[The Mick]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3955715/
For Pete's sake, why must the feds stick their frickin' noses into everyone's personal business? Now they want to waste $1.5 billion of our money to teach poor couples how to talk to each other?

Bush administration officials are planning a $1.5 billion election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Administration officials have worked with conservative groups for months on the proposal, the paper said, and are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.

The plan would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain “healthy marriages,” the paper said.

I don't think this is any of the government's business, and I'll be mad as hell if he goes forward with funding this crap. Give me back my money you jackasses!

[davesimondotcom]

The Mick is calling for tax cuts and greater fiscal responsibility.

I, personally, don't have any idea how it could cost $1.5 Billion to teach people how to talk to each other.

The goal (healthier marriages) is admirable. But I don't see where it is the government's responsibility to teach people how to be in a healthy marriage. I mean, isn't it in their best interest to learn how to respect and listen to each other on their own?

I heard this on the radio, and the first thing I thought of was that $1.5 Billion was half a billion more than the proposed increase to NASA's budget to get man back on the moon and to Mars.

[OldManMac]

I could swear that one of King George's campaign promises was to get the government off our backs, yet the government is growing rapidly under his empire.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I could swear that one of King George's campaign promises was to get the government off our backs, yet the government is growing rapidly under his empire.

odd, isn't it?

actually, this move should be only seen for what it is: a bone being thrown to the religious right for their votes come november. Nothing more, nothing less. Vote purchasing in progress...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Wow.

Something everyone can agree on!

And while they're at it, give us our money back for a nearly endless list of other stupid things government wastes our $ on.

[BRussell]

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We're going to see a lot more than this before Nov. 2004. Billions and billions are going to be proposed for Democratic-type ideas, like child health care, illegal immigrants, women's issues, on and on. He's going to be absolutely craven throughout the next year. Positively Democratic.

[chris v]

The hitch here is that more than likely, they will tie welfare elligibility to attendance at these seminars. Then, they will make them extremely difficult to attend. It's all about making welfare either not worth the bother, or ultimately, impossible for anyone to comply with.

I'm willing to bet that they figure that by chucking 1.5 bln. at this program, they canreduce welfare outlay by more than that amt.

CV

[Nonsuch]

What a disgusting idea. Social engineering at its most craven and bald-faced.

If this bill passes, expect to see within a few years a steady rise in divorces among low-income couples.

[osiris]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
odd, isn't it?

actually, this move should be only seen for what it is: a bone being thrown to the religious right for their votes come november. Nothing more, nothing less. Vote purchasing in progress...

Bingo! And the recent venture in Mexico=more Latino votes, return to the Moon/Mars=more geek votes... grasping for straws.

[Ratm]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Give me back my money you jackasses!

ROTFL!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by The Mick:
I don't think this is any of the government's business, and I'll be mad as hell if he goes forward with funding this crap. Give me back my money you jackasses!

Sorry, the only prevention is to not allow them to take it in the first place.

Once you give the authority to take your money by force for broad purposes, you lose control of what those purposes will be. Now, if you're satisfied with other things tax money is spent on, be aware that other folks may consider those purposes none of the government's business, and they want their money back, too. That's why limited government with explicit purposes that taxes can be collected for is a good thing, and not shoving everything under the general welfare clause.

[Millennium]

This is so very much Not A Good Idea.

I have to admit, if couples could communicate better, I think we'd probably see much lower divorce and abuse rates. However, I'm not sure this is the right way to do such a thing, and it's certainly not the right time; although communication skills can be learned after marriage, they should be learned long before that.

[maxelson]

Dude. Go to work for the Federal Gov't. See for yourself how much is wasted on a daily basis. 1.5 bil will seem like piss in the toilet compared to what you see on a daily basis.
It comes to the point where one realizes- if one is paying attention and not a simple party sheep, that the waste is rampant and in every corner of the Fed Gov't.
WHen I hear politicians speak about "trimming the fat in Washington" as our current administration did, I feel the need to let folks know that they are lying unabashedly. Programs? There'd be more than enough money for programs- even the ones with which you disagree- if the Federal Government even made a halfhearted attempt at curbing waste. Not a DIME would need to be cut from social programs, hell, they could even have their war machine if they just actually REALLY put contracts out for bid and actually paid attention to who was charging what. If this happened, hell, you could have all the well funded wars you want- and never see a tax cut. The Haliburtons are only a small part of this. I am talking about the small stuff- like $200 for a 128 MB DRAM DIMM that should be about $30. Think I'm kidding? I see it every day. And until I start to see this crap under control, well, Bush is a LIAR. Clinton? LIAR. Cabinets? Senate? LIARS. The Federal Government is a Gypsy Moth Caterpillar. Lives to eat, eats to live. It starts with a mkissle defence system that HAS ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED and will not see the light of day for at least a decade (when it will need to be bought again) and goes all the way down to Fed employees taking blank CDs home to burn up their music. "I don't like my 7 month old laptop. I want a different one".
What happens to the first? Drive degaused and the cpu scrapped. Think I'm kidding? I ain't. And this administration is worse than most.

