Let's impeach the president.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

whatever happened to all for one and one for all? i don't like the way politics are. its ok to give Exxon million dollar tax breaks, while the gap between the rich and the poor keeps on widening. in our lifetime there will be no more middle class. i take it 70 that you are doing alright. im glad for you

Not really. Not really at all. But what I have is mine and mine alone and I'm not naive enough to believe that a poltician is going to make it all better. That was the mistake of those people in New Orleans. They stayed in their houses thinking someone else had the ultimate responsibilty for their well being and that, to me, is a form of insanity. I shiver at the mindset that says "water's rising, better go upstairs. Water's still rising, better get on the roof." The water that killed those people rose at a rate of about one foot an hour. If they had walked two or three miles they would have been fine.

In fairness, this mentality, is not confined to the poor and the dispossessed. On some level, I hope a big meltdown does come, beause a lot of middle and upper middle class suburbanites are going to look equally foolish. There is a frightening lack of stoicism in this country. People have no endurance for anything other than sex and traffic.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

whatever happened to all for one and one for all?

Did this ever really exist?

I know I feel a responsibility to my community and country. I feel it is my job to give back. I just think that using our government as the middle to give back is foolish. Our government, and every other in the history of the world, has shown staggering inefficiency when it comes to distributing funds and services to help the less fortunate. It is an inate quality of government and ultimately I feel that I want to be the one to decide where my money goes to help people.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Did this ever really exist?

I know I feel a responsibility to my community and country. I feel it is my job to give back. I just think that using our government as the middle to give back is foolish. Our government, and every other in the history of the world, has shown staggering inefficiency when it comes to distributing funds and services to help the less fortunate. It is an inate quality of government and ultimately I feel that I want to be the one to decide where my money goes to help people.

i think this mentality always starts at the top. right now this administration is so hell bent on taking care of all the friends/ contributors of their party, they are forgetting about us small guys. in a round about way the government can help without really trying. the 2 biggest issues facing everyday america are health care, and energy(gas). but yet everyone looks the other way on these issues. they are both directly tied to the economy, and inflation

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i think this mentality always starts at the top. right now this administration is so hell bent on taking care of all the friends/ contributors of their party, they are forgetting about us small guys. in a round about way the government can help without really trying. the 2 biggest issues facing everyday america are health care, and energy(gas). but yet everyone looks the other way on these issues. they are both directly tied to the economy, and inflation

I guess they forgot about you when they gave you a tax break????

ps- being the president is not like waving a magic wand and poof things get better. It takes time. While I do feel they have dropped the ball on alternative fuels at this point, e85 has shown up on Bush's watch. Also, no other president in history has alloted more money to alternative fuels than Bush. FYI.
I am very curious as to how you think health care is the governments fault considering it's private business.

[saden1]

The majority of those who died in NO were old and sick people.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

The majority of those who died in NO were old and sick people.

I think he is also referring to the ones that were saved even though he used the term died. I am still unsure how you can explain the 28% of people that perished between the ages of 16-60.
For as bad as that was, not as many people died that should have. I guess the government really did help out eh?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

The majority of those who died in NO were old and sick people.

By the way, how can 6 bodies be of unknown sex?

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

By the way, how can 6 bodies be of unknown sex?

It's Pat!YouTube - It's pat

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by angryssg

It's Pat!YouTube - It's pat

Ha! Classic.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

It's Pat!YouTube - It's pat

LOL...that was seriously what I was thinking...that's scary and funny at the same time.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Why impeach him now. His term is almost up.

[dmek25]

and that tax break gave me enough to go out for dinner, ONE time. i agree it takes time, but Mr Bush is 6 years into it, and what exactly has his agenda accomplished? and i am all for national health care. there is no reason in the world that one doctor charges more then another for the same procedure. as far as the alternative fuel, the closest one to me is about 15 miles. how about taking the tax cuts that the big oil companies are getting, and invest it into the ethanol, solar, and wind powers? and another thing about the tax break. its a retread way to promote your agenda. doesn't do a whole lot to stimulate the economy, and was used by Regan in the late seventies, and did nothing then, either

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and that tax break gave me enough to go out for dinner, ONE time.

