Little Humor for the Republicans

[Arkie eye jerker]

I thought this was worth passing on. Just to make it clear, I'm really not a Republican or Democrat.
Hope you enjoy it.

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down
the street when they came to a homeless person.
The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his business
for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his
pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they
came to another homeless person, he decided to help.
He walked over to the homeless person and gave
him directions to the welfare office. He then reached
into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars.
He kept 15 for administrative fees and gave the
homeless person five.

Now you understand the difference between
Republicans and Democrats.

[SUPERTROLLER]

This is the best description of the differing philosophy's I have ever seen. You hit the nail right on the head.

[sevenmmm]

Yep, the Democrats are expert at skimming! Now the trick will be to keep the Republicans from following suit...

[Bushwkr]

My dog delivered a litter of labs last week, they were born democrats.
Today their eyes are open and now they are republicans.
LOL!

[Democrats]

I'm curious what you guys would say to the millions of working Americans whose families don't have health insurance.

[Worked to the BONE]

Buy it. That's what I do. I don't have a problem with me buying health insurance. Do you.

[Eyejacker]

Too many trial lawyers!
Jack

[rosen]

I wonder how many here do not have health insurance? I always hear people say that they can't afford to go to a doctor or even more so they can't go to the Dr. they want to because "its not in their plan"..(meaning they can't imagine paying out of pocket when they can get it free or at a low cost through their "plan" . Yet they have tens of thousands of dollars sitting on their driveways, hundreds of thousands in their houses. Go on vactions where they spend thousands. (not to mention MANY other toys and furnishings) Interesting how the "poor" can spend a couple of thousand a year on smoking and often on drinking but can't pay to take themselves or their kids to Drs/Dentists. I can't believe how many people come to our office and spend hours to get a 50 dollar bill paid by SOMEONE/ANYONE else but themselves. I personally think that all health ins should be eliminated except for catastrophic ins.

[sevenmmm]

Horay!

That is such a novel idea!

Rosen your words cut through it all. Makes me wonder how we got into such a mess....

[Democrat]

Best argument I've heard yet against taxpayer-financed universal health care, from someone who sounds like he (she?) knows what he's talking about.

[Democrat]

The problem is that people who have serious health problems (whether or not of their own making) can't buy it, because private insurance companies only want to insure healthy people because there's no profit in insuring sick people. For example, try buying private health insurance if you have leukemia, or are on kidney dialysis. What are you willing to do for these people? The choices are 1) make sick people go without health care, 2) force the insurance industry through govt regulation to provide insurance to the people they don't want to insure, which raises everyone's rates, or 3) use govt as the insurer of last resort for people who can't get private health insurance.

[walleye chaser]

I did notice that the republicans voted them selves a raise before going on vacation,at the end of December, and only when they came back, and at the urging of the president did they decide to vote a couple of extra dollars for the unemployed who can't find work in this depressed economy..

At least when the Democrats were in office , people who wanted to work had jobs, and insurance.

[SUPERTROLLER]

You're talking a small percentage of the uninsured that have such catastrophic diseases or problems. Many of the uninsured work part time or service industry jobs which as a general practice do not offer insurance benefits. I would tell those that are not insured to get more schooling and get a better job. Get off drugs and stop having more kids to feed. Those that need government assistance can apply for benefits through their local County Health and Welfare offices. They can also write their costs off on their tax returns. It should be easy for them to show need and bills if they've got luekemia.

[dpigs]

put in term limits & make all of washington go back on social security and most problems would be taken care of !!!!

[Shep]

>I'm curious what you guys would say to the millions of
>working Americans whose families don't have health
>insurance.

Do you think that health insurance just became unavailable. Clinton/Gore promised this for 8 years, and Hillary was supposed to have it all figured out. Why is it the Repubs are getting blamed for this, too?

Tight Lines All,

Shep

[SUPERTROLLER]

Social Security was NEVER meant to be the sole funding source of someones retirement income. If you are planning on it to make all your problems go away you better rethink that plan. It was supposed to SUPPLEMENT your retirement savings and/or pension plans. It still does that. It just doesn't supplement quite as much as it was thought it would when they started this grand plan.

