Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low

[MonsterMark]

Bottom line is that I trust polls about as far as I can throw them.

Welcome to the playground. Nice post. Keep up the good work.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Gee, Johnny, who decides if your numbers are "fair?" You? Don't make me laugh. Everybody knows it takes between 18 months to 2 years for a new Presidency to adjust from the previous administration. Convenient shift of numbers.

Well, if you MUST know, an 18 month shift in the calculation gives Clinton a $90,324M SURPLUS, while a 24 month shift results in a $66,208M SURPLUS. Shall we go on? ANYBODY HERE BESIDES BRIAN AND DAVID THINK SHIFTING THE SUMMATION DATA LIKE THIS IS "UNFAIR"?? Calabrio? KBob? MrWilson?

Looks like once again, fossten and MonsterMark are alone on that island. This is really no suprise though, considering you two have demonstrated the most twisted views of reality here.

If we want to play that game, then why not include CIA intel and 9/11 prevention in that same formula? Bet you don't want to do that.

It's already been done; tax dollars spent on that would already be included in the "outlays" data. OUTLAYS - RECEIPTS = DEFICIT (or SURPLUS if the result is negative). Go dust off your calculator.

OH, and your term "budget surplus" is an insult, since it represents the FACT that Clinton's LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY resulted in OVERTAXING beyond even the current spending budget. And you're one of the first ones to cry foul when Bush wants to give Americans back some of their OWN MONEY that Clinton CONFISCATED.

What a liberal.

What a joke.

LOL, I love this, you called Clinton's tax increase "OVERTAXING beyond even the current spending budget". GEE, you think maybe that is HOW one might develop an actual budget SURPLUS? Brilliant observation there Mr. Obvious. Bring in MORE than what is spent! What a CONCEPT! No wonder you RWW's can't conceive of a "balanced budget", you wouldn't recognize it if you fell face down in it. :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

Dee dee dee!

(sorry Barry, couldn't help it this time)

 

[barry2952]

:bowrofl: :bowrofl:

Dee dee dee!

(sorry Barry, couldn't help it this time)

I totally understand.

 

[fossten]

It's already been done; tax dollars spent on that would already be included in the "outlays" data. OUTLAYS - RECEIPTS = DEFICIT (or SURPLUS if the result is negative). Go dust off your calculator.



LOL, I love this, you called Clinton's tax increase "OVERTAXING beyond even the current spending budget". GEE, you think maybe that is HOW one might develop an actual budget SURPLUS? Brilliant observation there Mr. Obvious. Bring in MORE than what is spent! What a CONCEPT! No wonder you RWW's can't conceive of a "balanced budget", you wouldn't recognize it if you fell face down in it. :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

Dee dee dee!

(sorry Barry, couldn't help it this time)

You don't even get what I said. I'm referring to policies in general, such as the vulnerability we had to 9/11 thanks to Willy, not paying for the CIA budget. Jeez.

For somebody ready to make fun of stating the obvious, you sure missed the obvious since you trumpet a surplus as though it's a good thing. READ MY LIPS: A BUDGET SURPLUS IS A BAD THING FOR AMERICANS, JOHNNY. IT MEANS WE HAVE LESS MONEY TO PUT INTO THE ECONOMY AND WE HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM.

You're so blinded by your love for Clinton you don't even recognize the obvious.

Mr. Obvious: Hello, welcome to the Mr. Obvious show, let's take a call.
Johnny: Hello, Mr. Obvious?
Mr. Obvious: Speaking.
Johnny: Hi, Mr. Obvious, long time listener, first time caller.
Mr. Obvious: Uh-huh. Well, thanks for calling...
Johnny: No, no, Mr. Obvious?
Mr. Obvious: Yes?
Johnny: I have this problem. I don't understand what a surplus is...
Mr. Obvious: Oh, boy...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

READ MY LIPS: A BUDGET SURPLUS IS A BAD THING FOR AMERICANS, JOHNNY. IT MEANS WE HAVE LESS MONEY TO PUT INTO THE ECONOMY AND WE HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM.

READ MY LIPS: A BUDGET DEFICIT IS A BAD THING FOR AMERICANS, DAVID. IT MEANS THE US HAS TO BORROW FROM FOREIGN INVESTORS TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

You are so blinded by your allegance to the GOP way of thinking.

