Grrrr. Linky.

What annoys me most is that the Republican's are trumpeting fiscal responsibility as an excuse to cut social programmes whilst increasing the size of the whole budget yet again! Besides, the US could have taken on the whole planet several times with this years defence budget and still have won, so why keep increasing it? Who is left to fight?

Well, I'm sure that cutting vocational education will do a great deal for crime and productivity :rolleyes:

And at least the poor and sick on Medicare can take comfort that their suffering will increase the fiscal well-being of the <strike>elite</strike> country.

[ 02-06-2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color = lightgreen>There are no fiscally responsible people in Washington, D. C. anymore. The only difference between the major parties is in how they spend the money from the budget that keeps growing year after year. </font>

It's really frustrating for me, especially after hearing the State of the Union. Affordable health care for whom? Certainly not for the people that really need it, yours truly included. 8 months with these headaches, still don't know why, and I don't qualify for medicare as it is, in spite of the fact that I can't stay outside for prolonged periods. Not a good thing for a carpenter, let me tell you. Not sure who the candidates will be next election, but I'm pretty sure I won't vote Republican.

They love to tout that they have cut nonmilitary spending every year. They have. Unfortunately they've gone hog wild giving out to their military contractor cronies.

I don't believe in deficit spending at all. Period. For no reason. If you can't run a war on your current income, you got no reason to go to war. Unless your war will bring about lots of mad phat lewt, but those days are long gone, sadly.

Though, it would be nice to raid the middle east and take all those awesome islamic articfacts, Allah knows they can't be trusted to safekeep them over the long term.

I agree with Azred witha small proviso. Bothparties are growing the government which I dislike, however I will maintain that the Democratic party wants to lead us off the left edge of the world into socialism and kook territory that in todays world is far more dangerous to everyone's well being than that of the Republicans. Unfortunately there is no viable alternative to these two parties as they have jointly maneuvered to ensure that they and they alone are the two choices with any real chance of winning.

<font color = lightgreen>I was going to mention closing any/all unneeded governmental agencies earlier, as well as dropping Social Security, but I didn't want to meander off the topic too terribly much. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

We could all write books about how to most effectively reduce the budget and control the out-of-control spending, but I think MagiK hit on probably the most effective idea--disband the two main political parties! [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] The Democrat and Republican parties are the two greatest obstacles to progress we have at this time.</font>

What parties would replace them? The libertarians to the right, but who to the left?

Timber, you may be interested in some of Alexander Hamilton's work as the Secretary of Finance. He argues that keeping a moderate level of debt is good for the country. Can't remember the details (I read an 800 page bio of the guy last summer,) but it was interesting.

Parties have a way of coming and going over time. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were totally different in the 1800s than they were today. But disbanding them, while on the surface a quick and easy solution, tends to result in unforeseen consequences. The collapse of the Whig party in the 1850s, combined with the rise of the Republican party, was one of the key factors in igniting the US Civil War.

EDIT: Clarification.

[ 02-06-2006, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

<font color = lightgreen>The Libertarians aren't really "right" or "left"; rather, they have some traits of both. </font>

<font color = lightgreen>Interesting; I've not heard this hypothesis before. Where did you hear or read this? </font>

Anarchy rules...Let Bush finance the war out his own pocket. It will be a lot shorter then...

<font color = lightgreen>Interesting; I've not heard this hypothesis before. Where did you hear or read this? </font></font>[/QUOTE]HTST 359, American History to 1877.

This is, simplified, what happened. The Democrats were strongly southern based, and unapologetically in favor of slavery. The Whigs, the other main party at the time, could not come up with a united policy, they would preach the abolition of slavery when in the north and its promotion while in the south. Problem is, there were newspapers so the inconsistencies were exposed, and their inability to come to terms with the single overriding issue in America at the time caused an implosion, and a slide into irrelevance in the 1850s. Interesting side note - the Republicans were not abolitionists, they were Free-Soilers, who believed in keeping territories free from the competition of slaveholders for white farmers.

When the Republican party came into being, since the Democrats were so dominant in the south, but unable to gain momentum in the north, the Republicans didn't even try to make themselves appealing to Southerners - they barely ran legitimate candidates in the South. When Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) was elected, none of his electoral votes came from (later) Confederate states. The southerners, who had a long history of feelings of vulnerability to their slaveholding, read Lincoln's election as a precursor to abolition, and seceded.

Trying to explain the Civil War on an online forum is basically impossible. There were so many other factors, like anti-Catholic sentiment, the Mexican War, the antebellum movement, etc, that to pin the thing on one event would be naive. But the collapse of the Whig party, which gave rise to the regionalism of the two parties, certainly broadened the divide.

[ 02-07-2006, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

You can tell which Party is owned, bought and paid for, by the old military industrial complex. I'll never trust anyone who depends on war to prosper.

But hey the good news I read is they are going to retire %10 of the U.S. nuclear missle arsenal. That's progress and it saves some dough.

Yes. It does. Just as keeping a moderate level of debt is good for an individual. The notion of a "credit rating" isn't just about credit cards, it's a historical fact based on the way people behave economically, including nations.

But, I wasn't speaking to then, to Hamilton. I was speaking to now. If we get back down to anything near or approaching a "moderate" level of debt, then we may have this discussion -- but for now it's academic.

<font color = lightgreen>Thank you for the refresher. I keep a lot of information stored in memory, but I can't keep everything stored there. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

<font color=8fbc8f>This is just wonderful (wunderbar)!
This year my HMO for life is reasonable, next year it will go up 75%, and by 09 it will be thrice of what I pay this year! My Dental for life is already the single most health care issue I pay, and it will double over the next three years.
My Vocational training has been shortened by 12 months. As it is, already on a reduced time line, it will now only take me through 30 months.

In review, I served 23 years, 3 months 16 days. Contributed $100 a month for my entire first term enlistment, and now I must finish my vocational program NLT 1 Nov 08, or finish under my own funding.
I must pay for treatment, even at the military treatment facility, or at the VA for non-disability rated issues.
My prescriptions, (the single best benefit) will increase by 1/3 through FY 09.
My retirement is already taxed, but now the disability supplement is coming into the sight picture as well. Wonder what else might be moving into the sight picture?

TL, For the record; As a DA Contractor, I receive a very adequate salary. However, as compared to the lawmakers themselves, I still only compare to the string, of the bag, that holds the gold!

“With malice toward none, with charity for all,
with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right,
let us strive on to finish the work we are in,
to bind up the nation’s wounds,
to care for him who shall have borne the battle
and for his widow, and his orphan,
to do all which may achieve and cherish
a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

President Lincoln’s second inaugural address, 4 Mar 1865.
</font>