Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > February > 19 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSpending bill details right state limits
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The spending lid state senators reconsider Tuesday is far from the draconian measure critics contend.
In last week’s floor debate, clear distinctions emerged between those who believe Georgia’s problem is that it “invests” too little in programs — the politically correct marketing term for spending — and those who recognize that politicians always succumb to pressure when the money’s there. The politician’s only discipline, the only one, is their belief that the money’s not there — or is, at least, inaccessible.
State Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) has proposed a constitutional amendment that is hardly draconian. “At the end of the day, it would not limit flexibility or take away the powers of the General Assembly” to spend as they see fit, said Rogers. It would, however, add transparency and accountability, and therefore draw attention, to budget creep.
When Rogers brought the amendment to the floor last week, 33 Republicans and one Democrat — State Sen. J. B. Powell of Blythe, whose district runs from suburban Augusta through the rural counties between there and Macon and there and Savannah — voted in favor. Powell’s support, which I had failed to acknowledge in this column on Sunday, is telling. He was re-elected last November with 51.4 percent of the vote in a district that should be a walk-over for a Democrat. Yet, Gov. Sonny Perdue won it with just more than half the vote in 2002 and President Bush carried it with 54.5 percent of the vote in 2004.
His support is evidence that politicians who represent districts where a voting majority is concerned about the cost of government recognize the need for discipline. Until at least three more Senate Democrats agree that voters should be given a chance to decide whether flexible boundaries should be applied to most government spending, Georgians won’t have a say. The question before the Senate, as Rogers noted, is “should the people who pay the bills have an opportunity to have their voice heard?”
Georgia is in danger of falling into the partisan split that exists in Washington — the split that cost Max Cleland his seat in the U.S. Senate. Before Cleland, most Georgia Democrats managed to draw distinctions between their votes and those of the national Democratic Party. Cleland, however, chose to vote the party line, thus succeeding in making himself a central-casting national Democrat — a lesson, incidentally, absorbed by U.S. Congressman Jim Marshall (D- Macon), who was one of two Democrats in the U.S. House to break ranks with his party in last week’s Iraq resolution.
For candidates with statewide political ambitions in Georgia, it is dangerous to establish a brand identity that merges the locals with the nationals, when the nationals fare poorly here.
The “draconian” label applied to the Rogers bill came from state Sen. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta), who offered a litany of “investments” Georgia needs to make in education and social programs.
Clearly, liberals will never agree that limits, however loose, should be applied to state spending. But that discipline is precisely what the executive and legislative branches need now. Rogers’ resolution excludes revenues derived from the lottery, from motor fuel taxes, from tobacco settlement funds, from genuine user fees and from other specified categories.
The General Assembly could always spend more this year than last and, in emergencies, could waive limits. If the state collected excess revenues above the rate of government inflation plus population growth, it would have four options: pay down debt, save it for hard times, spend it on education or return it to taxpayers.
“If I gave you $100 this year, and next year I said I was going to give you $107, and you can spend $105 in any way you want, but you can only spend $2 in these four areas,” said Rogers, “you always get to spend more this year than last year in any way you want.”
Needs should compete for available revenue. Legislators won’t make tough choices until it’s forced on them. The system now is that every available dime is spent. With spending comes turf-protecting special interest groups that complain, when they are insufficiently rewarded with more spending, that their programs are being “slashed” by mean-spirited legislators who would kick the sick and disabled kids and grandmas to the curb.
The only cure for that ailment is to make certain that programs compete for limited cash so those that have outlived their usefulness and those that are ineffective face a day of reckoning. Rogers’ amendment is that tool.
Permalink | Comments (122) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Jim's a Distractor
February 20, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
Republicans good, Democrats bad…blah, blah, blah.
How about some spending caps at the Federal level?
Oh, wait, I forgot….that wouldn’t exactly fit into your PR mandate of always supporting Republicans and always slamming Democrats.
So I guess it’s ok for W to continue thowring money at Iraq.
Have a nice day.
By CJ
February 20, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this
There’s a myriad of problems with Jim Wooten’s logic in today’s article. First, if the amendment imposing spending limits were to pass, here’s an example of how it would work. When Republicans want to reduce eligibility for PeachCare, a program that is neither “ineffective” nor has “outlived its usefulness”, they can do so with a simple majority in both state houses — the same simple majority necessary for votes to prevail in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures across the country. Now, if a future legislature decides to restore eligibility to PeachCare, under the amendment proposed by State Senator Chip Rogers, they could only vote on it if the Governor declares an emergency first and then both house vote for it with a two-thirds super-majority vote. Do you see the insanity here? In effect, the Governor can veto legislation before it’s ever voted on the legislature, and there’s no way to override him — even if you have the two-thirds votes to pass the legislation. The result of passing Roger’s constitutional amendment would be that legislation that Republicans typically love (cutting programs that work) can continue to pass with a simple majority and obstacles, nearly impossible to overcome, are thrown in the path of legislation that Republicans generally hate. That’s not a representative democracy. That’s arrogance.
Second, Jim also dismisses the term “investment” as being “politically correct”. If they don’t have a case against your idea, then they think they can win the debate by labeling it as politically correct. Let’s look at the G.I. Bill as an example. It is estimated that for every dollar spent on educational and job benefits under this Bill (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944), the U.S. treasury got a $1.80 in return. Even if this figure is overstated by half, the investment provided a 40 percent return. Any investor would be thrilled with such returns. In addition, the economy received over a 500 percent return. In other words, G.I. Bill education benefits led to better paying jobs, which led to more private spending and investing on the part of the beneficiaries, which led to more economic growth. It’s the same with PeachCare. It’s cheaper for taxpayers to subsidize children’s health insurance than it costs to pay the medical bills of the uninsured through either Medicaid or subsidies to public hospitals like Grady. Government investment in education, health care (e.g. PeachCare, Medicare), roads, mass transit, sewer systems, job place safety, environmental protection, food safety, the military, law enforcement and other items that we take for granted IS investment. Such investments make up our economic infrastructure and separate us from the third-world countries. We ignore this truth at our peril.
Third, Jim repeats the well-worn Republican mantra, quoted this time by Chip Rogers, “should the people who pay the bills have an opportunity to have their voice heard?” Of course, in our representative democracy, the people have their voice heard when they cast their ballots every other November and whenever they write to their representatives, to their local paper, etcetera. This “give the people a voice” crap always happens when the Republicans want to institutionalize their bad ideas by amending the state constitution while such ideas are still popular and before most figure out the scam. Why not get rid of the state legislature altogether, so we can just vote every two years on bills submitted directly by the people? Who needs a representative democracy when we can have an actual democracy? In fact, you don’t hear Republican hypocrites seeking to amend the constitution and “let the people’s voice be heard” on the minimum wage, smaller class sizes, PeachCare eligibility, mass transit and other issues unpopular in their party, but popular with the majority.
Finally, with regard to Jim’s comments about Senator Cleland and Representative Marshall, although Jim frequently compliments President Bush for sticking with his guns, he chastises Cleland for doing the same by claiming that Cleland had “voted the party line.” Anybody that knows anything about Max Cleland, know that that’s BS. If Representative Marshall voted his conscience on the House anti-surge resolution, then I support him. However, if he voted against this resolution to keep his seat, then he should just resign and let somebody who truly represents the views of his district to replace him.
