Republicans vrs. Democrats

[4moreyears]

Says it All

[blueturk]

Republicans:

Oct. 6, 2005
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The federal budget deficit totaled $317 billion in fiscal 2005, which ended Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday in its latest monthly budget estimate.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp?archive=true&dist=ArchiveSplash&siteid=google&guid=%7B22F6DDEA%2DA87C%2D4797%2D8ED8%2DF74E5439C4 40%7D&returnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory%2Easp%3Fguid%3D%7B22F6DD EA%2DA87C%2D4797%2D8ED8%2DF74E5439C440%7D%26siteid %3Dgoogle%26dist%3D%26archive%3Dtrue%26param%3Darc hive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D

Democrats:

In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Says it All

This has already been posted here idiot. Try reading the old hurricane fight threads.
http://www.insanereagan.com/images/mission_accomplished02.jpg

[FORD]

I'd close this thread, but blueturk saved it with some actual FACTS.

And as I've told the Busheep before, know the realities of the school bus system in New Orleans before you pass judgement.

Those buses are NOT OWNED BY A SINGLE ENTITY, as is the case in most school districts, Galveston probably included.

Actually, from my memory, each bus is owned and operated by an independent contractor.

That's a lot of fucking phone calls for a mayor to make, and no time to do so.

And another fine example of the "privatization" which Republicans would like to do to every public utility on the planet. (As if Enron wasn't enough of a lesson in that department)

[Pink Spider]

Well, if you want to attack privatization, fine.

Weren't the leeves in the hands of the public sector?

How did that go?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Well, if you want to attack privatization, fine.

Weren't the leeves in the hands of the public sector?

How did that go?

The levees failed because Junior sent the money meant to fix them to his stupid assed war in Iraq.

Or because someone blew them up, according to conspiracy theorists. In which case it wouldn't matter who owned them.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by FORD
The levees failed because Junior sent the money meant to fix them to his stupid assed war in Iraq.

Either way, it's the government's fault. If there were say, a private company in New Orleans that controlled the levees then perhaps they might have had a much higher stake in keeping the levees in better order.

I believe that it was also the private sector that wanted to help with food and water. Yet, the public sector (FEMA) held them back.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Either way, it's the government's fault. If there were say, a private company in New Orleans that controlled the levees then perhaps they might have had a much higher stake in keeping the levees in better order.


Why would that be? They'll seek to "maximize profit" at the expense of those paying them. What would a private contractor have really have lost if the levees failed? They've already gotten paid, and can just claim Chapter 11. Like insurance companies that sell you policies in which they agree to cover certain events, then try to back out (unless you sue them).

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why would that be? They'll seek to "maximize profit" at the expense of those paying them. What would a private contractor have really have lost if the levees failed? They've already gotten paid, and can just claim Chapter 11. Like insurance companies that sell you policies in which they agree to cover certain events, then try to back out (unless you sue them).

Usually human beings don't want a mass murder charge to be held against them. You know, it's kind of bad for their business reputation and all. ;)

What do government agencies usually get though? More money. Yeah, that won't happen again next time. :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Usually human beings don't want a mass murder charge to be held against them. You know, it's kind of bad for their business reputation and all. ;)

What do government agencies usually get though? More money. Yeah, that won't happen again next time. :rolleyes:

Mass murder charges? Name the last airline executive that was jailed for "mass murder" after a crash due to poor maintainance...

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Mass murder charges? Name the last airline executive that was jailed for "mass murder" after a crash due to poor maintainance...

OK, then forget what I wrote.

Still, if you choose to live in a coastal city below sea level or fly on a budget airline, you're taking a chance with your life.

Industry isn't perfect, but it's a lot more efficient than government. Because it has to be or it ceases to exist. You can't usually say that about government.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
OK, then forget what I wrote.

Still, if you choose to live in a coastal city below sea level or fly on a budget airline, you're taking a chance with your life.


The odds of dying in a flood are 30,000 to 1. The odds of dying in a plane crash are 20,000 to 1. You risk your life more by travelling in a car (1-100) than you do by living in New Orleans or flying with a cheap airline.

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050106_odds_of_dying.html#table

[Pink Spider]

I never said that it was a big chance. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
OK, then forget what I wrote.

Still, if you choose to live in a coastal city below sea level or fly on a budget airline, you're taking a chance with your life.

Industry isn't perfect, but it's a lot more efficient than government. Because it has to be or it ceases to exist. You can't usually say that about government.

What I'm saying is that ideally it should be both. You can't look at examples of companies like Haliburtan and say that that was an ideal way to get anything done, those corrupt, price-gauging, and over-paid bastards are driving up costs and shirking accountability.

Ideally, it's both gov't and the private sector. The Army Corp of Engineers often serve as the overseer by appointing a general contractor. That contractor then bids out work to smaller firms. That way theres a nice set of checks and balances, and things get done in a cost effective manner. without anyone (like the Governors brother) getting part of the take. But when we're fighting wars and cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, it's hard to get anything done whether it's public or private sector. The money isn't going to be there either way.

[Warham]

Since the wealthiest Americans (top 25% of all earners) pay more than 80% of the federal taxes in this country, they'll get the biggest cuts, by definition. Just wanted to clear that up.

[DLR'sCock]

When the top 2% make 95% of the money in this country, then they have no choice but to pay most of the taxes....

Jesus Chirst, it's like when the value of your house goes up and your happy, but then, you realize that not only did you just make money, but if your house is reassessed then you will pay higher taxes andddddd then you get pissed.

YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO, BUT PEOPLE MOST(NOT ALL) ARE GREEDY SWINE.

[FORD]

If they actually PAID those taxes it would be one thing, but they do not.

They use CPA's and lawyers to find every available write-off, tax shelter, and loophole, that they can get away with, to the point where some billionaires actually pay less tax than I do.

And don't even bother denying it. Everyone knows it happens.

That's why I'm all in flavor of discussing a flat tax, but I damn sure don't trust Steve Forbes to come up with one that's truly equitable.

[conmee]

A flat tax, by definition, would be equitable... it really would be up to Congress, with the addition of all sorts of loopholes that would squeeze in the inequities and turn a 1 page tax code into a 1200 page tome... flat tax, across the board, regardless of income, with no exceptions... that would be fair. But that would put alot of accountants and lawyers out of business...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Since the wealthiest Americans (top 25% of all earners) pay more than 80% of the federal taxes in this country, they'll get the biggest cuts, by definition. Just wanted to clear that up.

They also own like 98% of the wealth. Just wanted to clear that up. I could be wrong, that's from memory.

Of course, that leaves out the corporate welfare tax breaks at all levels since we're talking about individuals...

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What I'm saying is that ideally it should be both. You can't look at examples of companies like Haliburtan and say that that was an ideal way to get anything done, those corrupt, price-gauging, and over-paid bastards are driving up costs and shirking accountability.

Generally, any company with ties to the Bush adminstration is probably evil by default. I wouldn't use them in any example for capitalism. They're more like a front that drains corporate welfare.


Ideally, it's both gov't and the private sector. The Army Corp of Engineers often serve as the overseer by appointing a general contractor. That contractor then bids out work to smaller firms. That way theres a nice set of checks and balances, and things get done in a cost effective manner. without anyone (like the Governors brother) getting part of the take. But when we're fighting wars and cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, it's hard to get anything done whether it's public or private sector. The money isn't going to be there either way.


Well, if the wealthiest Americans and Americans in general weren't taxed so much there wouldn't be a war machine to worry about. The wealthiest Americians are unvoluntarily paying for war and yet you want to raise their taxes so we can invade Syria and Iran...

That's what it sounds like.