[Democrat]

Yeah, right, tell America's 35 million uninsured to get more schooling and a better job, get off drugs and stop having babies. You might want to put on a crash helmet before you tell that to a single mom working two jobs to make ends meet. The Democratic Party will tell her to get a new president and Congress, wonder whose program she'll like better, yours or ours?

[no matter]

She won't vote anyway.

[troutaholic]

...and Walleye Chaser wrote:

"At least when the Democrats were in office , people who wanted to work had jobs, and insurance."

.................


And sir, would you like your order mega-sized and with fries?



Yep, realllllly good jobs.

[Duh !!]

How many times did they increase their pay when they were DEM controlled. 4 times!! in 10 years. Wake up you one sided DEM.

[Democrat]

If she doesn't, you'll do fine in Nov. 2004.

[Democrats]

Those jobs are better than no jobs, but I understand George is hiring airport screeners right now.

[SUPERTROLLER]

If she had one good job instead to two marginal ones, she'd have more time with her kids to be a good parent and a better example for them to emulate. When the Democrats give easy handouts they perpetuate the myth that they are the only party that really cares. They are buying votes instead of holding people accountable for themselves. Why should other taxpayers have to pay for some peoples poor life choices? Get a decent education and get a job. I don't think that's asking too much. Be responsible for yourself.

[SUPERTROLLER]

I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. Are you perhaps responding to the wrong post and wanted to reply to one of the above postings?

The economy was already starting to crash during the election year. Bush and Gore both commented on it repeatedly during the campaign. I don't think anybody thought it was going to bottom out as bad as things have been. 9/11 and the multitude of Huge Corporate scandals have contributed to our problems. Let's hope things are truly at the bottom and we are starting up the economy again.

[conservative]

Can you please point out to me, where in the Constitution of the United States, does it guarantee every citizen the right to health insurance?
I know this may sound cold, but usually Democrats arguments are based on "fairness"--let's remember, the government is supposed to only do what the Constitution authorizes it to do, which isn't much. The rest is supposed to be done on a local basis.

[sevenmmm]

Democrat!

You fight so valiantly even with no support! I really am attracted to your underdog role but I am just to conservative to believe any of the words I would use to help you...

Besides, with the Fed Gov planning to lower taxes and handing over most of the responsiblity for programs to the States, yes those States with already facing HUGE deficits, the future points to not much of anything for any program and alot higher taxes for anyone with a good paying job.

Of course if your a government employee, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. They will just send more police out to the citizens to collect enough to pay for their higher insurance premiums and increased salaries.

[Ivy]

I could never figure out how a Fisherman could be anything but a Conservative Republican.

When out in the boat, there is no Goverment program to help you fish. You have to reley on your own skills and determination. Fishermen must be self reliant. If you don't know how to fish you don't complain how unfair life can be, you figure it out with-out a Goverment program. If another fisherman is catching more fish than you, you don't cry about it and ask for the Goverment to step in and penalize that guy just to even the playing field! You go and figure out what he is doing and try to do it better.

And when you get into the dock you find a family that is hungry, we would share our catch. But more importantly we would show that person how to feed his family.

A true Conservative ( Starting with T.R. Roosevelt ) wants to conserve/protect yet be able to use our precious resources and pass them down to his childrens children. We would not put up barriers so that only the elite can enjoy them. We would figure out a way to allow our resources to be self sustaining and thus enjoyed by all.

I am always amazed that the Left/Democrats, the supposed party of the tolerant. Are the most intolerant if you don't happen to agree with them. And when you don't agree with them, they will attack you personally, demonize you and call you every name they can think of.

Ivy

[Jigging 5]

I was not born a Democrat.Or Raised to be one. I chose to be one due to what I have seen and studied over my short life. The economy has always been in better shape and less unemployment when democrats have been in office. In my eyes the republicans hoard available money for big business and the wealthy. Although I seldom vote straight democrat. I have made mistakes voting for some people (Tom Ridge for example). But when I go to the poles I vote for the person who holds Ideals close to mine. And small interests never play a part in my decision.
Partisanship is a crock. There is no way both parties can be split right down the middle on any issue without some arm twisting.
Issues like capping pain and suffering lawsuits to $250,000 is a crock and over turning Clinton's bill that forced hospitals and medical centers to treat medicaid patients that need emergency care is bull also. Heathcare needs reform of some type without hurting the less fortunate. The Republicans hold the ball. Lets see if they can dribble. Ball control is the key to the next election.