The GOP consistantly sells-out a piece of america to foreign investors for each dollar of budget deficit. WHERE is it going to end if we continue operating under a deficit?? You expect the US governement to just file some kind of "bankruptcy"?? Sooner or later those foreign loan sharks are going to lay an eviction notice at our feet because they friggin' OWN most of the US soil thanks to the misguided budget policies of the GOP. The US government CANNOT continue operating under a budget deficit FOREVER. The GOP has run up the national debt so high we can hardly keep up with the interest. Am I going to have to school you on "compounded interest" now??

<snip> No personal attacks please. Maybe read THIS THREAD

 

[fossten]

READ MY LIPS: A BUDGET DEFICIT IS A BAD THING FOR AMERICANS, DAVID. IT MEANS THE US HAS TO BORROW FROM FOREIGN INVESTORS TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

You are so blinded by your allegance to the GOP way of thinking.

The GOP consistantly sells-out a piece of america to foreign investors for each dollar of budget deficit. WHERE is it going to end if we continue operating under a deficit?? You expect the US governement to just file some kind of "bankruptcy"?? Sooner or later those foreign loan sharks are going to lay an eviction notice at our feet because they friggin' OWN most of the US soil thanks to the misguided budget policies of the GOP. The US government CANNOT continue operating under a budget deficit FOREVER. The GOP has run up the national debt so high we can hardly keep up with the interest. Am I going to have to school you on "compounded interest" now??

You couldn't be more wrong in every way.

First of all, I'm not against government spending. I AM against government waste and entitlement programs. Don't look now, but the military isn't an entitlement program.

STRIKE ONE.

US SAVINGS BONDS are a form of national debt, which are bought not only by foreign investors, but also by Americans.

STRIKE TWO.

Look at the federal budget. There will NEVER be meaningful cuts in spending by cutting military spending, only by cutting entitlement programs. You expose yourself as pro-entitlement, anti-military. That makes you anti-American and likely a communist.

STRIKE THREE.

You assume I love the GOP but you (so soon!) forget that I've as much as disowned the GOP. You are so blinded by your own hate, you attack me with slavering jowls while ignorant of the true set of facts.

STRIKE FOUR.

Budget deficits are bad for America. True. But increasing taxes is the WRONG WAY TO REDUCE THEM. I can tell you never took Econ 101 in college b/c that's exactly what they teach. REDUCE SPENDING ON ENTITLEMENTS and the deficit goes down.

STRIKE FIVE.

As for your name-calling, I'll let Bryan and Joey deal with you.




THE FEDERAL BUDGET: Overview


The Issue at a Glance
The federal deficit has returned and with it difficult decisions as the government copes with a sluggish economy and new commitments abroad.

Two years ago, the U.S. government was projecting surpluses “as far as the eye could see,” a dramatic turnaround from decades of deficits that cramped the government’s options in nearly every policy area. Then an economic downturn and the Sept. 11 attacks changed everything. Tax revenue fell while spending for domestic security and military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq rose. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now predicts that the government will end the 2003 fiscal year with a $401 billion deficit -- the largest in raw dollars in U.S. history.

Much of the debate has surrounded President Bush’s tax cuts, intended to spur the economy. Republicans say the $350 billion tax cut, signed in May 2003, will stimulate the economy and thus bring in more revenue in the long run. Democrats say the trillion-dollar tax cut passed in 2001 is one of the main reasons for the deficit and that the 2003 cuts will make things worse.

There is a famous axiom, "to govern is to choose." Creating the federal budget is an exercise in making choices, often choices that will make a dramatic impact on individual Americans. Even in a federal budget of more than $2 trillion, there isn't enough money for everything. And choices made now can have implications for years to come. What happens to the federal budget can determine how much your take-home pay will be, whether you can get a college loan or a home mortgage and how secure your retirement will be, not to mention the indirect impact on the quality of your local schools, roads and police.


Discretion and Entitlements
Not everything in the budget can be cut, even if Congress and the president wanted to. Some programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, are "entitlements" the government is obligated by law to provide. Other services, ranging from national defense to national parks, may be vitally important but for budget purposes are still considered "discretionary" (and so are easier to cut). In the early 1960s, two-thirds of the budget was considered discretionary spending. But entitlements have grown dramatically since then, and now only about a third of the federal budget is discretionary spending. Plus, entitlement costs are rising faster than most other areas of the federal budget.

The entitlement problem will likely continue into the foreseeable future. It isn't that entitlements are completely untouchable --- Congress could change who's eligible for a program or the formulas by which benefits are spent. But reforming such popular programs is complicated, unpopular and politically dangerous. In effect, today’s budget choices are greatly influenced by budget choices that were made decades ago. (For additional context, see Public Agenda’s issue guides on Social Security and Medicare).

