Cutting the Deficiet

Exactly Mike.

To all you Dem lovers......answer me this: If Dems are the "PARTY OF THE PEOPLE" , sooo much more so than Republicans,then why is it that the state of MA (which is run by 120+++ Dems & .... **6** Reps !!) is set up so that everything costs the poor/working class more that the rich????

Cases in point: the points I made above about raising taxes & tolls when people are out of work, or have had pay cuts if they're lucky enough to have a job, the MA inspection system for motor vehicles....which BLATANTLY penalizes the poor & rewards the rich ( new vehicle passes no prob -- old vehicle fails because of ultra-left-wing policy [which panders to the hippie voting bloc] of SUPER-STRICT EMISSIONS standards, forcing poor to spend THOUSANDS on repairs to a vehicle that may or may not be worth that much!!), the two most liberal states on the planet (MA & CA) are the most EXPENSIVE places to live on the planet, and liberal MA complains that it has no money & has to raise the gas, liquor taxes & raise tolls, yet they want to hand out free $$$ to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?????

Are you guys high????????????

EDIT: forgot a few more points.......MA now FORCES everyone to have health insurance..........so if you lose your job, you'll have no problem paying $1200/mo for COBRA right? Or if you took a massive pay cut, what's $700/mo for regular health insurance??? Say SCREW IT & GO WITHOUT? Then, THEY TAKE YOUR TAX RETURNS!! Boy, SOUNDS LIKE THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE TO ME!!

Devil505 wrote:I think the bottom line for me is this simple question:

Considering the incredible deficit spending of a Republican President & a Republican "Rubber Stamp" Congress for most of the last 8 years (financing Nation Building & no-bid contracts in Iraq, etc) Does the Republican Party (or Rush Limbaugh...or Fox News) have the Bona fides anymore to lecture us on their "Suddenly Remembered" fiscal responsibility?

(It's not just me asking that obvious question, but a majority of American voters)

So $787 billion ISN'T deficit spending? When R's do it, it's wrong but when D's do it, it's right? Is that what you are telling me?

I'm not arguing in support of the current toads in Congress, but like my dad always said, two wrongs don't make a right and three rights make a left. And you are so far left, it's unbelievable!

jpete wrote:I'm not arguing in support of the current toads in Congress, but like my dad always said, two wrongs don't make a right and three rights make a left. And you are so far left, it's unbelievable!

In essence, i am not arguing the merits of what you or the Congressional Repubs are saying about the Stimulus Bill.
What I AM saying is that, based on your recent history, you guys have lost all logical rights to be listened too. We American voters decided on November 6th that we don't trust you guys anymore & we are putting our faith in President Obama & his new administration. If he & we are wrong....talk to us in four years. We may listen, but as of right now.....We just can't hear you!

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:I'm not arguing in support of the current toads in Congress, but like my dad always said, two wrongs don't make a right and three rights make a left. And you are so far left, it's unbelievable!

In essence, i am not arguing the merits of what you or the Congressional Repubs are saying about the Stimulus Bill.
What I AM saying is that, based on your recent history, you guys have lost all logical rights to be listened too. We American voters decided on November 6th that we don't trust you guys anymore & we are putting our faith in President Obama & his new administration. If he & we are wrong....talk to us in four years. We may listen, but as of right now.....We just can't hear you!

That's sounds like it will be productive for the country.

And BTW, you "American voters" represent 52% of the approximately 60% of eligible voters who actually voted. So you aren't anywhere near a "majority". Don't get all uppity.

jpete wrote:And BTW, you "American voters" represent 52% of the approximately 60% of eligible voters who actually voted. So you aren't anywhere near a "majority". Don't get all uppity.

Well at least that's better than having a President that more voters rejecetd than voted for in 2000 & was "Appointed" by his friends on the Supreme Court!
(but luckily.....look how well that worked out for us all!)

You must really have short term memory loss Devil. I had doubts but you sound like a broken record after a couple of months. Lets come up with something tangible rather then go off topic and rant about the last 8 years and stick your tongue out. Oh, and mention the 52% win.

Kevin

Hopefully you will forget that to!

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:And BTW, you "American voters" represent 52% of the approximately 60% of eligible voters who actually voted. So you aren't anywhere near a "majority". Don't get all uppity.

Well at least that's better than having a President that more voters rejecetd than voted for in 2000 & was "Appointed" by his friends on the Supreme Court!
(but luckily.....look how well that worked out for us all!)

Apart from the court battle, you could be talking about Clinton. I don't believe he ever carried the popular vote, did he?

tvb wrote:Ugh. You come across as smarter than that, JPete.

National healthcare - benefits society as a whole.

Bankers thinking they are kings and queens - benefits the bankers who think they are kings and queens.

So how about national housing? Everyone benefits if homelessness is eliminated.

How about a national food program. No one should go hungry.

National job? People with jobs benefit society.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

The Constitution guarantees you the "PURSUIT", not "success".

jpete wrote:Apart from the court battle, you could be talking about Clinton. I don't believe he ever carried the popular vote, did he?

He most definitely did. Winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote is a rare occurrence in this county & a reason why many want to abolish the Electoral College completely.

KLook wrote:Hopefully you will forget that to!

Sorry Kevin....I forgot what you said.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Apart from the court battle, you could be talking about Clinton. I don't believe he ever carried the popular vote, did he?

He most definitely did. Winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote is a rare occurrence in this county & a reason why many want to abolish the Electoral College completely.

In 1992, he only got 43% of the popular vote.

In 1996, he got 49.2%

That doesn't look like a majority to me.

KLook wrote:You must really have short term memory loss Devil. I had doubts but you sound like a broken record after a couple of months.

I have many times admitted my memory problem Kevin & I know that it does cause me to repeat myself in the mistaken idea that I haven't said it before.(I know I drive Richard crazy with that too!) All I can say is that I will make an concerted effort to NOT repeat myself & feel confident that others will gladly remind me if I lapse back into it from time to time.
(I suffered a TBI ..Traumatic Brain Injury....on the night of 12/19/89, which is the cause of my memory problem)
All I can do is apologize to any that my repeated rants have infuriated.

jpete wrote:

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Apart from the court battle, you could be talking about Clinton. I don't believe he ever carried the popular vote, did he?

He most definitely did. Winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote is a rare occurrence in this county & a reason why many want to abolish the Electoral College completely.

In 1992, he only got 43% of the popular vote.

In 1996, he got 49.2%

That doesn't look like a majority to me.

It was more than his opponent, which is the definition of winning the Popular vote.

Devil505 wrote:It was more than his opponent, which is the definition of winning the Popular vote.

I guess you DO have short term memory loss.

Devil505 wrote:Well at least that's better than having a President that more voters rejecetd than voted for in 2000

43% and 49.2% means "more voters rejected than voted" for him.

jpete wrote:43% and 49.2% means "more voters rejected than voted" for him.

Yes but they rejected him LESS than they rejected his opponent!