[zigzag]

Leave it to Rick Santorum to say the following: "I would just suggest we stayed within the budget targets the President has set forth. They are substantially less than what the increases were under the Clinton administration. They are, I would argue, fiscally responsible." Here's the truth: If you take defense and entitlement spending out of the picture altogether (and they have, of course, gone through the roof), Bush and the Republican Congress have upped domestic spending by a whopping 21 percent in three years. That compares with an actual decrease in such spending of 0.7 percent in the first three years of Bill Clinton. Spending on education is up 61 percent; on energy 22 percent; on health and human services 22 percent; on the Labor Department a massive 56 percent. There really is no spinning of this. Bill Clinton was a fiscal conservative. George W. Bush is a fiscal liberal of a kind we haven't seen since LBJ. Maybe the Democrats would be worse. But nationally, the GOP is outspending Democrats wherever they get the chance._ A USA Today study found that GOP-controlled state legislatures increased spending an average of 6.54 percent a year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17 percent for legislatures run by Democrats. Fiscal conservatives really have no place to go any more. But if you had to pick, you'd have to support the Democrats.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Dude. Go to work for the Federal Gov't. See for yourself how much is wasted on a daily basis. 1.5 bil will seem like piss in the toilet compared to what you see on a daily basis.
It comes to the point where one realizes- if one is paying attention and not a simple party sheep, that the waste is rampant and in every corner of the Fed Gov't.
WHen I hear politicians speak about "trimming the fat in Washington" as our current administration did, I feel the need to let folks know that they are lying unabashedly. Programs? There'd be more than enough money for programs- even the ones with which you disagree- if the Federal Government even made a halfhearted attempt at curbing waste. Not a DIME would need to be cut from social programs, hell, they could even have their war machine if they just actually REALLY put contracts out for bid and actually paid attention to who was charging what. If this happened, hell, you could have all the well funded wars you want- and never see a tax cut. The Haliburtons are only a small part of this. I am talking about the small stuff- like $200 for a 128 MB DRAM DIMM that should be about $30. Think I'm kidding? I see it every day. And until I start to see this crap under control, well, Bush is a LIAR. Clinton? LIAR. Cabinets? Senate? LIARS. The Federal Government is a Gypsy Moth Caterpillar. Lives to eat, eats to live. It starts with a mkissle defence system that HAS ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED and will not see the light of day for at least a decade (when it will need to be bought again) and goes all the way down to Fed employees taking blank CDs home to burn up their music. "I don't like my 7 month old laptop. I want a different one".
What happens to the first? Drive degaused and the cpu scrapped. Think I'm kidding? I ain't. And this administration is worse than most.

I got this in an email today, and it seems fitting for the topic at hand:

The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion" casually,
think about whether you want that politician spending your tax money. A
billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency
did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its
releases:

A billion seconds ago, it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate
Washington spends it.

[Zimphire]

Yeah how dare he! He is promoting saving marriage!

Sheesh.

He should be giving money to sexual deviants and the like.

They are the ones that really need it!

Oh and giving money to art students that depict Jesus getting **** on.

Now that is some well money spent!

This marriage thing.. well it's for the birds.

[itai195]

Originally posted by maxelson:
hell, they could even have their war machine if they just actually REALLY put contracts out for bid and actually paid attention to who was charging what. If this happened, hell, you could have all the well funded wars you want- and never see a tax cut.