[Ivy]

Jigging 5

Since you brought it up. How long of a time period are you basing things on? Per your " life span "

Just to get some perspective on your opinion.

Ivy

[SUPERTROLLER]

He must not have been looking for a job when Jimmy Carter was President and unemployment was 25% in the County were I grew up.Interest rates were so high you could hardly afford to buy a used car let alone a brand new one. Ya, that was also the wonderful years when Tip O'Neil ran the House and Democrats were calling ALL the shots. That was some good times if you all recall.

[Kevin/CO]

If you really want to help the health industry help people regulate insurance companies and mal practice. Malpractice insurance is out of control and forcing doctors and insurance companies to charge more then many Americans can afford. Fact of the matter is that insurance is forcing doctors to up costs which keeps people from being able to get care.

[sevenmmm]

Hey Jig, I was raised in a Democratic Family and I even admit the first President I voted for was Jimmy Carter. But I cast that vote at the behest of my father and not for a good reason.

But now I have a good income and a family of my own, and all I see when I study the Democratic Candidate is one who panders to those LESS fortunate at my expense. Before you cringe because of my calousness, I have real compassion for those truly less fortunate - the infirm, disabled,or any other malady which prevents a normal life. And I would never, ever vote for a candidate who wants to cut a program which helps these people. But I submit to you the % of those in this condition are very small compared to the rest that just claim to be less fortunate.

Also, when you want real evidence from Democtrats about the "dare to scare" 'em rhetoric, such as Conservatives want to end Social Security, or Corporate Polluters will run rampant, all you get is more rhetoric, and no facts.

Then your point about big business hording money needs to be addressed. Do you know the tax rate on corporations graduates alot faster than for individuals? If you think about it, the more a corporation profits, the more tax they pay, and the less tax the government will need from us individuals.

And Jig, I wholeheartedly agree with your wait and watch position on the current adminstration. I voted for them the first time but they must shoot the ball through the hoop for them to get the next.

[Ivy]

I am 40 years old. I am reminded by my 8 year old daughter from time to time of perspective. She tells me that for over half her life I have been on her to clean her room. Which unfortunately is very accurate.

Back in the Carter years the Prime interest rate was over 22%. What is it now, 2 or 3%. I just refinanced my house for 4.75%. That is amazing. The economy will turn around.

To lay everything on the door of Bush is naive and simple minded. I love it when the Dem's try to lay Enron and Global Crossing on him. If you want to be accurate, these greedy companies did ALL of their creative accounting under Clinton. But you never hear about that. They got caught under Bush In fact, it is some what of a litmus test. If I hear a Dem. going off on Enron, I think these people only know what some pundit laid on them in a sound bite.

This is the greatest country in the world. We have more opportunity than anywhere on this planet. If you are not taking advantage of it, shame on you. Get in the freaking game and quit trying to blame someone for something you may have the power to fix.


Ivy

[Jigging 5]

I just turned 40 in Nov. Some of my perspective comes from those years. The rest comes from the 4 years I spent studying political economics and labor trends. I could probably give you any statistic you want from every president back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. You could find these on your own. Just look up presidential economic comparisons or statistics. This should give you a fair perspective.
Look at the unemployment rates. Deficit national & federal. Growth rate.Economy as a whole.
Here is a scary statists. If the United states raised it's tax rates to those of Germany's it would not only wipe out the deficit, but eliminate poverty in America.

[Jigging 5]

No disrespect intended. The national unemployment average during the Carter administation was 5.8% During the Reagan administration it reached an all time high since 1943 of 9.7%. The inflation rate during Carter was a high 11.2 % which as you know inflation rises with the economy.Thats why he appointed Paul Volcker chairman of the federal reserve board to put a clamp on the money flow, He did. This was the first time you could say a recession was caused deliberatly. This is what stopped inflation.Also carter had to deal with the effects of the oil crisis from 74 and the crisis in 79 during his term.
Opec was the main reason for the high inflation cost.