Other choices depend on events. While there may be debate over the specifics, everyone acknowledges the government had to respond in some way to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The White House budget message estimates that spending to recover from the attacks and improve domestic security amounts to at least $100 billion through 2003 and will likely result in $50 billion in recurring costs "for the foreseeable future." It isn’t clear how much the Iraq war and subsequent rebuilding will cost, but the CBO estimated before the war that it could cost about $33 billion, with another $1 billion to $4 billion per month to maintain an occupation force.


Return of Red Ink
For federal finances, 1998 was a watershed year. After decades of annual deficits, the federal government finally showed a budget surplus. While the deficit had been around since the early 1970s, it skyrocketed in the 1980s when President Reagan and the Democratic Congress enacted spending increases, particularly for a military buildup, as well as tax cuts. The balanced budget in 1998 was credited in large part to a surging economy in the mid-1990s that boosted tax revenues.

But when the economy weakens, so do tax revenues. More people are unemployed, investments are sluggish and consumers put off major purchases -- all of which decrease the amount the government gets in taxes. This affects all levels of government. It's no coincidence that state governments are facing even more serious budget problems than the federal government.

The projected 10-year budget surplus is also drying up. When Congress approved the president’s trillion-dollar tax cut last year, the projected 10-year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. The most recent 10-year outlook from the CBO now estimates a $1.4 trillion deficit over that period. It's important to note, however, that both the Bush administration and the CBO also project that annual deficits will peak in 2004 and then decline over time. Just as important is the fact that the projections presume there won’t be any major new spending programs or tax cuts in that period.


Riding Off Into the Sunset
One reason for both the projected decline in the deficit and for the complexity of the problem is the fact that not all of President Bush's tax cuts (either the 2001 cuts or the new ones passed this year) are permanent. Many of these cuts will expire, or “sunset” in congressional jargon, at some point in the future. For example, the federal estate tax is being gradually reduced until it disappears entirely in 2010 -- and then will return at its old level in 2011 unless Congress votes again to remove it.

Why put a sunset provision in a tax law? In general, it's been a compromise between those who believe that tax cuts are the best way of stimulating the economy and those who fear cuts will run up the federal deficit. By making the cuts expire, the government theoretically gets the short-term economic benefit while avoiding the long-term problems. It also reduces the federal government's projections of long-term deficits, since budget officials presume those taxes will come back. As a matter of practical politics, however, it may prove difficult for Congress to reimpose such taxes.

Does a Deficit Matter?
There are different schools of thought on budget deficits. (There's a distinction between the budget deficit, which is the amount government spending outstrips revenue in a given year, and the national debt, which is the total amount the government has borrowed over time).

One group of economists suggests that deficits have their uses. Moderate, well-managed deficits can stimulate the economy, because additional government spending will create jobs. Other experts argue that it's a bad idea for anyone, including the government, to borrow money to pay year-to-year bills. When deficit spending gets too big or goes on too long, that government borrowing inevitably raises interest rates, increasing the cost for such things as car loans and home mortgages, while making it more difficult for businesses to borrow money for expansion. Long-term deficits also cramp the government’s ability to create new programs and respond to new circumstances.

Still another set of economists, though, feel that surpluses and deficits mean little in such a huge economy, and that an undue focus on red ink leads to program cuts or higher taxes, which do greater damage. The administration says that it is dealing with extraordinary circumstances -- a recession and the war on terrorism -- and that something has to give in order to fuel an economic recovery while coping with an emerging threat to our national security.

The administration also points out that the current deficit, while the largest ever in real dollars, is only 1.9 percent of the total economy. That’s a relatively modest figure, particularly compared to the deficits of the 1980s. Because of that, some (but far from all) economists say this deficit may prove less damaging to the economy.

Ups and Downs
While the president’s $2.1 trillion budget proposal for the next fiscal year represents a 4 percent increase overall in current spending, not every program gets an increase. The biggest proposed increase would come in defense spending, which would rise by $15 billion to $380 billion under President Bush’s plan. The new Homeland Security Department would also see its programs get a steep increase to more than $36 billion. There would also be increases for the president's education plan, the No Child Left Behind Act, which would get an addition $1 billion, and an addition $1 billion for special education. Many other programs, however, would face cuts, such as Medicaid, veterans benefits, the earned income tax credit and many child nutrition and insurance programs.