Actually they tend to do a pretty good job at overseeing private contracts. That's why the found that overcharge. Where the federal government fails is in controlling its own internal bureaucracy and in cutting pork. There are good reasons why government jobs are considered "cushy," just think of how many people have these cushy jobs, how much money they're making, and how much money gets spent on their offices, new computers, etc.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He should be giving money to sexual deviants and the like.

um, no. i think the point is to decrease spending zimphire. btw, it's not an either/or issue. no one in this thread is advocating spending more gov't money, rather, they are advocating spending less, and therefore, taking less from citizens - the whole less-intrusive gov't thing and all - lower taxes.

why is it that politicians legislate their beliefs? i saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "don't like abortion? don't get one". could be said for drugs, marriage, divorce, anything. this attitude, as long as it respects the rights of others, makes sense to me since it preserves the rights of citizens, without imposing ideals and morals on them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by adamk:
um, no. i think the point is to decrease spending zimphire. btw, it's not an either/or issue. no one in this thread is advocating spending more gov't money, rather, they are advocating spending less, and therefore, taking less from citizens - the whole less-intrusive gov't thing and all - lower taxes.

And most vote for Democrats. The irony. Heh

No the original poster was complaining about spending money on THIS in particular. Not that more money was being spent.

So while that may be the case with you... it wasn't the original posters. At least not in the first post.

My point was, there are TONS of other things the government spends money on that should outrage us more. Like giving money to artists who make CRAP.

why is it that politicians legislate their beliefs? i saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "don't like abortion? don't get one". could be said for drugs, marriage, divorce, anything. this attitude, as long as it respects the rights of others, makes sense to me since it preserves the rights of citizens, without imposing ideals and morals on them.

No one is imposing ideals or morals on anyone.

And if they were, so what? Making a law against drugs is imposing morals. Saying stealing is bad is imposing morals.

I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't promote morals..

Promoting morals is a good thing.

Promoting people to stay married and work things out can't do any harm.

it can only better society.

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

And most vote for Democrats. The irony. Heh

Read zigzag's post.

In addition, from a hippie hemp product wearing gay liberal standpoint, I'm also opposed to it because it is for an institution that is denied to a group of people who want access to said institution. You know what I think? If you want to help marriage, make it just a bit harder to get married. Impose a waiting period or something. If you're gonna spend money on it, spend it on pre marriage counseling. At least now his marriage protection week (four months later) can be said to consist of something besides denying gay people the right to marry.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't promote morals..

Promoting morals is a good thing.

Promoting people to stay married and work things out can't do any harm.

it can only better society.

Promoting marriage is only moral inasmuch as one buys into the family values myth. Not to mention that there are plenty of married couples who really shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, why should the government waste my money on these irresponsible people? I wouldn't be surprised to learn there's a pretty close correlation between those kinds of people and 'poor' people, either.

Either way, surely even you can appreciate that $1.5 billion is way too much money to spend on this program. The NEA you complain about so much only gets about $97 million from the federal government.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Meneldil:
Read zigzag's post.

I'm also opposed to it because it is for an institution that is denied to a group of people who want access to said institution.

Ah, so because they aren't accepting the homosexual lifestyle as being a legit one, you are against it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Promoting marriage is only moral inasmuch as one buys into the family values myth.

Family values is a myth? Heh, surely you are joking.

Not to mention that there are plenty of married couples who really shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, why should the government waste my money on these irresponsible people?

Well they aren't making people get counseling. I am sure this is a choice. If two people want help with their marriage, regardless if you think they should be married or not, what does it matter?

Either way, surely even you can appreciate that $1.5 billion is way too much money to spend on this program.

No amount of money is too much when it comes to stability of the family. IMHO

The NEA you complain about so much only gets about $97 million from the federal government.

Only?

[adamk]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

...
And if they were, so what? Making a law against drugs is imposing morals. Saying stealing is bad is imposing morals.

doing drugs does not inherently infringe on the rights of others though it can in certain cases - ie driving while stoned, stealing to get money/drugs. stealing, however, does inherently infringe on the right to own property.

i guess the moral i would like taught is to simply respect the rights of others as well as protecting your own.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Family values is a myth? Heh, surely you are joking.

Nope, I'm not joking.

Well they aren't making people get counseling. I am sure this is a choice. If two people want help with their marriage, regardless if you think they should be married or not, what does it matter?

Because it's my money! I'd rather the government tried to get people to act more responsibly about their marriage decisions in the first place.

No amount of money is too much when it comes to stability of the family. IMHO

It's too much to spend on a minority group's opinion of what family stability is, though.

Only?