[Jigging 5]

I respect your thoughts. I make a good living also. And I contribute it to the democratic ideals.Every time a Republican is in office my job tends to suffer. We loose benefits like health care or benefits such as workers comp. diminishes. Even though our company is making record profits every year.I do hope this administration can turn things around. It looks a little hazy out there.

[Al]

>I'm curious what you guys would say to the millions of
>working Americans whose families don't have health
>insurance.


I'd tell them to talk to the Democrats and why they are so tight with Lobbyists tied with Lawyer organizations. Ask them why they've given the legal eagles so much to eat on that my physican now pays 5 times more for malpractice insurance than he did just 8 years ago.

Ask some of them how they can make two car payments, pay cable, internet access, rent DVD's, eat out three or four times per week , but neglect to buy health insurance.

[Ivy]

Jig,

I am a little confused by your statement on taxes. Are you suggesting that our economy and the unemployment rate would be solved by taxing ( you and me ) at a higher rate?

Would you support that?

Ivy

[Sturgeon General]

Rhetoric like Democrats will spend more $ ?

Deficit spending has been pretty good under Republican control and it looks like we are heading right back there.

By the way, the last Democrat President didn't exactly expand welfare, did he?

Republicans spew rhetoric about democrats and vica-versa. The fact of the matter is that the country is very close to a 50-50 split and it works well.

I think we should pay more attention to our common political enemies like career politicians, campaign finincing, political contributions for $, etc. These are problems that infect both parties.

[Ric]

I heard someone say on the news awhile back that if you vote republican at the age of twenty you've got no heart. But if you vote democratic at the age of forty, you've got no brain. Just thought it was apropos here.

[TangledAngler]

I like the anology but it's hardly an accurate depiction of our politics. If it were, the R would have sent that money to another country, not to our own poor.

I don't believe in an expansive welfare system either but, truth is, some people just aren't capable of getting "good jobs" as some have called them. We need some sort of welfare system but not the kind that allows unemployed minorities to hang out on a downtown street corner during routine business hours, listening to music, wearing nicer clothes than my kids have.

Well, I think the R's have the White House and Congress. Let's see what they do.

Everyone has ignored the imminent economic hit we're all going to take if we mount an all out assault on Baghdad. I'm still waiting for a reasonable justification why we should go to war there other than "he must be stopped, he has nukes". So to many other ememies of the U.S.

The R's control their own destiny now. Let's see what happens. Will the D's give them credit if our ecomony improves? Will the R's admit their mistakes or will they make excuses if it doesn't? This will be interesting.

FYI: I'm an R but I'm by no means a party man. I consider politicians, their policies and their capabilities before I vote. I gladly helped put Clinton in office. I gladly helped keep Gore out. I wish we R's had a better candidate though.

P.S. I am a trial lawyer. I agree, get rid of some of them.

[statman]

Anybody know which states recieve the highest ratio of federal tax funds vs. taxes payed? Look at that and you'll see who is REALLY adept at taking the money out of other people's pockets. In this story, they don't tell you that the redubyacan took $20 from the demofatcat earlier because he didn't want to pay for his own lunch....

Another interesting question: Which people give the highest percentage of income to charities (churches, non-profits, etc.), the rich or the lower and middle incomes? Turns out, contrary to what some claim, the people who are driven solely to obtain material wealth are not also highly driven to help out others. That shouldn't be surprising, and there is nothing wrong with it per se, just don't be fooled by what some say....

2+2=

[statman]

You always here the redubyacans say how enron and such went on under clinton, which the demofats will never say. You also never hear the redubyacans say whose legislation it was that was passed in the 1995 that protected companies from lawsuits over fraudulent accounting. It is no surprise that so many enrons of the world popped up shortly after that legislation was passed. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't clinton's legislation, he vetoed it. Congress then overrode that veto. That isn't to let the Demofats off the hook, they were a part of that overriding vote. The Redubyacans were a bigger part...

