In article
,
Keith wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.
Not only that, he proposes Americans pay a world tax for the
environment. If this happens, jobs will go to countries like China,
where the pollution will be far worse, and Americans will still be
footing the bill. Because I am from So Cal the issue of immigration
is huge. McCain is just not tough enough on this issue. He is too
liberal and I feel Romney is our best candidate.

Ah! These comments warm my heart. If McCain gets the nomination, he will
beacon for the downfall of the Republican party of many years to come.
Go get 'em McCain!

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it
that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to
the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of
terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints
in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows and the cries of
the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious qualifying test
for our government employees. Check your beliefs at the door of the Warrior
Wing. Hillary said the military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's
not true. We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who
enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

Really? How many non-Christians have served as president? How many
atheists are serving in congress or have ever served as president? Where
elections are concerned, we Americans are very prejudiced toward
Christians?

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:43:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, which
were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

Eventually the bill will have to be paid, and that will mean taxing
More than spending.

Since Dubya and the Rs had no apparent need to cut spending when they
were in power for six full years, where should the responsibility to
do so reside?

The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:43:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:28:46 -0800 (PST), Keith
wrote:

McCain cannot be President. He voted against Bush's tax cuts,
which were to be honest one of the only good things Bush did as
President.

But they weren't tax Cuts -- they were Tax Deferrals.

Dubya borrowed from the future to pay the costs of the present.

You merely bought into the short-term illusion.

Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The
only thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you
to meet effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

Eventually the bill will have to be paid, and that will mean taxing
More than spending.

Since Dubya and the Rs had no apparent need to cut spending when they
were in power for six full years, where should the responsibility to
do so reside?

The best means of cutting through the noise is to ask a simple
question:

Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

Iraq.

NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

While revenues also hit record levels. The problems are not in the
revenue, but in the spending side. Actually if you look at the Joint
Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts, the revenues that came in
after the cut were larger than the scoring said would have come in if
the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring system they have used for
taxes way before GW came about.


Eventually the bill will have to be paid, and that will mean taxing
More than spending.
Actually studies have shown consistently that if you merely hold
spending to inflation, deficits disappear within 5 years or so even if
you leave taxes alone. It is obvious from the last 40+ years that
spending is the key.

Since Dubya and the Rs had no apparent need to cut spending when they
were in power for six full years, where should the responsibility to
do so reside?

With the Congressional GOP. And with the Dems before them and since
them.


Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.
How about anything with an earmark to start. Those by definition are
projects that aren't good enough to be funded under the current
mechanisms. Then we have to define "cut".



NB: It is Not appropriate to recommend cuts in expenditures that
Someone Else supports that you do not. Turnabout and all - they can't
cut Your preferred expenditures either when they make suggestions for
spending cuts.

So, have at it.

Keep the increases to inflation and should be good to go.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:05:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Which federal expenditures that You support would you like to see cut
or eliminated? Be specific.

Iraq.

You support the effort in Iraq, and would like to cut the funds for
it?

Now there's a new one!

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Which federal expenditures that You support would
you like to see cut or eliminated? Be specific.

Iraq.

You support the effort in Iraq,

No I dont. It should never have been invaded in the first
place, essentially because they are too stupid to get their
act into gear once Saddam got overthrown and just looted
everything they could, and then went for a full civil war.

and would like to cut the funds for it?

I wouldnt have invaded it in the first place for the reasons above.

Now there's a new one!

Fraid not, you've just got it wrong, as you usually do.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:10:59 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


Is that why revenues have gone up faster than inflation since the tax
cuts? Actually they accelerated for the first couple of years. The only
thing going up faster than rev is spending. Cause, I'd like you to meet
effect.

They still were Not tax cuts, were they?

And the deficit still continues to climb -- at near record pace.

While revenues also hit record levels. The problems are not in the
revenue, but in the spending side.

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase in
revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.

Actually if you look at the Joint
Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts, the revenues that came in
after the cut were larger than the scoring said would have come in if
the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring system they have used for
taxes way before GW came about.

Also based on an illusion. So-called tax "cuts" that are merely
deferrals merely postpone the day of reckoning, and create an illusion
of a thriving economy based on borrowed money. Rather like that
teevee commercial where the guy is bragging about his house, cars,
lawn, pool, etc -- and then says "I'm in debt up to my ears!"