By Jeff
February 20, 2007 08:10 AM | Link to this
I’m completely with ya today Mr. Wooten.
Just one note though:
“Disciplined Liberal” is a MAJOR oxymoron…
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 08:17 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I think I am less persuaded of the value of a “quantification” constitutional spending constraint than I would be of a “subject matter” constitutional spending constraint. Quantification restrictions always have “emergency” weasel words, justifiably. On the other hand, if, by constitutional restriction, the legislature was prohibited from spending on anything other than (for example) “motor highways, orphanages and the child welfare bureaucracy, unemployment insurance, and data recordation, plus debt service in support of same” would that not rein in the excess? Surely we could compose a laundry list of all proper state “investments.”
By Jim's a Distractor
February 20, 2007 08:22 AM | Link to this
CJ,
That’s my most favorite post ever.
By Redneck Convert
February 20, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this
Me and my buddy Jim Earl was talking about the Rogers idea last nite. Jim Earl says, “Why don’t they just cut all the money for Peachcare and the other librul programs instead of beating about the bush with this spending cap?” I had to agree with Jim Earl’s idea. Just cut all the spending libruls like and don’t put any handcuffs on when it comes to spending for 10 Commandements displays and Zell statues and farm tax x-mptions and other things us good conservative people like.
Jim Earl also said something I never thought of before. He thinks jbmlaw and TFTT is the same person, only TFTT is jbmlaw on drugs. Ever notice how jbmlaw will come out with something like deporting illegals and later TFTT will come out with the idea of shooting illegals? It’s the drugs. jbmlaw will say get the guvmint out of our right to carry handguns and then TFTT will say just stick a handgun up the libruls patoot and pull the trigger. It’s the drugs.
Anyway, I sure am glad to be a conservative because you don’t have to think very hard. Just the 1st thing that comes to your mind is always right. Libruls will come out with about 50 reasons we shouldn’t have the war in Iraq and conservatives will just call them traders and not supporting the troops and skip all this deep thinking stuff.
Well, my grandson Sonny Zell George is growing like a weed. Pretty soon he’ll be drinking 6-packs and hunting with the big boys and telling jokes about Those People. Life sure is good.
By Jim Wooten
February 20, 2007 08:47 AM | Link to this
Morning all. Very good post @ 8:09, CJ.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this
Dear Redneck @ 8:34, you wound me profoundly. While I hold my friend TFTT in the highest respect, the example you cite is one of only two where TFTT and I disagree – I am a free immigrationist. The thought that all of my brilliant writings, on the nobility of our immigrant friends from Mexico, have blown past you causes me to realize the futility of my effort. Where are the drugs?
By Brian
February 20, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this
I find it funny that Wooten believes the people should be heard on this issue, but not regarding Sunday liquor sales.
Partisan politics is so funny.
By abc
February 20, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this
I’m not a Republican, nor a neo-conservative. Chip Rogers does fit those labels in many regards, but I consider him a rising superstar of the legislature. I live in Woodstock, I voted for him, and so far, I like what he’s doing. I sense that he has ethics and embraces accountability.
I like his spending plan.
By Dusty
February 20, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this
Dear Redneck Convert,
I like your idea of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde for jbm and TFTT. Only you got the wrong folks.
YOU are really Southern Democrat on drugs. You know. The phony southern redneck act and then the hoypeloy I’m as great as Jimmy act by SouDem. Then throw in the beer bit instead of the colonel’s mint julep. Throw in the Zell “touch” by you as to the greats who are your best friends by SouDem.
Now I’m suspecting your grandson is real and will soon sign up for the military as most Southern patriotic gentlemen do in their youth. You will be biting off beer bottle tops with your teeth when you see Luckovich’s cartoons. Making fun with non-troop support may be funny until it hits home.
Have fun, you old corn cob. I’ll pray for you in church no matter in what persona you persist at the moment.
From your sibling in suspicious suppositions, Sister Dusty
By Dennis
February 20, 2007 09:33 AM | Link to this
Mr.Wooten said, “Clearly, liberals will never agree that limits, however loose, should be applied to state spending.”
What about conservatives and federal spending?
“Clearly”, conservatives are in denial that the war in Iraq and the Middle East is draining this country dry.
They refuse to admit, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that Bush is using the U.S. military like it’s his own private army and that it is past time that financial and other “limits, however [tight] should be applied”.
If Mr. Wooten has any concern about the costs in innocent lives and money caused by this unnecessary fiasco, it’s not past time to write about it and call for a stop to it.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Van
February 20, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this
Hmmm, I have never heard of a liberal in favor of spending limits. After all, it isn’t their money, so why limit the spending of it.
On the serious side, spending limits would be a good idea, but be ready for the backlash from the lefties. Remember, these are the same socialists that call a reduction from 11% to 5% in the increase of spending a draconian funding cut.
Lefties might get more support if they did try spending less than the state takes in, and the republicans would remain in power if they did the same.
I am sure that with that many people working on controlling or limiting the grown of the government intrusions, via taxes, fees or some other way of taking our money, we can all benefit. Less taxes means an increase in tax revenues resulting in more funding for those “investments”.
By Kurdish Stanzas
February 20, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this
Never blog about spending limits when the funds for the troop surge are at risk. Spending is good. Limits are bad. Remember to spend more every year.
My Appropriations Bill: Spend more money on education, roads, healthcare, troops surges, social services, and tax cuts for business.
See? Nobody even noticed the troop surge in that appropriations bill that I just submitted in our pretend congress here on the blog.
That’s how you support the troops. Spend. Surge. Kill Terrorists. Win the war in Iraq. Destroy the Al Queda/Saddam conspirators where ever our troop-surge finds them as they go house to house in our new strategy for total victory in Iraq over our enemies (and thus a total victory in the war on terror).
McCain criticized Rumsfeld’s handling of the war trying to get votes yesterday, and it looks like all the candidates will be dogging Rumsfeld till the elections. Why doesn’t anyone criticize Saddam’s handling of the war? He lost it in a few weeks. I mean, nobody said a word about how ill fitted and poorly deployed his army was. McCain shouldn’t have done that roast of Rumsfeld till we get the troops surge funds secured. He should have remembered to spend more, then surge the troops, then win the war on terror, and then criticize Rumsfeld.
Summary: So first we spend, then we surge, then we achieve the lasting peace in the middle east thanx largely to the efforts of one man, our greatest president, George W. Bush.
I dont know what worse, that Saddam knew that we knew that he didn’t have WMDs, or that Saddam didn’t know that we knew that he didn’t have WMDs, but went in anyway because of the al queda connection, and the fact that Iraq is the front lines in the war on terror, (and that Saddam tried to kill W’s dad and Saddam is a very very bad man).
Now, of course we have to stay in Iraq because if we cut and run, all of the terrorists in Iraq will follow us back to the USA apparently using bread crumbs (or money wrappers) as directional markers like Hanzel and Gretel.
No, we have to trust our president to know what he’s doing, and spend more for the troops, allow them to surge into the terrorists strongholds, and win the war on terror in Iraq where the front lines are.
Spend. Surge. Win.
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
February 20, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
Dennis is right, Ronald Reagan set this country on a perilous slope when during his administration we went from being the world’s largest creditor to its largest debtor.
His administration’s failure to protect our borders lead to a massive immigrant invasion - now money is siphoned off from our economy and sent to Mexico, which further fuels illegal immigration and further ruins our country’s balance sheet.