All of those changes are subject to debate in Congress. One reason why the federal budget debate is so complicated is that there isn’t one "budget bill" to be passed. Generally taxes are considered in one piece of legislation, and then there are 13 separate appropriations bills covering various departments.

The Public's View
Surveys show the public divided on some basic questions regarding the federal budget. They are split, for example, on whether it is more important to control the deficit or reduce taxes. Americans tend to like the concept of tax relief but, at the same time, they also feel that domestic programs deserve more funding.

In any case, most Americans do seem to focus more on what the government does than how much it spends. Most people tell public opinion researchers there are more important priorities than balancing the budget, including terrorism, the economy, education, Social Security and health care. Surveys show most believe President Bush’s tax cuts may help the economy in the long run. But when asked what bothers them about taxes, more Americans say they’re bothered by the feeling that other people don’t pay their fair share than they amount they pay themselves.


http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/overview.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget

*owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

A couple of talking points from your own link.........

Perspective #2:

Balance the budget to avoid long-term financial disaster

The federal budget is on a course for disaster and our first priority should be to turn it around. By allowing the government to run a deficit, we run the risk of harming the economy and burdening our children with the debts we were unwilling to pay. The federal government has to stop living beyond its means and giving out tax cuts like party favors. Unless we act now, senior entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare will end up both breaking the budget and failing to serve the elderly when the baby boomers retire en masse. The critical task is balancing the budget and reforming the entitlement programs. Anything less means failing in our obligations to both our children and the elderly.

Perspective #3:

Address public problems too long deferred

You get what you pay for and taxes are an investment we make as a society for the public services we need. What good is it to have a balanced budget or lower taxes if our schools are falling apart, our homeland security is poor, or sick people can’t afford to get treatment? The question isn’t what the government spends; it’s what you want the government to do. For decades the deficit has been an excuse to avoid pressing public needs, even though the deficit never seemed to cause any tangible harm. After all, the country prospered during this period. Besides, deficits have their uses, particularly when it comes to stimulating the economy. It’s time to address some of these long-delayed problems in education, health care, counterterrorism, child care and other areas. If the government needs more money, it should tax the wealthy and cut back on corporate tax breaks.

 

[fossten]

Johnny, if you think the American people are so in favor of tax increases to cut the deficit, then WHY DON'T THE DEMOCRATS RUN ON THAT PLATFORM?

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=189662#post189662

I'd pay money to see the Liberal Democrats actually run honestly on what they really believe. It'd be the biggest landslide against them since, umm, 2004.

 

[barry2952]

So, BuSh hires Snow to help him in the polls. If the polls don't matter, why hire him? Long way from 50%.

Thursday April 27, 2006--Thirty-eight percent (38%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's the lowest level of support ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Sixty-one percent (61%) disapprove, including 45% who Strongly Disapprove. One additional sign of the President's weakness is that Democrats lead by twelve percentage points on a generic 2008 Presidential Ballot.

The President earns approval from 66% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats, and 33% of those not affiliated with either major party.

 

[fossten]

So, BuSh hires Snow to help him in the polls. If the polls don't matter, why hire him? Long way from 50%.

False premise. Where is your evidence or source that confirms that Bush hired Tony Snow to help him in the polls?

In fact, the only apparent reason Snow was hired was to replace Scott McClellan, who decided to move on.

More irresponsible statements from you.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Johnny, if you think the American people are so in favor of tax increases to cut the deficit, then WHY DON'T THE DEMOCRATS RUN ON THAT PLATFORM?

That's a stupid question based on a poor assumption.

 

[fossten]

That's a stupid question based on a poor assumption.

That's your answer to the question? You sound like Dick Turban. :bowrofl:

You can't answer the question because you already know the answer, and it doesn't help your cause.

Nice try. Come back later after you ask your parents how to answer it.

 

[barry2952]

False premise. Where is your evidence or source that confirms that Bush hired Tony Snow to help him in the polls?

In fact, the only apparent reason Snow was hired was to replace Scott McClellan, who decided to move on.

More irresponsible statements from you.

Had you actually read Calabrio's post you would have seen this. Funny, you commented on it, but never absorbed it. Duh!

"Snow, a Fox news pundit and former speechwriter in the White House under Bush's father, replaced Scott McClellan who resigned in a personnel shuffle intended to re-energize the White House and lift the president's record-low approval ratings."