[Tennessee Jed]

Sorry, but the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics does not concur with your claims. Only six months of Carter's term were spent with an unemployment rate of 5.8% or less. The remaining 42 months were higher (the peak being 7.9% in January 1979, his last month in office), placing his overall unemployment rate at closer to 6.7%. You can check it out on pages 8-9 of the PDF file at: http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/research/casden/data_folder/us_unemprate.pdf

The unemployment rate for Reagan peaked at 10.8% in late 1982. I'm sure you'd be just as merciful to him as you were to Carter because of the OPEC policies at the time. ;)

Personally, I think that most Presidents have had very little to do with economic booms or busts. But if you are saying that their energy policies are the biggest influence on the economy, I wholeheartedly agree. Energy costs have much more immediate impact on the economy than any other single factor. The current economic slowdown (which I believe was necessary for long-term strength) began with rising energy costs at the end of 1999. If Greenspan had left interest rates alone at that time, he probably would not have had to reverse his policy as he has been forced to do the past year, because the slowdown would have been more gradual.

So I pose the question to you: What do the Democrats do to make the economy better each time they are elected?

[SUPERTROLLER]

I couldn't find unemployment stats for years prior to 1996 on the sites I was using but I was able to find Consumer Price Index and Federal Reserve Interest rates. You stated in an earlier post that "the economy has always been in better shape and had less unemployment when Democrats have been in office". The Consumers Price Index showed that from Jan. 1977 to Dec. 1980 the index rose 27.8%. Then I also found where the Prime lending rate went from 6.25% up steadily through all the better years to top out at 21.5% in Dec. of 1980. So what Carter did for us was to raise the costs for everyone and then jack up the interest rates we needed to borrow the money to pay for cars and houses. Nice job.

When I checked out other 4 yr. terms for the other Presidents they all were significantly better.
Nixon/Ford = 15.6% CPI-U , Prime Rate = 6.25% Dec. 1976
Carter = 27.8% = 6.25% < 21.5% Dec.80
Reagan = 18.3% = 21.5% > 10.75% Dec.84
Reagan = 15.0% = 10.75%> 7.5% Aug.86 < 10.5% Dec.88
Bush Sr. = 20.8% = 10.5% > 6.0% Dec.92
Clinton = 16.0% = 6.0% < 9.0% Feb.95 > 8.25% Dec.96
Clinton = 14.9% = 8.25% < 9.5% Dec. 2000
Bush Jr. = 5.8% = 9.5% > 4.25% now

It strikes me as funny that interest rates always dropped when the Republicans were in office and always rose when the Democrats were in office. Could it be that the R's were trying to get the economy growing and that when the D's were in office and raised taxes that the economy slowed?

My brother-in-law is an avowed Democrat and I'm just as staunchly Republican leaning. He works for a Paper Mill and is always saying how much money they made and how big his raise should be because the company now has that much more to give him. My comment to him is this. He better hope that they continue to make Millions because as soon as they stop making money they'll be closing the doors and making paper somewhere else. "NO" he says. "They have too much new money invested in this Mill and won't dare close it." The bean counters don't care where they make the money, they aren't going to keep any place open when they are losing money. You need Big Business to keep making profits or everyone suffers. It drives the economy. When you raise taxes, it hurts everyone, not just Big Business.

[Truth detector]

jigging 5 your a complete idiot, if you believe taxing people out of all there hard earned money is the way to solve economic problems you are totally lost. How is taking 55% of my pay going to help me pay bills and buy food and buy expensive walleye boats. You are a socialist. you believe that all my hard work should go to all the fat lazy no good for anything wastes of life, that do nothing but complain about having nothing because there to lazy to get off there duffs and go out and work. Give me this, give me that is there battle song. People that do nothing dont deserve the same things that people go out and work there buts off for.. I see people down at the local wellfair office, that will stay in line and fill out tons of paper work just so they dont have to go out and accutually find work. Its pathetic, get rid of wellfair and most hand outs and you will be shocked to see how fast people will go out and find away to get income.. Also if anyone goes to a hospital for health reasons, the hospital has to treat that patient or that hospital will be in huge trouble. everyone already has health insurance, its just we the woking people are paying for all the dead beats who cant pay for there own. If you love germany so much then go there and live, and pay shroeder 55% of all you make.

[leechboy]

Good humor. And very to the point with who has the 20's to spend. Next time we all get together, drinnks are on the republicans in the group. You elephants are going to bum when you see how the leechboy drinks-lb

[JIGGING 5]

No, I was stating a study which I completed a few years back. Relax and try to enjoy people's thoughts.