None of the intervening administrations ever addressed these problems adequately.
We need to reduce our dependence on oil, cheap Chinese imports, and illegal labor to restore fiscal sanity.
Otherwise, measures like Roger’s are just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic.
By Dennis
February 20, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
I wonder how many people, including Jim Wooten, realize that the Pentagon is the biggest industry in this country.
And then, the implications of that; we have to always be at war to stay afloat.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Linda
February 20, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
I could not support anything originating with Chip Rogers because of his racism.
By Play that funky music whiteboy
February 20, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
Good grief Jim Wooten, did you get another memo telling you to “push Chip Rogers” from Matt Towery or Skin Edge? I mean, gotta get that boy some pub over the next three years so he can run for Lt. Governor, right? The appeal of this guy, I’ve just never understood it. Oh well - everyone look for more of the same, strategically placed in this column about once a quarter. Shill.
By Amber
February 20, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
Linda,
Do you care to elaborate? Or, do you think it’s acceptable to accuse somebody of being a racist in a public forum without supporting your accusation?
By abc
February 20, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
I presume you want to label Rogers a racist because of his legislation concerning illegal immigration. That’s not racism, that’s seeking to put in place ways to enforce the law. It’s not anti-Hispanic; it’s pro-citizenry.
Now, I don’t go along with Cherokee County’s plan to be able to charge landlords with a crime if they rent to illegals. I think it’d be far better to go after those that employ illegals, instead of or in addition to going after landlords. No jobs, no illegals — that’s the only reason they’re there. So far, there’s no will to do that, and I presume the reason why is that those who have the power to do so, do themselves hire illegals, or are financed and influenced by those who do.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Chip is too dumb to realize that the rest of this state isn’t Klan country like the district he is in now. Chip is killing any chance he had of higher office in this state.
By Curious Observer
February 20, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
It is altogether typical of the right-wing knuckle-draggers to want to maintain their regressive practices indefinitely by handcuffing future legislators. That, in a nutshell, is what the Rogers proposal is. It is merely a miniature version of stacking the US Supreme Court with antediluvians like Roberts and Scalia and Thomas in an effort to frustrate future Democratic laws.
If the Republicans in the General Assembly want to cut off funding for socially progressive programs, let them show some guts and do it outright, then face the wrath of the voters. The effort to set artifically contrived spending limits and then say “We couldn’t add funds to help treat the poor children, for the spending limit kept us from doing it,” is pure political cowardice of the worst kind.
We would expect nothing different from the current crop of trough-feeders forming the majority in the state legislature.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this
And now they want to pass a measure that doubles their own terms.
By abc
February 20, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
Doug, I’ve lived there for 15 years, and it isn’t Klan country. That’s absurd. What the hell are you talking about? Idiot.
By WesleyW.
February 20, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
Just as Cherokee County has become what Forsyth once was, the state of Georgia is becomming Mississippi. It is sad and tragic.
By abc
February 20, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Texas has recently done pretty much the same thing regarding spending: their legislation proposes that the budget can’t increase more than population does on a per-capita basis, plus 10%. I don’t see anything unreasonable about that. To me, it makes perfect sense, and like I said earlier, I’m not a Republican neocon, I’m moderate in most things. Perhaps the naysayers can say something concrete in opposition to the idea?
By Dusty
February 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer,
Would you mind telling us how you expect to keep state spending under control? I mean something other than saying Republicans just want to cut liberal programs. Do you have anything in mind other than “vote for Democrats”? As abc said “something concrete”?
By GodHatesTrash
February 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
The suburbs of Atlanta - especially North Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, Cherokee and Forsyth - are chock full of Klan trash and Klan wannabes, like Southron Baptists.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Maybe I should have used different terminology abc the term for Cherokee abc. How about xenophobic and nativist. Your man Chip is nothing but a David Duke wannabe.
By @@
February 20, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
Jim, I really do like the way Rogers thinks. I’ve always wanted to have a neighbor just like him.
You have only to review minutes of local Commissioners board meetings to see what’s been happening in government all these years.
Line item transfer, after line item transfer. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
Well, it’s about time Peter and Paul stand up and prove they’re not just “two nuts”.
It’s been a shell game for too long.
By cranky old man
February 20, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
I think there is a flaw in one of the basic assumptions of conservative philosophy - the myth of the go-it-alone entrepreneur who starts with nothing and make his fortune through hard work, perseverance, and rugged individualism, overcoming all obstacles, including the greedy meddling government, which always wants to dip into his pockets and redistribute the fruits of his labor to an undeserving underclass of lazy, unmotivated, worthless slackers.
The myth comes from the “go-it-alone” part. Who builds the roads that are used to transport his goods to market? Who patrols these roads to protect his trucks from highwaymen? Who educates his workforce, ensuring they are sufficiently literate to perform their jobs? Who prints and guarantees the value of the currency upon which his fortune is based?
Just look at the economic boom of the past decade. It was based in large part on technology developed with funding from the government, originally intended for use by NASA, the Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, and other government departments. Private entrepreneurs built upon the original government research, improving the products and finding business and consumer applications that revolutionized our economy.
That’s not to say there is no need for restraint in government spending. If left unchecked, it will eventually drag down the economy, killing the goose the lays the golden eggs. But finding that balance in how to tweak tax rates, social spending, and investments in research and infrastructure should be an ongoing concern, not something that can be reduced to a formula that must be followed year after year, regardless of whether or not it still makes sense.
By abc
February 20, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
Pretty darn few of the residents of the residents of Towne Lake and Bridgemill are native to the area. I daresay that we Yankee carpetbaggers have taken over Cherokee County. Not all of us are Republican, but the massive influx of transplants from the North IS the reason that Cherokee is a Republican bastion.
Xenophobia and nativism hardly describes a majority that aren’t themselves from Cherokee County. I presume you don’t live there, and don’t know very much about it.
By Pesos Amigo
February 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
The hoards of Hispanics in atlanta metro were not in the brochure when I moved here in 1978. If it’s true that they provide cheap labor so that the $750K house down my street doesn’t cost more, then they can go back to mexico. I couldn’t afford a home in that range with or without cheap labor.
There’s something happening under our noses, or it’s already taken place, so there’s no remedy: we are a dual nation living side by side with non americans from a totally different culture and who seek our space and resources and feel they have some sort of squatter’s rights or emininent domain over those resources, because maybe their child was just born here, and maybe they’ve gotten a lot of work in construction or landscaping or whatever. It’s real. It’s happened. They aren’t going anywhere, they’re going to stay and work and live here so that they dont have to work and live over there in Mexico. Is Mexico that bad? Is Atlanta that good?
Try getting a job today and see what an advantage speaking hispanic is. At Home Depot the other day, the cashier was hispanic and the guy in front of me was an obviously illegal alien buying lumber and talking in hispanic to the cashier and they were having a grand old time.
Am I supposed to move to Mexico? I will, but why? How many new american citizens from mexico are being created every year by virtue of their birthplace across the border? Is there any census about the numbers. How many came out waving mexican flags last year during the “we are here, respect us” protest day? Who wrote that birthright law, and how old is it?
Is there any reliable data available about illegal immigrants in Atlanta and is there anybody in charge, or is this just another pell mell growth of a nonplanned life surprise situation that’s already totally out of control and turning into something unmanageable?
