Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Timber Loftis · 12-02-2002, 10:15 AM

I don't know that my battle cry would be Nalia's ("For the needy!"

), but I must say that other spending *has* increased while this program for the poor has been cut. Now when you want to buy more bombs, I'm fine with decreasing some spending. Pork barrel bicycle paths in Austin and navy yards in North Carolina come to mind as programs to take money from - even though these are 5-yrs-ago examples. But, I would put heating subsidies for the poor pretty low on the list of programs to decrease.

And, please, for sake of debate, let's assume there is a decrease and not try to argue over inflation rate and compounding interest issues. But on that note, I think if you'll read the article, Messrs. Muppets

you'll note that it's a drop in real dollar expenditures.

Perhaps we cut the budget because Mr. President felt we needed better surveillance equipment. On that note, a national source recently published the following explanation as to whay the Bush Administration was having trouble finding Osama:

But, on a serious note, two points must be made.

1. I would rather see the $$$ go to provide heat for the poor in Chicago than bail out United or SBC in Chicago - both of which are defunct corporations that just this year have taken over a hundred million in bailout money. C'mon people, if we expect our poor to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps, then that applies to poor companies, too. It's dispicable to claim capitalism and then bail out corporations.

2. If the administration could get a handle on the economy, there'd be more money and less belt-tightening. Now, those of you out there getting ready to trot out the "President and economy are not related" brigade can kiss off: that's an argument made by administrations with bad economies. Now, I don't agree with all the polemico crap Slate slaps on the internet, but here's a poorly-written piece with some good points regarding Bush's mishandling of the economy, and addressing how a president can actually do things to affect the economy:
http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2072281

Oh, and good mooring all. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Snow in Chicago, if anyone's interested. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

12-02-2002, 10:15 AM	#21
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	I don't know that my battle cry would be Nalia's ("For the needy!" ), but I must say that other spending has increased while this program for the poor has been cut. Now when you want to buy more bombs, I'm fine with decreasing some spending. Pork barrel bicycle paths in Austin and navy yards in North Carolina come to mind as programs to take money from - even though these are 5-yrs-ago examples. But, I would put heating subsidies for the poor pretty low on the list of programs to decrease. And, please, for sake of debate, let's assume there is a decrease and not try to argue over inflation rate and compounding interest issues. But on that note, I think if you'll read the article, Messrs. Muppets you'll note that it's a drop in real dollar expenditures. Perhaps we cut the budget because Mr. President felt we needed better surveillance equipment. On that note, a national source recently published the following explanation as to whay the Bush Administration was having trouble finding Osama: But, on a serious note, two points must be made. 1. I would rather see the $$$ go to provide heat for the poor in Chicago than bail out United or SBC in Chicago - both of which are defunct corporations that just this year have taken over a hundred million in bailout money. C'mon people, if we expect our poor to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps, then that applies to poor companies, too. It's dispicable to claim capitalism and then bail out corporations. 2. If the administration could get a handle on the economy, there'd be more money and less belt-tightening. Now, those of you out there getting ready to trot out the "President and economy are not related" brigade can kiss off: that's an argument made by administrations with bad economies. Now, I don't agree with all the polemico crap Slate slaps on the internet, but here's a poorly-written piece with some good points regarding Bush's mishandling of the economy, and addressing how a president can actually do things to affect the economy: http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2072281 Oh, and good mooring all. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Snow in Chicago, if anyone's interested. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] __________________