[sm=icon_cheers.gif]

Guess I'm the flamer, Dave. Not turning down your beer, I just don't do the paypal thing. The topic I was referring to is here, maybe I just read the comments wrong, but I don't think I did. To correct myself, 1 person kind of agreed with me in that thread, and in this one.

https://montecarloforum.com/m_68865/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

I'm going to start a new thread about where I'm coming from, why I get PO'd so fast, and life in general.

 

I'm going to have to say a Democrat is going to win. It seems we bounce between the 2. We take a Republican or stong charactor president to protect the country or start getting the economy going, then we take a Democrat to ease everything over and fix what broke in the country.

 

I think it might be best for the country & the Republican party if the Democrats win. In 2006, teh Republican party lost control of the Congress due to an unpopular war, and due to the fact that they have increased spending and the national deficit by TRILLIONS of dollars in the last 12 years...

I mean, look at what the Republicans did... the contract with America: they were going to cut government spending, cut taxes, and cut the size of government. Instead, they have doubled the size of government and its spending. This upsets me... the party that is for "less government" increased it more than any Democrat ever tried to.

Not only that... but do you guys remember that amnesty bill last summer? The radio "talking heads" meet with the President very late in the summer.. and he was shocked to find out just how unpopular his bill was...

The Republican Party has lost touch with the people who elect them, and the President proved it.

It may be best that the Democrats keep control of the Congress and the Democrats gain the White House. The Republicans are still out of touch with how much America hates this war, and how sick they are with this countries spending. In the word of Mike Huckabee, "Congress spends like John Edwards at a beauty shop."

I think it could be best that the Republicans lose power.. that way, the only thing they can do is step back, finally see why they lost the 2006 election, see why they lost the White House, and then maybe we can consider forgiving them for how much they increased government spending.

 

The Republicans are doomed. There are too many strong Democrats in the race and the leading Republican candidate is aligned with Bush policies. The Country isn't divided over the Bush War on Terror. Sadly, the American People will let the present, very weak Armed Forces continue the struggle not caring that thousands of the Reservists and National Guardsman are being extended, time and again, to remain in the theater and do battle with an enemy willing to kill and die for religious beliefs. The same War that Ceasers Troops fought thousands of years ago.

The Administration hides the facts.
No cameras allowed to take photos of the reusable aluminum coffins arriving daily.

The Democratic Congress awaits a Democratic President to begin picking-up the pieces of the mess The President got us into to fulfill a promise to his father.

It's early enough to see that the numbers are strong for the Democrats.
The Republicans are faltering on their home turf. Romney turned away by the Granite State voters.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to bring it all back under control. She's got my vote, at the moment ... and I hope the Convention presents her and Obamma as the ticket.

Like an Exacta at the Racetrack. Hillary and Barrack or Barrack and Hillary. Two good reasons to support the Democrats taking the White House back from the Republicans!

I won't bet my Monte Carlo on it. But, it's looking to be shaping-up that way and I'm happy for the Country it is

 

Umm FDR? Granted getting multiple terms can do that but he brought in the most government programs and increased the size of government over any president so far.

 

OOOOOOOOH yes he did!!!!!!!!!

The only governement reducing, tax cutting democrat ever was Kennedy.

 

i'm not too fond of him either... i wish i could find the chart of when the national debt and spending REALLLY soared.. but if you look a it, it never hit a trillion dollars until Reagon.. and it hit multi trillion dollars under his administration to. I'm not a fan of Reaganomics.. you can't cut taxes and increase spending, simple as taht. Republicans don't comprehend this.

you caught me intimidator.. you caught me. FDR increased taxes to fund his programs.. and they had side effects we could never have foreseen at the time. he did some things that were unconstitutional.. he tried to "pack" the court by appointing nominees who felt the way he did. in the time he started these programs though, something ahd to be done. i don't think any of the programs were really mean't to be permanent.. but here we are.

 

...not only that Cowboy.

The IRS was created as a temporary solution to fund world war I.

Thegreedy congress at the time loved the money so much, they voted to make it permanent.

Thus, the increased exposure of the Liberterian movement like Dr. Paul and others before him to abolish the IRS.

 

I think Reaganomics can work in theory, but that is all it is. I think the reality is that even if you cut the taxes the business don't necessarily spend the money hiring new people and increasing the company as much as they just bump up CEO and executive pay. But this is also a shortfall of stock holders that should be voting not to pay the CEO as much. By lowering the taxes it should allow people to purchase more and actually put more money into taxes with the old selling on volume theory like Walmart works.

I do have to agree with you on that though Duane, it all boils down to theory and not reality.

 

I'm not sure one way or another on whether they were to be permanant or not... He is just one president I did not trust from what I've read about his history, but then again I wasn't there and didn't live in the time.

As far as them being permanent, it can be amazing what can happen when someone doesn't want to loose their job.