.

 

[Mariner]

Again, I totally agree. All pork (i.e. incidential spending tucked into larger spending bills) is bad policy, and Democrats have plenty of pork. But as the official party of smaller government, and as the current proponent of massive deficits, doesn't the Republican party have a greater responsibility to "lead by example," as you put it? The sheer number of pork projects has almost tripled under Bush and the Republican Congress.

My personal least favorite example is the unbelievably cynical "job creation" program of Rep. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. It involves taking your any my money to build roads into the the Tongass National Forest for the express of use of Alasakn timber companies who contribute to Stevens. Each job created (as reported by the New York Times this summer) comes at taxpayer cost of $175,000 (!).

And the sickest part of the deal is that if, even with having the roads cut for them for free, and your and my National Forest trees handed to them for free, the timber companies are still somehow unable to make money, Stevens' bill provides gov't insurance for them--we'll hand them their profit out of our bankrupt treasury. Ain't that a beaut? Where is the supposed fiscal conservatism of Republicans when the chair of the appropriations committee acts in this fashion? And where's capitalism when timber companies get this kind of welfare?

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

Again, I totally agree. All pork (i.e. incidential spending tucked into larger spending bills) is bad policy, and Democrats have plenty of pork. But as the official party of smaller government, and as the current proponent of massive deficits, doesn't the Republican party have a greater responsibility to "lead by example," as you put it? The sheer number of pork projects has almost tripled under Bush and the Republican Congress.

My personal least favorite example is the unbelievably cynical "job creation" program of Rep. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. It involves taking your any my money to build roads into the the Tongass National Forest for the express of use of Alasakn timber companies who contribute to Stevens. Each job created (as reported by the New York Times this summer) comes at taxpayer cost of $175,000 (!).

And the sickest part of the deal is that if, even with having the roads cut for them for free, and your and my National Forest trees handed to them for free, the timber companies are still somehow unable to make money, Stevens' bill provides gov't insurance for them--we'll hand them their profit out of our bankrupt treasury. Ain't that a beaut? Where is the supposed fiscal conservatism of Republicans when the chair of the appropriations committee acts in this fashion? And where's capitalism when timber companies get this kind of welfare?

Mariner.

Once again, the only real argument I have with what you say is that the sole responsibility lies with Republicans. They ahve no more and no less responsibility than any other politician. I am not convinced that the Democrats do any better than the Republicans in handling federal dollars. They both want to spend my money like drunken sailors on a three day pass (sorry NATO). I have always said the Republicans want to take my money and keep it for themselves, the Democrats want to take my money and give it to someone else; where is the party that wants me to keep my money to spend as I see fit?

 

[Mariner]

CSM, I'll remember it.

Here's today's Times' lead editorial. I'm still waiting for a "gloating" Bush supporter to explain what Bush is doing to our country's finances and why.

Mariner.

EDITORIAL

As the Dollar Declines

Published: November 13, 2004


For all its professed desire for a strong dollar, the Bush administration has apparently decided that letting the dollar slide is a good way to shrink America's trade deficit. This is dubious economic policy. It provides a modicum of relief to American exporters, but it increases the nation's vulnerability to higher prices and higher interest rates, while ignoring fiscal measures that would more assuredly anchor the United States in the global economy.

The dollar, which has declined nearly 30 percent against the euro since President Bush took office in 2001, fell to a record low this week. The decline has not been as marked against other currencies, largely because China and Japan prop up the dollar by investing heavily in United States Treasury securities - in effect, lending us money so we can buy their goods. Meanwhile, the Treasury secretary, John Snow, has largely eliminated the phrase "strong dollar" from his workaday vocabulary.

The underlying problem is that deficits in America's global transactions are at record levels, putting Americans at risk of either a slow deterioration in living standards or abrupt spikes in inflation and interest rates. There are three ways to get that deficit down: America can reduce the federal budget deficit, thus lowering the amount of interest we pay foreign countries to finance that deficit; trading partners like Europe and Japan can expand their economies, increasing their demand for American goods; or America can allow its dollar to fall to increase its exports.

The only lasting remedy is to reduce the federal budget deficit. That, in turn, calls for specific policies, like - we may have mentioned this before - rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Letting the dollar weaken is a far less responsible approach, an unwieldy and risky attempt to reduce the trade imbalance without the political pain of deficit reduction.

During the Bush years, 92 percent of the nearly $1 trillion increase in publicly held debt has been financed by foreign lenders. Foreign ownership of Treasuries has tripled from the peak of the Reagan deficits in 1983. Because of this enormous dependency, anything that might affect foreign lenders' willingness to invest in Treasuries - including dismay over the United States' long-term fiscal disarray, better investment opportunities elsewhere, or geopolitical or economic strife - could cause the dollar to tank.

No one knows if or when that would actually happen, though the dollar's slide since the election doesn't inspire confidence. But we do know that financial flows are quick and unsentimental. A fiscal policy that esteems controlling the deficit over tax cuts is the best way to avoid a debilitating dollar decline.