 

[fossten]

Had you actually read Calabrio's post you would have seen this. Funny, you commented on it, but never absorbed it. Duh! [personal attack]

"Snow, a Fox news pundit and former speechwriter in the White House under Bush's father, replaced Scott McClellan who resigned in a personnel shuffle intended to re-energize the White House and lift the president's record-low approval ratings."

First of all, you're quoting an Associated Press article by Terence Hunt who is STATING HIS OPINION. (Never mind that you didn't originally cross-reference it) Again, I ask you: where is your evidence? You do know the difference b/t evidence and opinion, don't you?

Second, you're using a virtually op-ed article by a reputedly liberal source (The AP) in order to show a self-contradiction by people in this thread? Get a clue! Sorry, but the dots you're trying to connect are about as far apart as instances of truthtelling by Clinton!

 

[MonsterMark]

First of all, you're quoting an Associated Press article by Terence Hunt who is STATING HIS OPINION. (Never mind that you didn't originally cross-reference it) Again, I ask you: where is your evidence? You do know the difference b/t evidence and opinion, don't you?

Fossten,

Once again you are dead on.

The media beats Bush to a pulp and now wants to make fun of every effort the White House makes to give them what they want. They wanted change. Now they get it, but it will never, ever be enough.

 

[barry2952]

Thursday April 27, 2006--Thirty-eight percent (38%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's the lowest level of support ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

First of all, you're quoting an Associated Press article by Terence Hunt who is STATING HIS OPINION. (Never mind that you didn't originally cross-reference it) Again, I ask you: where is your evidence? You do know the difference b/t evidence and opinion, don't you?

Second, you're using a virtually op-ed article by a reputedly liberal source (The AP) in order to show a self-contradiction by people in this thread? Get a clue! Sorry, but the dots you're trying to connect are about as far apart as instances of truthtelling by Clinton!

Apparently, Terrence Hunt must share the same opinion that White House staffers and BuSh advisers have.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html

"We want fresh thinking, to charge the batteries, and passionate participation," said Dan Bartlett, a top Bush adviser. "There is a lot of value added in Tony coming on board and helping us internally with his own views and ideas. It fits into the mold."

Bush aides said at least one more well-known Republican will join the White House as early as next week as part of a shake-up also aimed at improving the president's lower-than-ever approval ratings and limiting GOP losses in congressional elections this fall.

The emerging team -- which includes Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, budget chief Rob Portman and now Snow -- has the task of salvaging Bush's floundering second-term agenda and repairing relations with Congress, the media and an increasingly skeptical public. But it is unclear whether Bush, who has resisted change and outside advice in the past, will adjust his style and policies enough to satisfy Republicans on Capitol Hill who have said his White House operation needs a major overhaul.

Those dots aren't so far apart, now are they?

As usual, you are so full of yourself you have to make a grandstanding pat-yourself-on-the-back scene each time you think you've "caught" some minute flaw in somebody's post. [Edit, again]

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

That's your answer to the question? You sound like Dick Turban. :bowrofl:

You can't answer the question because you already know the answer, and it doesn't help your cause.

If you think the American people are so against tax increases, the WHY did Clinton get elected for a second term?

Nice try. Come back later after you ask your parents how to answer it.

Nice personal attack, but I notice your butt-buddie won't edit this out like he's done to others. So what does this kind of "protection" cost you? Wearing holes through the knees of your pants?

 

[fossten]

If you think the American people are so against tax increases, the WHY did Clinton get elected for a second term?

1. Clinton didn't RUN ON TAX INCREASES. He LIED to the American people.
2. Dole wasn't electable.
3. Ross Perot stole 20% of Republican votes FOR THE SECOND TIME.

Clinton wouldn't have won either election if it weren't for Ross Perot.

*owned*

Nice personal attack, but I notice your butt-buddie won't edit this out like he's done to others. So what does this kind of "protection" cost you? Wearing holes through the knees of your pants? [personal attack]

I don't need protection. I only respond to your insensate attacks. As long as you keep it up, nothing will happen. [edit]

 

[MonsterMark]

If you think the American people are so against tax increases, the WHY did Clinton get elected for a second term?

Because the media had Clinton walking on water, that's why. Because people were watching their stock portfolios grow so fast they didn't care what they had to pay in taxes.

There is a great saying for what Clinton did to the country over his Presidency.