[A Christian]

I believe that our country would be better off if it would put the responsability of feeding the poor and helping the handicaped on the churches of this country. Instead of building these multi million dollor churches that are going up all around me, alot of that money would be better used by helping people in there own community. I think the President has that in his plans and that would help allot with our federal debt. Shame on churches that put there own comfort ahead of the needs of there whole community.

[Ivy]

Leachboy,

As long as we are not taxed ( forced ) to buy you drinks, I suspect that we generous Republicans will keep the drinks flowing until the liberal, sandal clad, tree hugging, animal rights gals look like hauntinly beautiful, breast augmented, know how to take care of their Republican man, Playmates.

Ivy

[Tennessee Jed]

>Anybody know which states recieve the highest ratio of
>federal tax funds vs. taxes payed? Look at that and you'll
>see who is REALLY adept at taking the money out of other
>people's pockets. In this story, they don't tell you that
>the redubyacan took $20 from the demofatcat earlier because
>he didn't want to pay for his own lunch....

Uh, tell us how the "redubyacan" took $20 from the "demofatcat" earlier, if you please?

>Another interesting question: Which people give the highest
>percentage of income to charities (churches, non-profits,
>etc.), the rich or the lower and middle incomes? Turns out,
>contrary to what some claim, the people who are driven
>solely to obtain material wealth are not also highly driven
>to help out others.

First of all, show us the data, rather than your hearsay. I have spent a lot of time the past five years in the 39.6% Federal Income tax bracket. Approximately 25% of that goes into entitlement programs, which means about 10% of my income is confiscated from me to "benefit" the poor. Let's also not forget the Medicare tax as well, which is roughly another 1.5%. So in that respect, the wealthier people already have 10% of their income going toward charities. How much more would you give if that was the case?

I still give an additional 10% of my net income to churches and charities, and I've bailed out many relatives and friends in financial trouble with unreturned payments of up to $5000.00. One of my benefactors was even disparaging the "rich people" in my neighborhood at one time, not even realizing that at the shallow glance he was taking of them, my neighbors and I were probably one and the same...

[da big yoop]

Go one step further.. Families....I grew up in a family that supported a handicapped family member. We had to there was no SSI disability at the time (not that we would have used it anyway). Why is it so easy for people to believe that big gov't. has the responsibility to take care of everything? One other point I can't help but wonder about here. How many of the respondents to this joke are union members???

[Poke-Eye]

I read with interest the previous posts that address the unemployment issue as being at an all time low since the Nixon/Ford admin. Can anyone here tell me what data is used to figure these stats? Could it be based upon the percentage of people receiving unemployment benefits? If this is how it's figured then all Dubya needs to do is cut the time people can receive these benefits and "wallah'", the unemployment issue would become a none issue.

[brw]

Definition of a Democrat: a republican whose been indicted.

Definition of a Republican: a democrat whose been mugged.

An oldie but goodie.

[UMC]

Well I tried to stay out of this but not after this. That is sooooo much B as in B, S as in S!!!!! I have been Chairman of Finance for several churches as I have moved with my job. I see the giving reports etc., 10% of the members give 80 to 90% of the total budget. This 10% demographically are made up of what is considered Middle Class and up. The next 10% make up the remaining percentage and the 80% left over give under $50/yr and the majority of them give $0. Gee, this happens to be about the same percentage as taxpayers, the top 10% incomes pay 80% of all taxes. What upsets me the most is to be in the that top 10%, you only have to have a family income of around 85 - 90,000 of income. Why should this income be in the same bracket as the limo libs like Alec Baldwin, Robert Redford and the rest of the Communists Actors Guild who make millions an episode or movie and then preach to us about how rotten America is! I work Da-- hard for my money and I think about what I could do for my family and the charities/organizations I support with just half of the $40,000 that is withheld from my pay each year!!