How many? How long can we put the dialogue with hispanics on hold? They want respect and they want to be americans.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
All I know is that Chip Rogers keeps getting elected there. And he might as well show up for work in a robe and hood.
By Dusty
February 20, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Pesos Amigos,
Careful there. Many Hispanics are LEGAL citizens. Most are bi-lingual. I don’t approve of anyone breaking the law (except when I go 75 mph down the expressway). I do understand your frustration at illegals. But aim your dislike at those breaking the law, not our hard working, family oriented, joyful American citizens of Pan-American origins.
By D.A. King
February 20, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Me and Chip gonna run all of em back to Mexico! If it ain’t white it ain’t right!
By C. Charles
February 20, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
I seriously doubt that Dusty and abc actually care about government spending as they claim. I suspect they voted for Republicans for Congress in recent years despite the enormous growth in non-defense, discretionary spending under Republican leadership — leading to deficit upon deficit and a more than doubling of the national debt.
No, despite their cries to the contrary, the Dusty’s and abc’s don’t really care about government spending, state or federal, one way or the other. If they did, Republicans from Georgia wouldn’t hold most of Georgia’s seats in the U.S. House, and two Republicans wouldn’t be representing Georgia in the U.S. Senate.
It’s their wallets they care about. They only argue for spending restraints because they believe such restraints would lead to more money for them (they’re wrong). However, if the Dusty’s and abc’s can get tax cuts without the spending cuts or restraints, as Congressional Republicans have provided, then so be it – even if it means passing on the cost to the next generation.
By abc
February 20, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
Doug, can you substantiate your aspersions? I keep up with Rogers fairly closely, and I don’t agree that he has displayed any semblence of racism, xenophobia, or nativism. He’s a neocon, for sure, but speaking as a moderate non-Republican, I don’t see that he’s done anything so far that doesn’t merit bi-partisan support.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I’d certainly be open-minded about it.
By abc
February 20, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
No, C.Charles, I’m not Republican and I didn’t vote for ANY Republicans for Congress in the last election. I rarely vote straight-ticket. I vote for the people with the least BS.
However, I do agree that to me, limits on the Georgia state budget should have the net effect of limiting tax increases, and so would leave more money in all citizen’s wallet, including me. That would be the desired result.
By Killin' Time
February 20, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
I’m with C. Charles. Every time I hear a Georgia Republican voter talking about spending restraints, my eyes roll (involuntarily). In election after election, they vote for those borrow and spenders in Congress, but still have the nerve to say that they care about government restraint. I call bullshiit on that. It’s the tax cuts they’re after. To hell with roads and education and clean air and budget surpluses and future generations and other such frivolous things.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
So what do you call the all out attack on immigrants from Mr. Rogers? Are you really naive enough to think that he is not pandering to that element here in Georgia that would love to return to the days of Jim Crow? And now he has a non-white target to rouse the rabble once again. Came you honestly say that Chip Rogers is not playing the race card for political gain?
By Herb A.
February 20, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
abc at 10:35,
You wrote, “Perhaps the naysayers can say something concrete in opposition to the idea?”
Have you seen CJ’s post at 8:09? How about cranky old man’s post at 10:58?
If you don’t agree with these and other arguments, then you’re free to address them…but its a bit dishonest to deny they exist.
By MC
February 20, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
By Pesos Amigo
February 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Try getting a job today and see what an advantage speaking hispanic is. At Home Depot the other day, the cashier was hispanic and the guy in front of me was an obviously illegal alien buying lumber and talking in hispanic to the cashier and they were having a grand old time.
So whose fault is that “Pesos”? Some of us years ago had the forsight to realize that a foreign language would be one of the keys to getting ahead in a changing world. Thank God I learned Spanish! It has payed huge dividends. To those of you that continue to resist the inevitable and try so desperately to hang on to the past, I say, hasta la vista, bebe’! Enjoy eating dust.
By C. Charles
February 20, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
abc wrote “I do agree that to me, limits on the Georgia state budget should have the net effect of limiting tax increases, and so would leave more money in all citizen’s wallet, including me.”
Yes, abc — you’re a Republican. This simple minded generalization proves it.
By Dennis
February 20, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
By Killin’ Time February 20, 2007 11:28 AM. said, “I’m with C. Charles. Every time I hear a Georgia Republican voter talking about spending restraints, my eyes roll…It’s the tax cuts they’re after. To hell with roads and education and clean air and budget surpluses and future generations and other such frivolous things.”
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dusty
February 20, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
C. Charles,
Don’t speak for me. I have five children and I don’t want them saddled with a big national debt. I also want them to have freedom and that is what I see in danger in the future.
I voted for George Bush because I saw him as a strong man and he is. He is able to see the lengths and breadth of terrorism and fights it now, not waiting for their growth while we linger. Democrats have not offered strong candidates in any election.
Tax cuts have improved the economy. I enjoy spending my own money. I like for government officials to spend as little as possible but keep us safe and sound.
I know it is simplistic to say that we are fighting for freedom and wanting economy in government at the same time. But those are the aims in my thinking and I believe it is true for most Americans. Therefore we consider broad terms as how to do that. I support the war and I support economic thinking in government.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
Dear Dusty @ 9:30, you have true wit, I salute you. Lest the attempted-humor in my 9:07 post escape any, I am the only person I know, my age or younger, who has never used marijuana. I have not had an alcoholic drink since 1987 (and my lifetime consumption of alcohol is probably less than that consumed by my friend Redneck last Saturday night.) Maybe I’ll give up sobriety for Lent.
Dear Curious @ 10:21, you err in part, we do not wish to handcuff future legislators, we wish to hog-tie them. My compassionate soul says that is marginally better than slaughtering the self-righteous thieves of Leviathan.
Dear Doug @ 10:52, your reference to David Duke may be out of date – Duke is now with the anti-Semitic leftists. “Professors Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, whose paper on “The Israel Lobby” is now being turned into a book, have complained that “anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy … stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-semite.” Maybe. But earlier this week, former Klansman David Duke took the opportunity to tell CNN that he does not hate Jews but merely opposes Israel and Israel’s influence in U.S. politics. He even cited Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer in his defense. Would they exonerate him of being an anti-Semite?” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009395
Dear Pesos @ 11:01, I favor dialogue and debate, but I often believe we are losing. Half of my pro-freedom Republicans reject our industrious brothers from south of the border due to the hard-working nature of our Hispanic friends, and our leftist friends oppose them for their religious nature. Not like to be a dialogue in the foreseeable future – too much political hay from magnifying the bogeyman.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
“I enjoy spending my own money. I like for government officials to spend as little as possible but keep us safe and sound.”
No you enjoy spending your CHILDRENS’ money and your grandchildrens. Anyone who supports Iraq and is not clamoring for war taxes are robbing money right out of their childrens’ hands. And I see you are one of the myriads that is beaten into a false frenzy by the propaganda of fear into handing away everything to keep yourself “safe”. (While simultaneously justifying the deaths of other young men and women as a sacrifice to greater ideals).
By jm
February 20, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Sounds like a typical cop out amendment. Rather than have to make any hard decisions, the state reps are passing the buck to the governor.
By C. Charles
February 20, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
I have to speak for you, because you don’t speak honestly for yourself.
Do you consider the $10 billion of taxpayer money lost in Iraq to be “economy in government”? You couldn’t care less about “economic thinking in government”, and you didn’t vote Bush because he’s a “strong man” and is making us safer. Of course, we’re less safe because of him. Nor do you care if your kids are saddled with a big national debt — otherwise you wouldn’t have saddled them with a big national debt.