All the rationalizing in the world won't change the economic
fundamental -- Costs are Real and Will and Must be paid. Public costs
will be paid by taxes -- no way around it. And nibbling around the
edges here and there, e.g. doing away with the National Endowment for
the Arts, won't accomplish anything important enough even to bother
with. People whine about such matters out of Personal Preference, not
because of Economic Principle.

There is a need to tax more than we spend. Otherwise we can't pay
down the accumulated Debt, the overwhelming majority of which the Rs
have managed to run up. It is the Combination of taxing and spending
cuts that will be required to get the job done.

So -- same question: What expenditures that You support are You
willing to have cut or done away with?

The answer to that question from everyone involved is where the
Solution -- if there really is one -- resides.

We can handle Some debt, clearly. The accumulated debt involved with
public investment in capital infrastructure ought to be bonded and
paid down over time. That way those who reap the benefit pay the
cost.

But the current-year Operational debt -- and most of it is -- that
accrues, is rolled over endlessly, such that the roughly 15-20 per
cent of the total revenues go just to pay the interest on it, right
off the top -- ought to be for by Current Revenues.

It's not. It hasn't been for quite some time.

Somehow the Rs lost their way a couple of decades back on such
fundamental matters. For a while there, I thought perhaps the Ds
would pick up the concept, but of late it doesn't seem to be happening
as it ought.

Unfortunate, truly!

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase in
revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.
Exactly. Spend less


Actually if you look at the Joint
Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts, the revenues that came in
after the cut were larger than the scoring said would have come in if
the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring system they have used for
taxes way before GW came about.

Also based on an illusion. So-called tax "cuts" that are merely
deferrals merely postpone the day of reckoning, and create an illusion
of a thriving economy based on borrowed money. Rather like that
teevee commercial where the guy is bragging about his house, cars,
lawn, pool, etc -- and then says "I'm in debt up to my ears!"
Spending is the key. Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such. You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.



There is a need to tax more than we spend. Otherwise we can't pay
down the accumulated Debt, the overwhelming majority of which the Rs
have managed to run up. It is the Combination of taxing and spending
cuts that will be required to get the job done.
But no one is talking about a way to enforce spending cuts in the
same way a tax increase enforces an increase in revenue.


So -- same question: What expenditures that You support are You
willing to have cut or done away with?
Pretty much everything except law enforcement, defense and a couple
other small things. "Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke
So what would YOU be willing to give up or would you just up taxes
and up taxes.


Somehow the Rs lost their way a couple of decades back on such
fundamental matters. For a while there, I thought perhaps the Ds
would pick up the concept, but of late it doesn't seem to be happening
as it ought.

The Dems have pretty much always lead the charge on spending. There
was a small timeframe of about 5 years when the GOP first took over
where there was some slowing of the rate of increase in spending, but
then they got the addiction and it was all over

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:18:35 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase in
revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.
Exactly. Spend less

Or tax more. Or some combination of the two.

Spending is the key.

It is one of two keys -- not the Only one.

... Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.

The BBA would not necessarily result in a tax cut. Quite the opposite
is equally likely.

You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

Which federal expenditures that You approve of are You willing to cut
or eliminate?

Same question as before.

Pretty much everything except law enforcement, defense and a couple
other small things. "Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

Now we know what PJOR states, for the purposes of humor.

But that wouldn't come close to curing the problem.

What things that You support do You wish to give up.

So what would YOU be willing to give up or would you just up taxes
and up taxes.

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty much
completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

AND I would up taxes to cover the Real Costs of current year
operational spending. As a start.

The key to dealing with the accrued debt is to get what accountants
would call the Current Account back into some semblance of balance.

Then we can discuss lowering the accrued deficit.

Over to you.

The Dems have pretty much always lead the charge on spending.

Save for when the Rs had control incongruous. They then led their own
charge -- just on different things.

... There was a small timeframe of about 5 years when the GOP first took over
where there was some slowing of the rate of increase in spending, but
then they got the addiction and it was all over

Lowering the rate of increase still leaves it increasing withal.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

No -- the problem is in the mismatch between a small increase
in revenues coupled with a large increase in expenditures.

The key to keeping things in balance is to match them.