[brw]

your Dr pays 5x more for his malpractice ins. b/c his insurance co is trying to recoup all its lousy investments in a tanking stock market. what other industry tries to make up for its losses w/ 50/80/100% increase in rates? Imagine if GM, based on a lousy year, raised the price of its trucks from 18K to 50K? Or if Goodyear raised its tires from $80 to 300 per tire? it's an insurance ripoff, and the wall street journal, no friend of "legal eagles," even said so. Not to mention bad medicine like cutting off the wrong leg or hacking off a women's healthy breasts b/c the pathology slides got mixed up, or the 1500 sponges and clamps left in patients every year. I have an idea, tho. Let's do away with all malpractice lawsuits for the next 3 yrs and see who's crying then. "tort reform" would never be uttered again.

[Tennessee Jed]

Are those posts on this thread? If that's what you are saying, then I suggest you have another beer to help you read things a little better... I gave a link in my post for the unemployment figures I quoted, but in no way said unemployment is not an issue compared to the Nixon/Ford administration, nor did anyone else. Another poster showed stats for the Consumer Price Index and the changes in the Prime Lending Rate during each presidential administration since Nixon/Ford. You brought up Nixon/Ford and unemployment rates with whatever incoherent thought process you have going on. Trust me, the whole world will be a better place for you once you learn to read...

President Bush just extended unemployment benefits, so it doesn't look like he is nearly as creative as you are. Learned a lot from your Demmie buddies, huh?

P.S.: It's "voila" (a French expression meaning 'there it is'), not "wallah". Sheesh! (an American expression of disgust).

[Jigging 5]

Jed,
We all have our own idea's about how the county should be run or who is at fault with the problems we are experiencing now. I enjoy the treads that I read and really don't care for the bashing. You can express your thoughts without the bashing and name calling no matter how much you disagree with others.
Bottom line is the Republicans have the ball. Now it's up to them to staighten out our economic wows. I don't think ignoring the problem and hoping it will start a comeback on it's own is an option. Spending cut's or tax cut's, something has to be done to boost it or we will not be able to recover from the war that seems to be inevitable for many years to come. Again just my opinion which means about as much as everyone else who remarks to this thread. Enjoy what you read.

[Jigging 5]

No, I am not in favor of this. I was just stating part of a study I did a few years back. Thats all.

[statman]

Loot at http://www.taxfoundation.org/pr-fedtaxspendingratio.html

This is only part of the picture, but you can see what states are most adept at taking money from the other states.

Another part of the picture is the amount of money spent by the gov. too fund research for companies, to "protect" them from other companies, and to promote their business all at the expense of taxpayers. For one example, 10 million dollars given to sunkist to be used in advertising. Who should pay for the security costs related to shipping product from overseas into the US? According to the republican who sponsored the bill, all taxpayers should, rather than letting the corporations who use the ports pick up the tab. How did Dubya turn a modest investment in a baseball team into tens of millions more? Why, a gifted stadium from tax payers! Don't take my word for it, there are many examples easily found for those who look. The amounts given to these types of things make the individual welfare programs for the poor (WIC, food stamps, etc.) look like small peanuts. Both sides are guilty of it. The farce is that republicans would have you believe that the businesses who recieve tax $ "earn" it and drive the economy, while the poor "steal" it and it is wasted. The other farce is that the democrats would have you believe that the poor are "entitled" to the tax $ and drive the economy, while the rich "steal" it and it is wasted. Both parties want the 20 in my pocket, and they both claim it will come back to me. From one party I'll only get back what trickles up, from the other what trickles down. In the end, I can't complain because I'm blessed to live as well as I do. But I do get tired of hearing one party claim to be any less of a money mover than the other.

As for my comments on the highest incomes giving a lower PERCENTAGE, that is based on donations and income claimed on tax forms, and the study I saw was a few years ago. I didn't mean to imply that all wealthy people (some wouldn't call me wealthy, but I consider myself wealthy) are selfish or don't give to charity. Just as there are parasites who want to leach off hard working people, there are those whose only concern is greed. Just as the parasites aren't really interested in getting a job and earning money, the greedy aren't really interested in anything but $ for themselves. Both the parasites and the greedy are WRONG, but is it really that surprising that a higher percentage of people motivated by pure greed are rich than poor? That's the point I was trying to make. Maybe I saw enough of the broad brushstrokes on the one side, I thought I'd offer a broad stroke of the other. I was probably wrong to do so.....

