Originally posted by TeinosukeThe zoo's making a profit and the gummint in Minnesota closes it on holiday weekend?
Maybe it depends on whether the state zoo is making a profit. If it is, then it's probably helping funding those hospitals!
Exactly why they shouldn't have anything to do with business and spending other peoples money.
Originally posted by WajomaWell, it's not as if a private zoo couldn't end up being closed on a holiday weekend due to, say, a dispute between the owner and his employees!
The zoo's making a profit and the gummint in Minnesota closes it on holiday weekend?
Exactly why they shouldn't have anything to do with business and spending other peoples money.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell, the American political system sometimes seems to be so hidebound by mechanisms preventing effective legislation that it's a wonder anything ever gets done at all. Not so much "checks and balances" as just checks. Obama had a 60-seat supermajority, or as near as should make no odds, for his first term, and yet it was still possible for a decisively defeated Republican opposition to link up with a couple of conservative Democrats to prevent urgent legislation being passed.
Yea, the Dems did a fine job of this between 2008 and 2010 when they were in control.
In Britain, a government with 60% of parliamentary seats would be free to govern, and almost guaranteed a majority for most legislation, short of a major rebellion within the governing party. If it was a matter as essential as a serious spending decision in times of economic crisis, then there'd almost certainly be a two- or three-line whip sent out to warn MPs within the governing party that attendance was essential and that they might face internal disciplinary action otherwise.
Oddly enough, this little dose of efficiency hasn't yet sent my country spiralling into totalitarianism, but then what would a mere Euopean know?
Originally posted by whodeyI'll be donating once again. I love my country and have hope for it. The GOP offers no future. Again the greatest threat to the future of the USA is not the Taliban, or Pakistan, or any other country, it is the right wing of the GOP.
I heard Obama wants to raise $1 billion for his 2012 bid. I suppose he will get the loot from all the poor folk like us, eh?
As I dispise bigotry and hatred, so I dispise the GOP as they go hand in hand.
Originally posted by SoothfastDemocrats don't want to cut. They want to increase taxes to pay for what they have already spent and then have more so they can spend that too.
Across the country we see that Democrats want to balance budgets with a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthiest, while in contrast Republicans want only to cut and are adamantly opposed to any and all tax increases of any degree. Logic dictates that you have to do both during times like these; it's the logic of history and economics a ...[text shortened]... rebound.
If the Republicans don't flinch, they will be decimated in 2012.
But this problem is not limited to Democrats. All politicians are "lushes" when it comes to spending money. The only answer is to cut them off. No, don't increase taxes. Governments had plenty of money -- they spent all of it and more. Give them more money and they will just spend that and then ask for more again.
Cold turkey is the only way. No, no tax increases. No, no more money but what you currently take in. Live within your means. If that hurts for awhile -- well, you brought it on yourself. If people want to vote you out of office because of it, you have no one but yourself to blame. Learn to take responsibility.
The rich did not get you in this situation of runaway government spending. In fact, most of them probably opposed it. So you have no moral right to ask them to get you out of it.
Originally posted by spruce112358The rich, in the form of Goldman Sachs, just destroyed our economy. The poor didn't do this.
Democrats don't want to cut. They want to increase taxes to pay for what they have already spent and then have more so they can spend that too.
But this problem is not limited to Democrats. All politicians are "lushes" when it comes to spending money. The only answer is to cut them off. No, don't increase taxes. Governments had plenty of money -- the ...[text shortened]... st of them probably opposed it. So you have no moral right to ask them to get you out of it.
Originally posted by spruce112358The only moral approach is to make them give more. They got bailed out. Whats the matter with you?
Democrats don't want to cut. They want to increase taxes to pay for what they have already spent and then have more so they can spend that too.
But this problem is not limited to Democrats. All politicians are "lushes" when it comes to spending money. The only answer is to cut them off. No, don't increase taxes. Governments had plenty of money -- the ...[text shortened]... st of them probably opposed it. So you have no moral right to ask them to get you out of it.
2 edits
Originally posted by badmoonSo as you dispise bigotry and hatred so do you dispise the GOP?
I'll be donating once again. I love my country and have hope for it. The GOP offers no future. Again the greatest threat to the future of the USA is not the Taliban, or Pakistan, or any other country, it is the right wing of the GOP.
As I dispise bigotry and hatred, so I dispise the GOP as they go hand in hand.
Is this a joke?
As for the difference between the two party's, do tell, what are they?
I think it would behoove the American people to force both paties to stop the wars abroad, both increase taxes and decrease spending, and stop this foolish demogogary that one party is good and the other is evil. Of course, they both do such a good job of demonizing the other that they will have endless support from people like you who think there is actually a difference between the two partys.
Think for a second, if both parties did not demonize the other then would there be support for either? And if there was no support for either party, would they have a legitiamcy to rule over us? Personally, I think this is why you see the "get the vote out" campaign by both partys.
Originally posted by spruce112358A company exists to make money. Period. I read that in microeconomics class somewhere.
I'm not in favor of bailouts. If companies need "bad investment insurance", let them take it out and pay the premiums themselves. Why should taxpayers foot that bill?
At the higher levels, companies play legal games to get money. They say they're opposed to bailouts and such, but if it's permitted by the government, even if encouraged by lobbyists, well then the companies are obligated to try to get that money, because that's what companies do.
There's this strange hypocrisy at the higher levels of wealth that greedily sucks at the government teat while simultaneously saying the teat shouldn't exist. But since it's there...well, then it should be utilized for company profits. Because that's what companies do.