Exactly. Spend less

Actually if you look at the Joint Commitee on Taxation "scoring" of the cuts,
the revenues that came in after the cut were larger than the scoring said
would have come in if the cut had not occurred. This is same scoring
system they have used for taxes way before GW came about.

Also based on an illusion. So-called tax "cuts" that are merely
deferrals merely postpone the day of reckoning, and create an
illusion of a thriving economy based on borrowed money. Rather like
that teevee commercial where the guy is bragging about his house,
cars, lawn, pool, etc -- and then says "I'm in debt up to my ears!"

Spending is the key. Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.
You can't trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

There is a need to tax more than we spend. Otherwise we can't pay
down the accumulated Debt, the overwhelming majority of which the Rs
have managed to run up. It is the Combination of taxing and spending
cuts that will be required to get the job done.

But no one is talking about a way to enforce spending cuts in
the same way a tax increase enforces an increase in revenue.

So -- same question: What expenditures that You
support are You willing to have cut or done away with?

Pretty much everything except law enforcement, defense and
a couple other small things. "Politics should be limited in its
scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

The world's moved on just a tad since that dinosaur's day.

So what would YOU be willing to give up
or would you just up taxes and up taxes.

Somehow the Rs lost their way a couple of decades back on such fundamental
matters. For a while there, I thought perhaps the Ds would pick up the concept,
but of late it doesn't seem to be happening as it ought.

The Dems have pretty much always lead the charge on spending.
There was a small timeframe of about 5 years when the GOP first
took over where there was some slowing of the rate of increase in
spending, but then they got the addiction and it was all over

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:43:04 -0600, CJT wrote:

This is why McCain is not electable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM&NR=1


It is quite hard to figure the campaign slogans any more. The article
below does give a good picture.


CAMPAIGN OUTSIDER
Super Sunday spills to Super Tuesday
By Muhammad Cohen
Febuary 6, 2008 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB06Aa01.html

HONG KONG - If Republicans are approaching Super Tuesday with
ambivalence, I can empathize, based on Super Sunday. But take heart,
GOPers: as the game unfolds, you're likely to discover where your true
feelings lie.

I tell people I have no interest in American professional football;
I'm a New York Jets fan. The Jets have long, ugly histories with both
the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. It's so bad that
every week, I root for the Jets, whoever's playing the Giants and
whoever's playing the Patriots. Imagine my dilemma on Super Sunday,
when the Giants played the Patriots for the championship.

Republicans don't have to imagine. Some candidates, particularly Iowa
caucus winner Mike Huckabee and Internet fundraising champ Ron Paul,
have passionate followings. Much of the Republican base, however, has
spent a long time rooting against frontrunners John McCain and Mitt
Romney.

Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, won elections in that
liberal state taking positions that make conservatives' blood boil. He
supported abortion rights and gun controls. He signed a landmark
mandatory health insurance bill that's the closest existing example of
Hillary Clinton's health plan. Romney has renounced those positions to
run as the true conservative in the 2008 race.

Bile booster
Some Republicans are willing to believe Romney, despite more faces
than a watch shop, since the alternative is the senior senator from
Arizona. McCain gets true believers' bile rising over his opposition
to President George W Bush's tax cuts and a constitutional amendment
to ban same-sex marriage, his support for immigration reform, campaign
finance reform, and stem cell research, and his refusal to kowtow to
party extremists.

They're particularly enraged that McCain reaches across the aisle to
work with Democrats. He's co-sponsored Senate legislation with objects
of right-wing wrath Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy. Some call McCain a
RINO - Republican in name only. Those qualities would make McCain a
more attractive general election candidate and give him a better
chance of winning the White House, which only adds to true believers'
anguish.

With Romney, the base likes where he stands but they don't know if he
means it. With McCain, they often don't like where he stands, but they
know he means it. When all of the votes are counted on Super Tuesday,
it's likely the Republicans will know where their race stands and can
get back to their more comfortable position of lining up behind a
consensus favorite. It will be fun to watch whether the Republicans'
can win the general election with a large percentage of the base
holding its noses.

Who is the enemy?
But Super Tuesday won't solve the Republicans' far more agonizing
quandary: which Democrat should they hope to face in November?