No Dusty, you voted for Bush and Isakson and Chambliss for one reason and one reason only — tax cuts.
By Amy
February 20, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
abc, Doug has a point. I would wager that if all of these Mexicans were lily white and never spoke a non-English word, that immigration of any type would be a non-issue. They and the dollars they spend and generate would be aOK. Chip Rogers is doing nothing but trying to raise the issue of race in hopes of higher political office. He learned that by watching our Governor, Sonny Perdue, ride the rebel flag right into the Governors Mansion. And yes, Georgia is beginning to look a lot like 60s vintage Mississippi.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
John McCain has done it again. Now, about the time we forget his successful assault on the Constitution (McCain-Feingold), he cagily starts to present himself as one who will win in Iraq, a posture certain to resonate with Republicans (although that attitude is detested by those friends on the left who do not care whether we win in Iraq.) Then today, as he reels in the endorsement of well-respected Phil Gramm in the WSJ, he shoots himself in the foot by attacking Rumsfield; that silly attack won’t get him a single vote in the Republican primary. jbmlaw forecast now: Giuliani in a cakewalk, Mr. Newt a distant second. McCain will finish fourth, perceived as unstable.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
“Sounds like a typical cop out amendment. Rather than have to make any hard decisions, the state reps are passing the buck to the governor.”
Exactly JM. They are trying to convince voters to adopt a blanket strategy that they should be providing as capable representatives so that the hard individual decisions can be “out of their hands”. You want fiscal responsibilty? Elect the right people. Call and write your representative. Hold demonstrations. But Americans just want another quick fix that creates more problems than it solves when you look beyond the superficial elements.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
But as you remember jbmlaw, David Duke tried to gain legitimacy by proclainming himself a mainstream republican. There seems to be alot of those “David Dukes” out there today playing out that same charade. And Chip Rogers shows all the signs of being one of that ilk. And throwing down the welcome mat for the element that only gets fired up from an issue tied to race is very good for the republican party. Or was. The 06 elections may illustrate that alot of true mainstream Americans have finally caught on to guys like Chip Rogers. Georgia has just been too backward to get it just yet.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Dear Joe L @ 11:54, you set up a false alternative, “Anyone who supports Iraq and is not clamoring for war taxes are robbing money right out of their childrens’ hands.” Dusty and I, and others of our ilk, are clamoring for reductions of non-war-related spending to compensate for the war-spending. Higher taxes would be nothing more than a formula for recession, and only you leftists favor that.
By Van
February 20, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
Joe L,
You make it sound like the wages I earn belong to the government. Wrong! That is my money, earned with my labor. I exchanged my talents for that money and the less the government takes of it, the better for everyone. Just how did you think the Federal Government got along for over 100 years with out an income tax? Before 1913, it was not permitted for the feds (with a few exceptions) to tax individuals, only the states could.
But, they(congress) saw this as a great source of power and extended their powers to reach into your wallet.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
“I would wager that if all of these Mexicans were lily white and never spoke a non-English word, that immigration of any type would be a non-issue”
I don’t know how true this is. Nativism and xenophobia are about anything different or strange. Sure race and language are easy to pick up instantly but look at the talk of yankees and carpetbaggers you have heard for the past 100 years. It was the Irish 150 years ago and they spoke the same language with the same skin tone. I mean does anyone know who/why the KKK got started? (hint: it had nothing to do with anyone’s skin color).
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw - No war can be prosecuted without a massive increase in revenues (or outrageous deficit spending). Period. No matter how bloated or trim the government budget wars are massive expenses. NO reductions can compensate for what we spend in war.
Again YOU are setting up the false choice that we have to choose war or other spending. Bull. If you choose war you have to choose increasing taxes or you are disingenuous.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
“Giuliani in a cakewalk, Mr. Newt a distant second. McCain will finish fourth, perceived as unstable.”
Guiliani will not fly once anyone takes a real look at him. He was regarded quite poorly for the last few years of his tenure in NYC until 9/11 redeemed him somewhat. His divorces, indiscretions, and “liberal” leanings will completely distance people that only know him as the 9/11 guy once he has to put his record out there.
Newt has a chance of the nomination and a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected - so I hope he wins! But it will be someone that’s a bit of an unknown right with Romney being the only one of the scene today with a shot.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
Van: “You make it sound like the wages I earn belong to the government”
No you have to pay for the services your government does for you everyday. Most people blithely ignore all the things they get from our government and b!tch and moan about taxes. Your roads, hospitals, public safety, food safety, drugs, technology, etc. are all due to government services and you want to be a leech and not pay for them. Yes LEECH. That’s the problem with all the “lower my taxes” selfish right wingers.
To steal one of the favorite axioms of the right - you don’t like it Delta has flights out of the country every hour.
The Fed Govt got by because the world was a less complex place and we needed fewer, less expensive services that only a government can and should provide. Also people had enough pride and respectability to DONATE money to the government to provide for their own good and society’s. All the selfish, me-me-me Republicans would never do this today.
By Amy
February 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
Joe L, one thing that I can tell you for sure, because I saw it with my own eyes, was the Grand Wizard of the KKK telling Paula Zahn that thanks to the anti-immigration crowd with the Mexicans as the primary target, that membership it what was a pretty much dead KKK has skyrocketed. This piece of trash looked the camera right in the eye and thanked Mexicans for the rebirth of the KKK and acknowledged that they are now the primary target of the “white supremacist” movement. And these people are exactly the ones politicians like Chip Rogers are grandstanding for.
By Devastator
February 20, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
This idiotic war seems to have had a positive affect on the economy, or at least the stock market. Natural gas stocks and others who are affected are booming.
This is at what cost though? Countless killings and a less safe Middle east. The democrats are going to have to fix this mess when they take over the White House, and when they do the increased deficit resulting from the war will offset any perceived economic gains.
By Dennis
February 20, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
By Joe L February 20, 2007 11:54 AM said, “…I see you are one of the myriads that is beaten into a false frenzy by the propaganda of fear into handing away everything to keep yourself “safe”.”
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the Americn people believe is false”, said William Casey, Director, CIA (from a staff meeting, 1981).
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
Amy - First, the KKK has a long, long history of lying and overinflating their membership and influence. So take that with a grain of salt. Second, so what? It’s not as if these people weren’t already dyed in the wool racists, they just got motivated and/or felt “justified” and “supported” in their beliefs. Which actually is the fault of all the nativists out there (many of whom are ignorant more than racist) feeding into the more volatile racists views.
Our country has gone through this cycle many, many times and you would think people would learn, but people are so ignorant of history or deluded and egocentric in believing their times are “unique” that we are repeating the same pattern.
By Constantine
February 20, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
Van,
You’re an arrogant, misinformed little man. Do you really want American to go back to the days of 1913? Extreme poverty, unsanitary food and water, child labor, a world of haves and have nots? I’m sure you think that you’d thrive in such an evironment, but you didn’t get where you are without help — lots of it. Read cranky old man’s post at 10:58 and think.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
“Natural gas stocks and others who are affected are booming.”