"A fool and his money are soon parted". Buy an internet stock with no revenue and no profits and watch your stock go from $20 to $60 in 6 months. That is what happened. I remember it all so distinctly because I was out trying to raise money for a company at the exact same time. I had investors basically laughing at me when they compared our projections and returns from those of interent companies. It was basically impossible to raise money for legitimate businesses that had revenue and earnings when compared to internet companies that had nothing. Well, we all know what happened to the nothing crowd. They came crashing down on Bush. Once again the Republicans had to come to the rescue, just like reagan had to do after Carter and Bush had to do after Clinton.

Tax the economy, treasury goes up sort term, then crashes. Dems will never figure it out.

BUsh 'cuts' taxes and treasury receipts go 'up' and sustain themselves. It is so simple it is scary. We are a consumption economy. If we only had basic, basic government, everybody from the poorest of the poor to the wealthiest would be far better off. Only one parent would have to work to provide for the family. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY know how much they pay in taxes unless they are a business owner or self-employed and pay either monthly or quarterly taxes. And that doesn't include the thousands of hidden taxes we never see, all the way from robin hood government programs to everything we eat, drink or crap.

 

[MonsterMark]

Nice personal attack, but I notice your butt-buddie won't edit this out like he's done to others. So what does this kind of "protection" cost you? Wearing holes through the knees of your pants?

LMAO. I clip Fossten more than I clip anybody else here. Nice try Johnny. You're a funny guy.

Trying to keep up with you guys is a full-time job. I'm doing the best I can. I am working both sides of the aisle. I can't read every single thread and every single post every minute of every day.

If you see a post that crosses the line, copy the offending sentence or two, PM me with a link to it and I will take care of it.

Everybody has been asked again and again to stop the personal crap but it is just not happening. So in an effort to make the place even slightly more pleasant for those visiting but not engaging, I have unilaterally decided to 'mod' with a heavier hand. Please resist the temptation to personally ridicule a fellow member. We are all guilty here, trust me. We'll see how it goes. I expect that this will turn out making everybody pissed off because each person that is edited will feel like their 'free speech' rights have been violated. I have said from day one when this forum went up that I am all for free speech, but I will not tolerate the denegrating of a fellow member. That is called the 'line in the sand'. Simple enough, right? Thanks.

 

[fossten]

Trying to keep up with you guys is a full-time job. I'm doing the best I can. I am working both sides of the aisle. I can't read every single thread and every single post every minute of every day.

If you see a post that crosses the line, copy the sentence or two, PM me with a link to it and I will take care of it.

Everybody has been asked again and again to stop the personal crap but it is just not happening. So in an effort to make the place even slightly more pleasant for those visiting but not engaging, I have unilaterally decided to 'mod' with a heavier hand. Please resist the temptation to personally ridicule a fellow member. We are all guilty here, trust me. We'll see how it goes. I expect that this will turn out making everybody pissed off because each person that is edited will feel like their 'free speech' rights have been violated. I have said from day one when this forum went up that I am all for free speech, but I will not tolerate the denegrating of a fellow member. That is called the 'line in the sand'. Simple enough, right? Thanks.

As long as you treat everybody here EXACTLY THE SAME, without regard to political affiliation, I have no problem.

 

[MonsterMark]

As long as you treat everybody here EXACTLY THE SAME, without regard to political affiliation, I have no problem.

I'm trying my best. That's all I can do. Too many chefs in the kitchen spoil the soup. My PM box is always open. If you have an issue with what I am doing or a grievance of any type, I welcome hearing it. Thanks again.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

LMAO. I clip Fossten more than I clip anybody else here. Nice try Johnny. You're a funny guy.

Gee, I wonder why?

If you see a post that crosses the line, copy the offending sentence or two, PM me with a link to it and I will take care of it.

Ohhhhh Kayyyyyyyyy. BTW, you missed one........... (two posts above yours):

You're such a hate-filled hypocrite.

As long as you treat everybody here EXACTLY THE SAME, without regard to political affiliation, I have no problem.

The problem is, YOU don't act exactly the same as everyone else here, so you get clipped more often than everyone else (proof above), but then you view that as an attack on your political affiliation, rather than as a repremand on your personality. Here's a dollar, buy a clue.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

BUsh 'cuts' taxes and treasury receipts go 'up' and sustain themselves. It is so simple it is scary.

:bsflag:

PLEASE point out where the treasury receipts have gone up following Bush's tax cuts. Because the data shows otherwise: Treasury receipts have gone DOWN immediately following the tax cuts, and didn't start coming back up until the effects of normal economic growth and inflation have taken effect. All those tax cuts have done was set the normal growth in treasury receipts BACKWARDS 5+ years.

What is really scary is how that red kool-aid has affected your vision.