Wow...$600 is a one time dinner for you...where are you eating?

and i am all for national health care.

I am to that point as well, but this is going to be a huge effort to tackle. Something the current administration has never agreed to get after. Kerry promised it, but has no clue what it actually takes. In fact, I doubt any democratic candidate will run with that either.

there is no reason in the world that one doctor charges more then another for the same procedure.

Why is it when I bought my radar detector one sold it for $225, one sold it for $250 and one sold it for $325? There were several in the middle too. We live in a free country, and those doctors are free to charge what they want. Think of it as a retail store. While I agree it sucks, there is nothing that can be done about it, and to use that as an excuse to dislike the president...well every president in history has failed then cause it's been like this since we became a country.

as far as the alternative fuel, the closest one to me is about 15 miles.

At least there are some...it's heading in the right direction. (albeit slowly)

how about taking the tax cuts that the big oil companies are getting, and invest it into the ethanol, solar, and wind powers?

100% agree. I understand those companies helped Bush win the election, and you don't shun your friends, but we need a bigger effort on alternative fuels. That is the one area I wish I could change about the current administration.

and another thing about the tax break. its a retread way to promote your agenda. doesn't do a whole lot to stimulate the economy, and was used by Regan in the late seventies, and did nothing then, either

Umm, ok, I'm going to point out some issues here. 1- Reagan was the 80's, and his decade was widely regarded as the best economic decade in history. 2- Bush has been in charge as part of the best economy in decades, and best interest rates in history. 3- Bush went through the budget and found wasted money and gave it back to the people. There is no doubt that the next dem. president will raise taxes, and significantly.

[dmek25]

the best economic decade was definitely in the 90's, when Clinton was in power. i love how you say wasted money was given back to the people. do you realize this administration has the biggest national deficit of all time? the budget was balanced, and there was surplus money, when a democrat left office. thats why i don't understand how people believe the Dem's are the free spending party. Bush has spent more on this war alone. he seems willing to give money to any foreign country that asks. the spending in Washington is way out of control.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the best economic decade was definitely in the 90's, when Clinton was in power.

How is that? Bush has had a better unemployment rate, the interest rates were at an all time low, and more people are making more money.

i love how you say wasted money was given back to the people. do you realize this administration has the biggest national deficit of all time?

Yes, but I beg you to tell me the significance of having a "national deficit". We've had it for an EXTREMELY long time, and it has yet to affect us.
Of course we know it's high, it's been high for a long time. It was at an all time high when Clinton was in office, Bush just doesn't care that it keeps getting higher, frankly why should he care? What is the significance? I have asked this SEVERAL times over the years, and not a single person can tell me how this is important other than to say Bush got it this way. Well, that's nice, now tell me how this affects us.

the budget was balanced, and there was surplus money, when a democrat left office.

Keep in mind the deficit was still there, Clinton budgeted for it to be gone after many, many years. In other words it would have never panned out because times change and things change.

thats why i don't understand how people believe the Dem's are the free spending party. Bush has spent more on this war alone. he seems willing to give money to any foreign country that asks. the spending in Washington is way out of control.

I don't think we are "overspending" when it comes to protection. You can't tell me that Al Queda was not a threat. Why do dems want to turn their heads to the threats in the world? Clinton turned his head towards these problems and left them to Bush, Bush has no choice but to spend on it. If Clinton did back in his day, we wouldn't be in as rough shape as we are. Clinton had a different priority and that priority was giving our hard earned money away to people who didn't deserve it, and no priority into national defense. I disagreed with it then, and I still disagree with it. There was no real way of Clinton knowing this all would happen, but he was in a position to protect us and he didn't. Bush is.