What you mean is that due to the “unrest fees” that energy suppliers are adding, bills and revenues are soaring thus raising their stock price? Shock. Doesn’t mean the economy is any better and when it comes at the cost of huge deficit who cares.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Dear Joe L @ 12:22, the difference between you and me is that you reject all non-defense spending cuts under any circumstances, and I welcome all non-defense spending cuts under any circumstances. You welcome all recession-inducing tax increases under any circumstances, and I reject all tax increases under any circumstances. You are an apologist for the money-eating monster in DC, and I would extinguish it. Talk about disingenuity!
Your 12:26 post is partially true, “He was regarded quite poorly for the last few years of his tenure in NYC until 9/11 redeemed him somewhat.” I guess, “somewhat” – sorta like saying Reagan had a little to do with the collapse of international communism. You are factually correct, in that Giuliani was Reaganesque during his first term, and was more like GHW Bush in his second term. The national image of the “tough mayor, tough on international terrorists,” will ring strongly with rank-and-file republicans, and his free-spending will not be perceived as measurably different from his opponents in the primaries. His history will not alienate moderates in the general election, and he will look much stronger on defense than any potential democrat candidate. Barring a bizarre misstep, I think even three divorces will not keep him out of the white house.
By Amy
February 20, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:26 PM
Newt has a chance of the nomination and a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected - so I hope he wins! But it will be someone that’s a bit of an unknown right with Romney being the only one of the scene today with a shot.
JoeL, the religious right (evangelicals) are already ripping Romney apart over…you guessed it! His religion. And JoeL. I will wager you that mainstream Americans and moderate republicans will buy everthing that Rudy is selling. The 06 elections were inlightening in that in showed a mass exodus from the radical politics of the republican right wing. The mods control the party today. And they also have the inclination to take their voted elsewhere if another darling of the right wing were to somehow get the nomination.
By jm
February 20, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
van@12:15 - the first federal income tax was enacted in 1862 to help pay for the civil war. It did not become permanent until the 16th amendment in 1913. That is also the history of the estate (or if you prefer death) tax, being used to pay for the Spanish American War (it had also been used for the revolutionary and civil wars).
Back then we had leaders who realized that wars, in order to be fought must also be paid for. Unlike the ones today who are putting it on the credit card for future generations to pay for.
By Jeff
February 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
JoeL @ 12:30:
Tell me, sir, WHO gives more money to charity? Liberals or Conservatives?
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Joe L and Amy,
My brethren don’t have to inflate their numbers. They don’t preach hate or racism. Whats wrong with teaching pride in your country and defending her from those who just want to leach and pillage?
Have you looked at crime statistics lately? You are defending the wrong folks.
By harold
February 20, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A STATE GOVERNMENT?
IS ALABAMA GOING TO INVADE?
EVEN IF ALABAMA DID INVADE, WOULD THE GOVERNMENT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
MEXICO HAS BEEN INVADING FOR YEARS AND THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT
ALL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED TODAY
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
“You welcome all recession-inducing tax increases under any circumstances”
When you stick completely unfounded beliefs such as this into your statements you show that you view things how you want them to be, not based on reality.
You would extinguish food safety, roads, hospitals, the internet, etc? Sounds like a plan to me! If you and the rest of the leeches on the right want to go back to the Dark Ages move to a third world country.
You are right about one thing - Reagan had very little to do with the collapse of communism. One of the greatest post hoc fallacies of all time. But given your economics post hoc fallacy above it’s not surprising.
The problem is the “tough mayor” is just that - an image. The American public is dumb, but not that dumb. I’m not necessarily bashing Guiliani just saying that his national perception is quite a departure from the truth if you actually followed his career before 9/11. Guiliani won’t even get a sniff at the nomination.
By Amy
February 20, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
So I guess that means it is alright for politicians like Chip Rogers, or a political party to actively court this type person? Is that what you are saying JoeL?
By Tara
February 20, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
“You welcome all recession-inducing tax increases under any circumstances…”
Same lie, different day. A recession is what right-wingers predicted when Clinton and Democrats raised taxes in ‘94. They were wrong. Those tax increases led to the longest peace time expansion since WWII and budget surpluses (squandered by Bush tax cuts).
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
“I will wager you that mainstream Americans and moderate republicans will buy everthing that Rudy is selling.”
I don’t think so. First of all you got the main part right, Rudy is selling but you are buying sizzle and not much steak. He was not a very good executive and moderates are going to be less swayed by ideology and see that truth once they get past the 9/11 stars in their eyes. Meanwhile the smaller but more motivated bases won’t like his social issues and personal life. He is a hugely flawed candidate that only has any cache at all because of 9/11.
Romney however has a much better chance of appealing to rational moderates and your arguments about the extremes having less sway would also apply to him and offset your opening statements. I didn’t say I thought it would be him, just that he has the best odds of the current candidates. The winner on both sides will be someone not out there today.
By Devastator
February 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Jeff,
Tell me ,sir, whose responsible for the need for more charities? Liberals or Can’tservatives?
By getalife
February 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
“Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon’s delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the as-s!”
So, the cheerleader is gay.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
“Tell me, sir, WHO gives more money to charity? Liberals or Conservatives?”
The question is flawed because all donations to churches are considered “charity”. But a large portion of that money does not go to actual charitable causes. But it doesn’t matter because you want to find evidence to validate the beliefs you cling to, not work from the facts back to the truth.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
Dear Connie @ 12:41, you are a pedantic self-righteous biddy. I will choose 1913 – that was before the Fed was created, so that would be an excellent choice. You leftists sell mindles fear (think global warming) and you magnify the federal government as the god that prevents all evil – what a crock! I am with Van, given a choice of businesses without government, or government without businesses, I would not hesitate to prefer the former.
By Jason
February 20, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this
Could you give me a break down of giving by income level. The majority of people making greater than 100,000 per year are conservative. Do you think they would donate so much if it wasn’t tax deductible? Also, conservatives statistically attend church and tithe in greater numbers than liberals. That being said I grew up in the church and I know where most of the money goes. Churches are to be commended on their charity work, but the VAST majority of money donated to churches goes to fellowship halls, gyms, facility up keep, salaries, parking lots etc. Giving money to a church doesn’t really count as humanitarian giving. I am not saying liberals are more geneorous, but you have to take into account church donations, income level, tax deductions(I think that drives people to donate more so than anything!), and many other variables before you crown conservatives the kings of compassion. BTW most foster families are liberal leaning as well as most teachers, social workers and non-profit employees.
By GodHatesTrash
February 20, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this
Here’s something we can all agree on - stumpbroke illiterate inbred white trash is running the state gummint in Georgia.
Now let the debate begin.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this
“So I guess that means it is alright for politicians like Chip Rogers, or a political party to actively court this type person? Is that what you are saying JoeL?”
Alright in what sense? We live in America and if the KKK formed a political party based on racism that’s their right. Do I find those policies despicable personally? Yes. But I believe in the marketplace of free ideas.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this
“You leftists sell mindles fear”
Wow, talk about delusionsal. The Republican party functions solely on fear. Fear of black people, terrorists, poor people, communists, etc., etc., etc.
What an inane argument. It doesn’t matter because BOTH would be HUGELY FLAWED! But of course you have to reduce it to flawed and idiotic black and white arguments. The real world is a chess match and you are playing checkers.
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this
getalife,
See my comment to you at Luckovich you mongrel!
By Jeff
February 20, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this
Devastator:
I hold that before the welfare state, charity wasn’t needed as often. Prove me wrong.