[gaspergoo]

I think the late Sam Kinnison had it right, "Give the gangs Uzi's, and the homeless dustbusters to clean up the mess!"
Kill two birds with one stone!

[Ivy]

Jig,

You're right about the name calling. It's not right. And while I agree with an Republican/Conservative agenda more than I do with the Liberal/Democrat agenda, I don't agree with demonizing people for their opinion. I do support pointing out their lack of education on the matter though.

That being said, I do believe that Democrats/Liberals do their fare share of bashing.

i.e. If I don't want a Gay agenda taught in my school to my kids, I'm a Homophobe.

If I think that Jesse Jackson is more concerned with lining his own pockets than helping his own people you're called a racist. How many times did we have to listen to Democrats call ALL republicans racists during the Trent Lott fiasco. When the Dem's never said a word when their Majority leader was a Klan member. Think about that for a minute. The leader of the Senete for the Democrats was a member of Ku Klux Klan! Talk about a bunch of hypocrites!

If I believe that the Ten Comandments were NOT 10 suggestions and these should be taught in our schools, I am a Relious Zealot.

To many times people will try to dismiss your ideas by calling you names and talking you down. Maybe I'm overly partisan, but I see the Left do that more than the right.


And the most important question. If I sit in a boat for hours and don't catch a single fish, am I still a fisherman?

Ivy

[Jigging 5]

Your point is well taken. Not all democrats are as left as the people you named. You can't judge the party by those people. As I can't judge your party by the far right.

[Ivy]

Leechboy,

You might want to re-think calling people "latent homos " with a monicker like " Leechboy ".

People in glass houses....

Irony can be so dad gum ironic!


Ivy

[christian]

Also dont forget how we as conservatives want to starve children by taking away there school lunches. We also want to make old people eat dog food by making them pay for precscription drugs. I like what someone said earlier, what happen to families helping there own families. We never used to go to the govt for personel problems, now thats all people do. Its the govt fault I cant find a job, not my fault for screwing around in school and being a total waste of life.

[Tennessee Jed]

Two suggestions for you:

1. Let the moderators decide what is appropriate content for this board. It's their forum, and I'll live by what they decide, not by your personal grudges toward me.

2. Quit following me around at WC trying to modify my behavior. You have done it on another thread when I was responding to another poster (probably Scott Richardson).

On this very thread, this fellow says a lot worse directly to you, and your response is very mild compared to the lecture you just gave me: http://www.walleyecentral.com/dcf/generaldiscussion/23970.html#45
I feel, therefore, that you have singled me out, and I want you to stop before I make my case to the moderators.

Do you understand?

[Tennessee Jed]

I think your response here is balanced, for the most part.

Let's take a look at the link you posted on Federal dollars collected vs. spent in each state. Most of the states that receive more than what is collected are agricultural, or economic empowerment zones--Mississippi being a prime example. It sort of reflects the individual income tax code in general--more is taken from the wealthy, and the poor receive a larger percentage of the benefit. If you don't have a problem with that in the individual situation, you shouldn't have a problem with it in a state situation, right? ;)

You don't post a source for the percentage of charitable contributions (rich vs. poor), but I recall seeing the same study probably about 15 years ago. Again, my point is that higher income taxpayers have a built-in charitable contribution rate because of income taxes, if you want to be fair about it. And that too, is a PERCENTAGE, not a total amount.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up how GW Bush made most of his money with the Texas Rangers, so kudos to you for doing it! I think this is probably his greatest personal breach, definitely more so than avoiding Vietnam service, or his long ago DUI and drug use. And I also disagree with giving hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to subsidiary companies of IBM, 3M, General Electric, etc., as "small business" loans and grants. All I can say is, it makes the world go round now. If not for assistance to "big business", our standard of living would be much lower, and most of us wouldn't be here typing away on our computers to one another.

I don't feel that my money given to entitlement programs is necessarily "stolen". But when studies show that only 20% actually reaches the intended target, and the rest goes to pad the bureacrysies that adminsiter the programs, that's when I get upset. Especially because the ratio is exactly opposite for most private charities and church-based organizations.

[Leechboy]

Ivy:
Leechboy never indicated he was "latent". Leechboy has nothing to hide. So come on over and give the leechboy a kiss!-lb