No sense of right and wrong - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dynalow · #16 07-30-2008, 02:39 PM

That happy situation, he said, justified -- no, necessitated-- a tax cut: "The growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I am here asking for a refund."
The next president will confront a far gloomier situation. The deficit, the administration's budget experts reported Monday, will be $482 billion -- a huge number that is probably a low-ball. Among other things, it assumes only $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best argument the Bush administration has going for it is that this number, however mind-bogglingly large it sounds, is not alarming measured the most logical way, as a share of the economy. The 2009 deficit is projected to be just 3.3 percent of gross domestic product, well below the record 6 percent in 1983.

The difference is that President Ronald Reagan, facing such daunting deficits, changed course and undid about one-third of his earlier tax cuts. Bush, by contrast, is determined to insist, on his way out the door, that the tax cuts he once said were required by the surplus he inherited are now required by the deficit he is creating.

I don't know what she's referring to, but that's not how I remember it. And just looking at individual tax rates, it's not true.
Individual income tax rates dropped all thru the 80's, while tax brackets rose.
Top corp tax rate was mostly constant at 46% Slight surtax int he mid 80's.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

That said, Congress and the prez together spent like drunken sailors the past 8 years....and show no signs of slowing the presses. (The young guy even wants to give us Stimulus II)
Tax cut 1, ok. Tax cut 2, maybe. Tax cut 3, Unh uh! And not vetoing any bill for seven years? Surely there must have been some spending he didn't see eye to eye with.
The last time the govt. and the economy tried to give us guns and butter on credit.....well, it wern't pretty. Sooner or later the check arrives at the table.
Maybe we should order some of those hundred billion dollar notes like Zimbabwe's tossing around just in case inflation rears its ugly head.

Mistress · #17 07-30-2008, 03:02 PM

Quite frankly, I'm just shocked and horrified.(sp)

tankdriver · #18 07-30-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5

again, read my entire statement:

its obviously wrong, but do you think any political appointees appointed by any democratic politician is anything different? theyre appointees for a reason: they tow the line that the politician is towing himself, DOJ, judges, etc, etc.

so let me clarify for you:

1. its obviously wrong (what the republicans did). tandriver: do not confuse me with some crazy right wing neocon. i am not above criticizing republicans, nor democrats, though i find that most democrats like to read the first two or three lines of an article and stop right there. i do however, take issue with any factually incorrect, political nonsense and provide my best to refute it.

2. democrats do it too; there's no difference. case in point: in 1993, President Clinton fired all 93 of the US district attorneys upon entering the White House. Those DAs were replaced by like minded DA appointees. please search this for yourself. and to pre-empt your counter argument, yes, this is not a Clinton thing. Most if not all presidents take a hatchet to all appointed offices and fill them with like minded individuals. and to reiterate my last line "it is what it is".

3. the process to pick political appointees is rife with less-than equitable decision making because the goal is to appear impartial, especially when it comes to areas where the public feels that impartiality is paramount to politics. hence the great debate over the "last" supreme court justice seat.

clear?

thank you,
bob

I read your entire statement. Since we agreed it was obviously wrong, I didn't quote that part. The people were not appointees.

EDIT: Dculkin beat me to it.

link · #19 08-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I wasn't too surprised when I googled her when the story first came out and learned that she had graduated law school from Regent University (Pat Robertson's Law School). I don't think she doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. I think she just has a different idea of right and wrong than the average non-Regent student. Her undergraduate degree was from Messiah College, a conservative evangelical school. I'm supposing that her version of right and wrong is closely associated with God's commands and putting believers in positions of legal power was one of her goals.
I wonder what Pat Roberston and the faculty of the law school at Regent University are saying about what she did.

They'd probably say she is a good foot soldier pursuing the ends of her supervisors, and the lord. I don’t remember if it was Bush or Rove who spoke of a “permanent Republican majority,” but that statement was clearly marching orders.

According to one of the articles I read, the worst par of her actions was that several people were placed in career jobs expressly because of their support of the party. Accordingly, the laws protecting the employment of these people will make it all but impossible to remove them from office.

I hope she ultimately looses her license to practice law and spends some quality time in a Federal prison. Maybe she’ll be hired as a professor at her old law school. Disgusting sycophant.