Clinton-bashing has been a favorite Republican sport since the 1990s,
and Hillary has always been a prime target. They've demonized her as
the ultimate big spending liberal who wants to reach government's hand
more deeply into people's wallets, classrooms and sickbeds. The hatred
has only deepened since the Republican attack machine couldn't defeat
Bill Clinton in two presidential elections or stop Hillary from
winning two terms as a senator from New York.

Red-meat Republicans would never admit it, but the reason they hate
the Clintons so much is probably because they're so close. Many
Democrats criticize the Clintons as being too Republican rather than
too radical. Bill Clinton reformed the federal welfare system that was
a longstanding object of Republican wrath. He balanced the federal
budget, even ran a surplus, something Republicans wistfully lament as
an impossible dream.

The Clinton administration struck out on health care reform and walked
away from it. Bill Clinton gave the Republicans a sex scandal they
could only dream of; it's not the Clintons' fault that more
Republicans than Democrats fell victim when the morality police moved
from the White House to Capitol Hill.

Moreover, fire-breathing Republicans and the Clintons are comfortable
with the same kind of politics. They're happy to wrestle in the mud,
thinking they won if the other side got dirtier. Then everyone has a
shower and a brandy, and they get paid by all of us to do it again
tomorrow.

Base two calculation
The Clintons, like the Republicans, believe in playing to the base,
and now more than ever, it's evident their base is Bill and Hillary.
Imagine if the former president had expended a quarter of the energy
he's shown during five weeks of the primary season for the Democratic
presidential candidates in 2000 or 2004. It took two to tango the US
into its box of negative, nasty politics in which candidates cynically
search for slight advantages to reach 50.01% in a country split down
the middle; to answer Senator Barack Obama's debate question, the
Clintons sure can dance.

Obama offers something completely different, an approach to politics
that's uplifting not depressing. Despite what his position papers may
say - on health care, for example, Obama's position is closer to the
Republicans than Clinton's - and in his pledge to reach across the
aisle, Obama represents something dangerous for Republicans. All the
candidates are talking about change: Obama is the one who really means
it. Just in his first Senate term, he's not (yet, at least) a member
of the same club as the mainstreamers. If Republicans think McCain is
too much of a free thinker, Obama's a real nightmare.

Except, perhaps, at the voting booth. The Republican attack machine
would love a shot at Obama. He's a mixed race African-American with an
Arabic middle name who attended an Islamic school in the world's
largest Muslim country, Indonesia. He's admitted to illegal drug use.
His name is already connected with a big city political scandal in
Chicago. There's no end to Swift Boating fuel from the Obama well.

That's the real dilemma for the Republicans. Do they root for Clinton
who they've hated for years and haven't beaten in four shots, knowing
that it's not the end of the world if she wins again? (Maybe
Republicans will get the House of Representatives back, like they did
in 1994, with a Clinton in the White House ...) Or do they hope for a
shot at Obama who may be easier to beat, but poses a far greater
danger to change the face of politics?

I won't presume to understand the Republican mind, but I can tell you
how I felt during the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl between those
two teams I love to hate. When the Patriots scored a touchdown to put
them ahead and preserve their shot at an undefeated season, I found
myself rooting for the Giants.

I've hated the Giants for longer and find them more repugnant, but
I've learned to live with it and have survived their two previous
Super Bowl wins. I didn't want to see the Patriots change the face of
football history.

Former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen told America's story to
the world as a US Information Agency diplomat and is author of Hong
Kong On Air (www.hongkongonair.com), a novel set during the 1997
handover about television news, love, betrayal, high finance and cheap
lingerie.

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


... Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.

The BBA would not necessarily result in a tax cut. Quite the opposite
is equally likely.


Ooops my bad. I meant tax HIKE if the quid pro quo... sorry



You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

Which federal expenditures that You approve of are You willing to cut
or eliminate?

Same question as before.

Which I answered before. Keep the increases at or below inflation
and studies from the mid-70s forward have all shown you balance the
budget within 5 years and start working on the surpluses after that.

I would also cut-off PBS. They have more affiliates than any of the
networks. Some cities have more than one. Another study from the mid-80s
suggests you could rid of the extra affiliates, sell off the licenses
and endow CPB.
I'd also turn all roads over to the states (although that would also
include a tax cut, so that the states could increase their gas taxes to
offset). They are spending more on roads than the road taxes (such as
gas tax, etc) bring in and it is the most abused area of earmarks.