Yes ONLY! That's 6.5% of the amount Bush wants to spend just on this marriage program. The suggestion being that you're harping on about what basically amounts to a drop in the bucket within the federal budget. A single F22 fighter jet costs $200 million for christ's sake, and you're complaining about $100 million annually? The Mars rover cost over $400 million -- surely the arts contribute as much to society as ONE Mars rover?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ah, so because they aren't accepting the homosexual lifestyle as being a legit one, you are against it.

I believe he said he was against it because it was denied to a particular demographic of people who wanted it. Whether or not you or Bush or the government in general agrees with that that particular demographic of people do with their time is irrelevant. It's no different than denying people services because they belong to a different religion.

[quandarry]

what country did the US government borrow this money from?

[BlackGriffen]

And, predictably, Zimphire bites on his bone, hard.

BlackGriffen

[dtriska]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He should be giving money to sexual deviants and the like.

What's the matter, Zimf? Not getting as large a tax refund as you thought?

[zigzag]

I say we just take the $1.5 billion and make them "not poor." Lemme tell ya, that'll improve a lot of marriages right there, more than any amount of counseling.

Here's an idea - fund one of those "Teach gays to be straight" programs. It might put a crimp in Banana Republic's earnings, but Eddie Bauer is having a tough time and could use the revenue.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Sorry, the only prevention is to not allow them to take it in the first place.

Once you give the authority to take your money by force for broad purposes, you lose control of what those purposes will be. Now, if you're satisfied with other things tax money is spent on, be aware that other folks may consider those purposes none of the government's business, and they want their money back, too. That's why limited government with explicit purposes that taxes can be collected for is a good thing, and not shoving everything under the general welfare clause.

I agree with you for the most part. I've just gone through a real philosophical change in my political views this past year or so. Perhaps it's due to the birth of my child, and a newfound desire not to burden her with the errors of our ways.

I've always been attracted to the Republican ideals of personal freedom, less government oversight, and fiscal responsibility, but I usually felt that the Democratic platform for social programs and environmental activism outweighed them. These days, however, I've grown sick of seeing my money wasted on gigantic federal programs with no oversight and rampant overspending. I think that any social program needs to be implemented on a much smaller scale, say at the county or state level, with a narrower focus on the problems at hand and more frugality.

My new problem then becomes the fact that Republicans are no longer the fiscally responsible party. They spend my money as though it was going to expire next week, like a pizza coupon. Additionally they no longer seem to uphold the ideals of personal liberty like they used to (read: The Patriot Act).

So from a federal viewpoint, I've gone pretty Libertarian. F**k it, blow it all up and try again. Let the states and localities regulate themselves and stick to the Constitution. I can think of just a few things that need to be regulated nationally for the sake of public safety, such as the FCC to allow nation-wide communication, or the FAA to keep planes from crashing into each other. But it's none of the FCC's business what people say on TV or radio, and the FAA doesn't need to regulate seat dimensions.

Yeah, I want my damn money back. Marriage is none of the federal government's business, period. Spending $1.5 billion to promote marriage through better communication is way out of line with the federal government's intended purpose, and downright ridiculous.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by The Mick:
I agree with you for the most part. I've just gone through a real philosophical change in my political views this past year or so. Perhaps it's due to the birth of my child, and a newfound desire not to burden her with the errors of our ways.

I've always been attracted to the Republican ideals of personal freedom, less government oversight, and fiscal responsibility, but I usually felt that the Democratic platform for social programs and environmental activism outweighed them. These days, however, I've grown sick of seeing my money wasted on gigantic federal programs with no oversight and rampant overspending. I think that any social program needs to be implemented on a much smaller scale, say at the county or state level, with a narrower focus on the problems at hand and more frugality.

My new problem then becomes the fact that Republicans are no longer the fiscally responsible party. They spend my money as though it was going to expire next week, like a pizza coupon. Additionally they no longer seem to uphold the ideals of personal liberty like they used to (read: The Patriot Act).

So from a federal viewpoint, I've gone pretty Libertarian. F**k it, blow it all up and try again. Let the states and localities regulate themselves and stick to the Constitution. I can think of just a few things that need to be regulated nationally for the sake of public safety, such as the FCC to allow nation-wide communication, or the FAA to keep planes from crashing into each other. But it's none of the FCC's business what people say on TV or radio, and the FAA doesn't need to regulate seat dimensions.

Yeah, I want my damn money back. Marriage is none of the federal government's business, period. Spending $1.5 billion to promote marriage through better communication is way out of line with the federal government's intended purpose, and downright ridiculous.

Some good stuff in there.
Love the tag line, agreed.