There is truth to the complaint that countries in Europe and elsewhere are not doing enough to bolster consumption within their own economies. But there's precious little the United States can do about it. Instead of complaining, Washington should get its own affairs in order.

The president, wed as he is to deficit-bloating policies, is not likely to step up to that responsibility without a stern shove from Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike. While they're at it, they should press Mr. Bush to choose Treasury officials who are true economic stewards, not merely cheerleaders for his "tax cuts above all" policies. If leadership is not forthcoming, the invisible hand of the global financial community is all too likely to provide the push.

 

[CSM]

OK, Mariner, it is apparent that your not so much concerned with the deficit as you are in bashing Bush and his supporters. So just call everyone on this board morons and get it over with.

When you are done with that, be sure to run over to all the Dem boards and tell everyone that you really busted this board good.

Just remember what I said...it takes more than the President and the Republicans to run up a deficit.

 

[Mariner]

bash Bush. I actually like some things about the man. What I've asked for is a good explanation of what he's doing with the budget. Blaming Democrats for the current budget mess is silly--Republicans own both houses of Congress, the Appropriations Committee chair is a Republican, and the president's veto pen is still full of ink. Honestly, I'd just like to understand what he thinks he's accomplishing with his fiscal policies. I am open-minded about alternate ways to see things--I wasn't born a liberal, I became one through my readings and experiences.

By the way, you mention how supporting generations of people on welfare makes you crazy. That's another area where I agree with you. If you check the welfare statistics, though, you'll find that the majority of welfare recipients are exactly like the majority of homeless shelter and unemployment check recipients: people who had no buffer against poverty, so that when one thing went wrong, e.g. an illness, a loss of a job, or a crisis in the family, their whole personal financial situation unravelled. Most people who get welfare get off it--they don't create a welfare lifestyle for their children. Also, most who get it are deeply embarrassed because the subscribe to the same hard work ethic you and I do.

Mariner.

 

[freeandfun1]

bash Bush. I actually like some things about the man. What I've asked for is a good explanation of what he's doing with the budget. Blaming Democrats for the current budget mess is silly--Republicans own both houses of Congress, the Appropriations Committee chair is a Republican, and the president's veto pen is still full of ink. Honestly, I'd just like to understand what he thinks he's accomplishing with his fiscal policies. I am open-minded about alternate ways to see things--I wasn't born a liberal, I became one through my readings and experiences.

By the way, you mention how supporting generations of people on welfare makes you crazy. That's another area where I agree with you. If you check the welfare statistics, though, you'll find that the majority of welfare recipients are exactly like the majority of homeless shelter and unemployment check recipients: people who had no buffer against poverty, so that when one thing went wrong, e.g. an illness, a loss of a job, or a crisis in the family, their whole personal financial situation unravelled. Most people who get welfare get off it--they don't create a welfare lifestyle for their children. Also, most who get it are deeply embarrassed because the subscribe to the same hard work ethic you and I do.

Mariner.

Mariner, you are so full of shit. If you look closely, you will see that soooooooo many welfare recipients are career recipients. Not only that, they are "hand me down" recipients. Once on the "dole" always on the dole. They are not the down and out, they are the "looking for handouts".

I know, I came from a poor, white trash family. I just decided, "no more!".

 

[eric]

Most people who get welfare get off it--they don't create a welfare lifestyle for their children. Also, most who get it are deeply embarrassed because the subscribe to the same hard work ethic you and I do.

You are speaking from opinion, not fact. The statistics certainly do not back up your statements.

If you check the welfare statistics, though, you'll find that the majority of welfare recipients are exactly like the majority of homeless shelter and unemployment check recipients: people who had no buffer against poverty, so that when one thing went wrong, e.g. an illness, a loss of a job, or a crisis in the family, their whole personal financial situation unravelled

Here is one point, on which I will agree with you. Many people live carefree, not giving security a thought. Don't agree ? Well think about this, how many people do you know who have a health savings account, in case of illness ? More than likely not too many. People rely on the fact that America, in its compassion provides a safety net. The problem is that many people take advantage of such compassion and no longer take personal responsiblity.

 

[Mariner]

any statistics you have. I did a quick google search and found the results for Chicago, when they instituted welfare-to-work, from the Center for Impact Research, which tracked the program.

Of 843 recipients,

"The mean number of children across the sample was 2.57.

46.7% had earned a high school diploma or GED.

Average reading levels were 7.70 and 6.46 for math.

81.5% of the sample had been employed at some point prior to entering the program.

The average length of time on welfare was 6.97 years."

Once more, though, I submit that corporate welfare dwarfs personal welfare, and I don't understand why those who favor low taxes support Bush's enormous corporate welfare programs, the most recent being a cool billion dollars in tax breaks to recipients of gov't military contracts.

Mariner.