By Jim Wooten
February 20, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this
Afternoon all. I was just over at the State Senate and it adjourned without taking up reconsideration of Sen. Rogers’ proposed amendment today. Rogers indicates that some Democrats have asked to discuss the amendment, which could be a good sign. So reconsideration is postponed, but this is not the end of the line.
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this
Joe L,
I don’t understand why you find KKK policies despicable. If it weren’t for these type of concerned citizens there would be no marketplace of free ideas.
Don’t let these pansies bully you.
By Darla K.
February 20, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this
Jeff,
I hold that before the welfare state, charity was needed more often. Prove me wrong.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this
Dear Joe L @ 12:53, now you have me curious – name for me a single tax increase you thought unwise.
By Amy
February 20, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 12:48 PM
My brethren don’t have to inflate their numbers. They don’t preach hate or racism. Whats wrong with teaching pride in your country and defending her from those who just want to leach and pillage?
Aren’t you the guy that claimed to be blogging from prison the other day? If so, obviously the system is working. Protecting us from the likes of you.
By abc
February 20, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this
Herb A., I think that CJ’s first paragraph, regarding how the bill would make it more difficult to vote new programs into existence, represents a good thing, except for the Governor’s ability to veto before voting. Given my personal negative views of the current Governor, more power for that office is a mistake. However, hopefully sooner than later, someone else will be in that office.
I agree with most of what cranky old man said. I don’t think putting limits on spending will be necessarily harmful to those things.
CCharles, since when did you think that Democrats and Libertarians aren’t politically moderate, or even conservative-leaning? Overall, I think the entire country is mostly moderate in their political views, and those on the extreme left or extreme right are going to have less success in years ahead. Your partisanship is showing.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this
Dear Jason @ 1:00 and JoeL @ 12:59, by your logic the leftists lie when they talk about any Federal spending because 90% of that Federal money actually goes to salaries of bureaucrats, pencil pushers who contribute nothing to the world. I suppose we should quit referring to NPR as a “charitable” foundation, as all of that money goes to promote leftism? I think we all have to agree that any eleemosynary expenditure is charitable, which would include all church spending as well as those preferred leftist charities like PETA or Greenpeace.
By Devastator
February 20, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this
Jeff,
Before the welfare state the need for charity was simply ignored.
I hold that the most recent charities, such as “Fallen Heroes Funds, wouldn’t be needed at all if it weren’t for greedy cant’servatives. Every wounded or dead soldier that we currently have is a a direct result of this idiotic Iraq war.
By Jeff
February 20, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this
Darla:
Easy. Look at the number of people pre-welfare state that sat at home and did nothing all day, then demanded a paycheck (and got one). Answer: There were none. EVERYONE worked. The only exceptions were those truly not capable, such as those who had last both hands, physically could not walk, etc.
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this
Amy,
I’m not in prison baby. I’m free and able. Doom bets that you have some double d’s that he needs to inspect.
By abc
February 20, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this
Doug, I think you’re vastly overstating something that is obviously not the case regarding any perception of anti-Hispanic sentiment. Personally, I don’t think enough action’s been taken on illegal immigration yet; I’m offended when the President says there are some jobs that Americans won’t do; I’d rather see higher prices and Americans working than allow illegal immigration to persist and proliferate. It has nothing to do with their ethnicity.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this
It’s not about tax increases it’s about how the government spends it’s revenue. For instance, Iraq has been the biggest FISCAL disaster in U.S. history. Reagan’s arms race and in particular the continued boondoggle of missile defense which is nothing more than country club welfare for extremely affluent defense contractors - is a close second.
Oh and how about the AMT? Completely misused and mismanaged tax increase on the middle class at this point. Of course Dubya is using the flawed and soon to be scrapped system in his similarly flawed budget projections (and don’t get me wrong all politicians use phony accounting).
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this
Minor correction to my last post - 90% of “nonmilitary” spending goes to salaries… We do get some bang for our buck in military expenditures.
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this
Dear JoeL, now don’t waffle on me. You accused me of not knowing my opponent when I accused you of favoring all economy crippling tax increases. So I asked you to name one you thought was bad. Now you say it is not about taxes. Now did you lie in your first post in this thread, or are you going to answer the question?
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this
Dear JoeL, AMT was passed in 1969 - you thought it was a bad idea?
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this
“90% of that Federal money actually goes to salaries of bureaucrats, pencil pushers who contribute nothing to the world”
Ah I love unfounded and complete arse pull “statistics”. First, you know you completely made up this figure. Second, any company has “operating expenses” and I have just recently shown that in many cases the government functions with lower operating expenses than private industry. And I would rather have 100 federal employees receiving a decent wage to provide a public service than 10 country club members living in mansions getting that same money. In the end you will spend the same, it’s just a matter of whose and how many pockets it goes into.
” I suppose we should quit referring to NPR as a “charitable” foundation, as all of that money goes to promote leftism?”
I know that it’s hard for people on the right to separate “educational” from “lefist” since education leads you to the eventually truths and complexities of the world that liberals understand.
BTW I would not consider PETA or Greenpeace as charities either. They are non-profit organizations which is NOT the same as a charity..
By Amy
February 20, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this
Amy doesn’t do racist trash Doom.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this
“I’d rather see higher prices and Americans working than allow illegal immigration to persist and proliferate.”
At least this is an honest statement and not the hypocrisy of most of the anti-immigration folks that still love their cheap goods and services and will not crackdown on businesses and fund the necessary documentation verification to end “illegal” immigration. On the other hand legal immigration needs to be greatly opened and simplified to allow the necessary workforce into America.
By Amy
February 20, 2007 01:32 PM | Link to this
By abc
February 20, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this
Doug, I think you’re vastly overstating something that is obviously not the case regarding any perception of anti-Hispanic sentiment. Personally, I don’t think enough action’s been taken on illegal immigration yet; I’m offended when the President says there are some jobs that Americans won’t do; I’d rather see higher prices and Americans working than allow illegal immigration to persist and proliferate. It has nothing to do with their ethnicity.
They all say that abc. And it is nothing but BS!
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this
Amy,
I can be tolerant too. I tolerate all the blacks and gays taking over this country.
What’s wrong with a little racial spunk in your life?
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this
” We do get some bang for our buck in military expenditures.”
Other than the literal meaning of this phrase you are WAYYYY off base. Military spending is probably the most flawed in the U.S. government. With proper controls and oversight and realitic goals our non-military spending (for instance universal health care) could greatly expand at no increased cost to the taxpayers.
Watch “Why We Fight” and get back to me on that. When a former General and President warns you of the MIC you should listen hard. But you are too busy watching the one hand while the magician robs you blind.
The AMT has not been changed for the times and thus is now an unncessary tax increase on the middle class. When it was passed is a moot point.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this
Yeah buddy! Ole abc is on to something. I can just see that line down at the farmers market now. Thousands of amurcans just dying to get that job gutting fish.
By Joe L
February 20, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this
“You accused me of not knowing my opponent when I accused you of favoring all economy crippling tax increases”
No I’m accusing you of ideological delusions and you continue to prove me correct.
By Curious Observer
February 20, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw asks for identification of a single tax increase that was unwise.
Well, elimination of the consumer interest expense deduction is one. It is rather telling that small businesses were able to continue to deduct this expense, but Congress socked it to the average Joe. The result was a severe reduction in consumption.