[hyteckit]

You know, I think most of the $1.5 billion will go religious groups, mostly Christian groups.

I did a study on marriages and guess what I've found. Christianity leads to higher divorce rates. I'm not joking guys. I took data from the Gallup poll, various other polls, the US census, and census from other countries. The divorce rate for Christians is 4 times higher than Athiest. The correlation between Christianity and divorce rate has such a strong positive correlation it's remarkable. Highest divorce rate among Christians are Catholics.

Obviously, base on the data, if money was to spend on promoting marriages, it is best to spend on non-Christian groups.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I believe he said he was against it because it was denied to a particular demographic of people who wanted it. Whether or not you or Bush or the government in general agrees with that that particular demographic of people do with their time is irrelevant. It's no different than denying people services because they belong to a different religion.

That is HIGHLY subjective.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dtriska:
What's the matter, Zimf? Not getting as large a tax refund as you thought?

I got more back then I did when Clinton was in office.

I have no complaints.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That is HIGHLY subjective.

Actually you're right, and I don't even believe that. I think that denying people services based on their sexual orientation is akin to denying people services based on their race. You're the one who claims to know that homosexuality is a choise, so you're the one who should consider it akin to religion.

Either homosexuality is a choice or you're born that way. If it's a choice, then it's like religion. If it's an inborn characteristic, then it's like race.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah how dare he! He is promoting saving marriage!

Sheesh.

He should be giving money to sexual deviants and the like.

They are the ones that really need it!

Oh and giving money to art students that depict Jesus getting **** on.

Now that is some well money spent!

This marriage thing.. well it's for the birds.

MISSING. THE . POINT.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually they tend to do a pretty good job at overseeing private contracts. That's why the found that overcharge. Where the federal government fails is in controlling its own internal bureaucracy and in cutting pork. There are good reasons why government jobs are considered "cushy," just think of how many people have these cushy jobs, how much money they're making, and how much money gets spent on their offices, new computers, etc.

It isn't the multibillion dollar contracts, my friend. It is the thousands upon thousands of little contracts: food services. networking and infrastructure, commodities, etc. NO ONE oversees that except the buyers at the individual locations- and those folk don't really make much of an effort. Add this to the cushy jobs (and the MANY labor jobs which are STUPID cushy) and you have a hemorrhage. And the Bush Government is bigger than any in American history- though Clinton's was pretty damned close.

Liars, Cheaters, Thieves. And we let them be.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I got more back then I did when Clinton was in office.

I have no complaints.

That's the point: you're not paying attention. If you were, you'd be outraged. Clearly, you are the bottom line. There is a COUNTRY here. Not just the "Zimphire Good".

You SHOULD complain. You certainly will be when the next fiscally responsible government comes in and HAS to raise your taxes to pay for all that is happening now. And who will you blame? The guy who raised your taxes. Certainly won't be the guy who spent the money- you'll find some way to rationalize that away as well. I'm thinking you'll be paying for all of this riiiight about when you're ready for SS and Medicare.
Good luck to ya on that. Make sure you remember who "helped you out back in the great tax cut of '02-03."

ONE thing is for DAMNED certain: if you Republicans were watching all of this happen from a Democratic Administration- identical situations, you'd be hollaring like stuck pigs.

THis whole thing is just an ugly plan, I'm thinking: SPEND the money- as much as possible. Implement the tax cuts- so when the "other" party comes in, they'll HAVE to raise taxes and get the people pissed at them. Politicians prey on public stupidity. And they keep getting away with it. But, hey. You got your $300. Hope you did your patriotic duty and spent, spent, spent. It IS the order of the day, after all.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by maxelson:
THis whole thing is just an ugly plan, I'm thinking: SPEND the money- as much as possible. Implement the tax cuts- so when the "other" party comes in, they'll HAVE to raise taxes and get the people pissed at them. Politicians prey on public stupidity. And they keep getting away with it. But, hey. You got your $300. Hope you did your patriotic duty and spent, spent, spent. It IS the order of the day, after all.

Which brings up an interesting question. If Bush is reelected, will he accede to the necessity of raising taxes or is he going to run the country into the group by continuing to spend like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by maxelson:
SPEND the money- as much as possible. Implement the tax cuts- so when the "other" party comes in, they'll HAVE to raise taxes and get the people pissed at them. Politicians prey on public stupidity. And they keep getting away with it. But, hey. You got your $300.