The elimination of the sales tax deduction is another. And don’t give me that rot about consumers’ having a choice of deducting sales taxes or state income taxes. Before this tax increase, consumers could fully deduct both.
The imposition of a floor on deduction of medical expenses is yet another unwise tax increase. A 7.5% floor before a taxpayer can deduct one penny of medical expenses is a steep increase.
Ditto for the 2 percent floor on Schedule A miscellaneous deductions.
Notice anything in common about these increases? They all sock it to the consumer, the little guy who can’t afford the expensive write-offs that the wealthy have. And they all were the products of the evil Herman Talmadge Old South Democrats and the Republicans in Congress at the time.
You asked for it, and you got it, jbmlaw.
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately the Mexicans have to be allowed in because Bush is right. There are jobs that americans won’t do. I won’t call any names for fear of offending people, but a certain group of americans are spending to much time doing drive by shootings and trying to be rap stars and because of that the lower paying jobs have to be filled.
By abc
February 20, 2007 01:57 PM | Link to this
Doug and Doom, I would speculate that if you or I was jobless and needed to make some money to feed our families, we’d show up for whatever job was available. I don’t think Americans lack work ethic. Sure, there are abuses of welfare; there are criminals. That’s not to say there are jobs that Americans won’t do. When Bush said that, the first thing that crossed my mind was that it spoke to teens that they could assert that they don’t have to do yardwork: “Just go hire some Hispanics down on the lot, Dad”. The notion that there are jobs that Americans won’t do isn’t just Un-American, it’s Anti-American.
By Doug
February 20, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this
abc, you truly can’t see the forest for the trees can you? Because abc…there are jobs that Americans won’t do. And now we have a generation that thinks if they can’t work pecking keys on a computer that someone else can do it anyway. Wake up abc. We need these people.
By Dr.Doom
February 20, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this
abc,
Face it: Ni$$ers are lazy and Jews own every thing! That leaves a vacuum in the lower class pool of labor. Somebody has to do it.
By Redneck Convert
February 20, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this
Well, I’m just flattened to learn the senate left without passing the Rogers spending cap. I’m awful glad, though, that Wooten has time to run down there and watch. Maybe after he gets layed off at the AJC he can be one of the old men that spends their time watching court trials and state house meetings when the bingo games ain’t going on.
I’m desgusted to see that Sister Dusty had to go lay in to me about my morning post. I might have knowed. She thinks exackly the way I do, only she won’t admit it in public. Wrinkled old clinch-face. And jbmlaw is just as bad. If he got a needle full of 3 gallons of humor he would still be sour as a persimmon in pickle brine.
By Just Askin'
February 20, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
Hey,
Can we get back to today’s topic?
By jbmlaw
February 20, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this
Dear Curious @ 1:41, with all due respect you err – the elimination of the “personal interest” and miscellaneous Schedule A deduction in 1986 was what the democrats required for the republican across-the-boards reduction in all personal tax rates. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/777.html What you oppose, seemingly, is a reduction in tax rates if there is any elimination of deductions used by a narrow class of tax payers, i.e., not a tax increase but a tax cut. “TRA-86 significantly lowered individual and corporate income tax rates while simultaneously broadening the tax base by eliminating or restricting a host of individual and corporate tax preferences (exemptions, deductions, and credits). The impact of the base broadening, however, was not uniform in the individual and corporate income tax systems. In fact, even though corporate income tax rates were reduced significantly, changes made to the corporate tax system increased revenues while the changes to the individual tax system decreased revenues. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, thus, largely used corporate base broadening to offset individual tax reductions (see Table 1).”
Dear Redneck @ 2:07, funny line, my compliments.
By Time for the truth
February 20, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this
The warmer weather has me thinking about gathering up my sweetheart, J. Edgar Hoover’s remains, and talking a little stroll around the park.
Oh, and bollocks to you all.
By Stop Signs
February 20, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this
Spend, Surge, and Win, Mr. Bush.
There’s one thing I expect from our great president, and that’s for him to start rallying the troops big time during this surge. I want to hear Bush talking this offensive campaign up. I want to hear his orders, his cheers, and his patriotic raison D’etre. I need reassurance and so do our troops. Support the troops. Talk them through this. Spend more. Surge more. Win more.
We can do this. We can win. Bush needs to keep talking to the american people and the troops.
Spend. Surge. Win.
By Markus
February 20, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this
Has anyone else noticed that our dimentia-prone candyassed liberals on this blog always say Conservatives are “scared” of terrorism?
Let’s put this into perspective. These are the same assbandits on the left that are screaming bloody murder and some even demanding people be thrown in JAIL if one doesn’t believe MANKIND is mostly responsible for the whopping .5F degree mean increase in earth temperature over the past 100 years. Don’t tell these idiots about cow farts.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm101581.html?navsrc=newsIndexHeadline
Anyway, let’s take a looksie at which event is more dangerous to one’s immediate life:
a) An increase of .5F degree increase over 100 years.
b) An islamogoon terrorist who takes over a 767 and flies it into a building at 600+ mph.
I sure as hell am glad these jackass limpwristed liberal demoncats have their effin’ priorities straight. Sick, twisted, diseased liberals.
By JohnD
February 20, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this
The standard argument of Joe L and the rest of his liberal ilk is that the US “needs the illegal workforce”. What a bunch of hooey!
If we do not reduce total immigration, both legal and illegal, back to the 1970’s levels of approximatley 200,000 per year we will lose our culture and way of life. What you see in Mexico will be the US in 40-50 years. That is if the Muslim plan to overrun us with their people does not succeed first.
We have been below replacement birth rate for years, just as France, Spain, The Netherlands and most of the rest of Europe. We are not as far below as those countries but in a relatively short period of time France and the Netherlands will be Muslim countries under Sharia Law.
Joe L that is the future of your stunted, open the doors to everybody philosophy of immigration. The fact is we need to close the borders.
There are over 4 Billion people in the world who live below the level of the poorest people in this country. If we allow 10 million a year into the US the number of those outside will increase at a geometric rate we can never absorb. You could make the number 50-100 million immigrants and the numbers in the world would still grow at a faster rate than we take.
We are incapable of saving the entire world from poverty. We do not have the resources. China is absorbing more and more natural resources every year as they attempt to become the biggest manufacturing economy in the world. Why? Because the Chinese have moved over 200 million people from farms into the cities in the last ten years and plan to move another 300 million in the next 10-15 years. They need jobs to support those moved and the US is the primary customer for their goods.
There are perhaps jobs you liberals will not perform but I, and everyone I consider a friend, will take any job necessary to support our families. The John Kerrys of this world would not stoop to some menial job, oops I am sorry he is your leader. Ok, Ted Kennedy, oops another one. Nancy Pel, no not her. Hillary, yikes she is far toooo good for anything menial. How about you Joe L - willing to mow some grass for food? Probably not.
The two political parties favor a one world economy and whether far left or far right, your wants and needs are of no concern to the Reps or Dems. Face it, if you are looking to those losers in Congress to take care of you - you are lost.
By Stop Signs
February 20, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this
Notice how overused the phrase, “..at the end of the day”, is? Ever since one of Trump’s apprentices used it early this season, I’ve heard nothing but that. It usually follows the phrase, “you know what?”
But at the end of the day, you know what, at the end of the day it’s all… I’ll tell you what, when you look at everything, at the end of the day, you gotta go with your gut instinct, all things considered, know what I mean?