All too true. Just think - you could be a highly-paid Bush strategist!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by zigzag:
All too true. Just think - you could be a highly-paid Bush strategist!

Oooo. THERE'S a thought. Big conundrum: work to scuttle, or work for positive change from within?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Which brings up an interesting question. If Bush is reelected, will he accede to the necessity of raising taxes or is he going to run the country into the group by continuing to spend like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store?

Well, I don't armchair elections. I think it is a great way to make a fool of ones self as well as make ones self less than endearing to others. So I won't predict. But if he IS re-elected, you better believe I'll be watching that pretty closely.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by maxelson:
That's the point: you're not paying attention. If you were, you'd be outraged. Clearly, you are the bottom line. There is a COUNTRY here. Not just the "Zimphire Good".

You SHOULD complain. You certainly will be when the next fiscally responsible government comes in and HAS to raise your taxes to pay for all that is happening now. And who will you blame? The guy who raised your taxes. Certainly won't be the guy who spent the money- you'll find some way to rationalize that away as well.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Actually you're right, and I don't even believe that. I think that denying people services based on their sexual orientation is akin to denying people services based on their race. You're the one who claims to know that homosexuality is a choise, so you're the one who should consider it akin to religion.

Either homosexuality is a choice or you're born that way. If it's a choice, then it's like religion. If it's an inborn characteristic, then it's like race.

I guess murderers and pedophiles are races too?

Silly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by maxelson:
That's the point: you're not paying attention. If you were, you'd be outraged. Clearly, you are the bottom line. There is a COUNTRY here. Not just the "Zimphire Good".

I am not missing the point, I answered his response which was ABOUT ME.

You SHOULD complain. You certainly will be when the next fiscally responsible government comes in and HAS to raise your taxes to pay for all that is happening now.

THis whole thing is just an ugly plan, I'm thinking: SPEND the money- as much as possible. Implement the tax cuts- so when the "other" party comes in, they'll HAVE to raise taxes and get the people pissed at them. Politicians prey on public stupidity. And they keep getting away with it. But, hey. You got your $300. Hope you did your patriotic duty and spent, spent, spent. It IS the order of the day, after all.

You mean like the Dems that cut military and intelligence spending just so the next person has to come in and create a debt to get it back in working order like Clinton did to Bush?

Maybe if the military and intelligence wasn't cut SO DEEPLY we wouldn't have had to spend so much money.

But hey, it made Clinton look good, Even though it failed miserably.

That is all that mattered then too.

BTW I got more than $300 and I am not even "middle class"

You pay in more you get back more. That is fair.

[maxelson]

Oooo. You big ole CLinton Hater. Go on. Deny it. Your favorite Bush Administration defense: Blame Bush's actions on Clinton.

You really DON'T have a clue about any of this do you.
You REALLY DO miss the point. And you really ARE a party sheep. Led not by your own nose, but some twisted ideology.
Nice one, Mr Naive. KNew you'd have a snappy answer. But hey, we are in the single worst deficit in history, the spending WILL keep going (I suppose Clinton is making him do that, too).

Man, you have gotten silly before, but this... you REALLY believe all this?


My friends: Exhibit A- why this country is such a screwed up mess. Multiply by 200 million.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I guess murderers and pedophiles are races too?

Silly.

...and I suppose you will say here that you are not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and murderers.
Man, you are something else.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Oooo. You big ole CLinton Hater. Go on. Deny it. Your favorite Bush Administration defense: Blame Bush's actions on Clinton.

Funny, I voted for Clinton the first time around.

Max weren't you just blaming the Repubs for the Dems tax increases? The irony

Glass houses and stuff.

You really DON'T have a clue about any of this do you.
You REALLY DO miss the point. And you really ARE a party sheep. Led not by your own nose, but some twisted ideology.
Nice one, Mr Naive. KNew you'd have a snappy answer. But hey, we are in the single worst deficit in history, the spending WILL keep going (I suppose Clinton is making him do that, too).

Man, you have gotten silly before, but this... you REALLY believe all this?

My friends: Exhibit A- why this country is such a screwed up mess. Multiply by 200 million.

Gotta love pointless substance-less ad-hominem attacks folks.

Must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by maxelson:
...and I suppose you will say here that you are not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and murderers.
Man, you are something else.

Heh no I am saying just because you are born a certain way by no means justifies your actions or rights to do something. As said poster was implying.

I was comparing them.

I was NOT comparing the acts.

BIG difference.