Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Columbus Native]

average joe wrote:

<quoted text>two more words=INDEPENDANT'S SUCK!!!!

Independents+ Elections =No Republicans

[Calling Your Bluff]

The whole point of the fiscal cliff is when the fiscal cliff is cleared and we jump over it, we are getting rid of all the accounting gimmicks, the temporary stings of things that allow Congress to pretend it's being fiscally responsible when it's not.

A lot of taxes will go up but taxes will go up on everybody, not injure the guy around the tree that's paying for everything but everyone will have to pay. And then folks will realize the government we are voting for costs us money too.

Trillion dollars deficits every year as far as the eye can see, that's a tax on our kids, our grandchildren, on people who have saved their whole lives and done the responsible things.

The liberals feel like they can have all this spending but not pay for it themselves. So I think going over the fiscal cliff, at least, we are all sharing in the responsibility of paying for the big government we seem to want.

[swxxxt]

youtube.com/watch...
I dunno

[its as plain]

Calling Your Bluff wrote:

The whole point of the fiscal cliff is when the fiscal cliff is cleared and we jump over it, we are getting rid of all the accounting gimmicks, the temporary stings of things that allow Congress to pretend it's being fiscally responsible when it's not.
A lot of taxes will go up but taxes will go up on everybody, not injure the guy around the tree that's paying for everything but everyone will have to pay. And then folks will realize the government we are voting for costs us money too.
Trillion dollars deficits every year as far as the eye can see, that's a tax on our kids, our grandchildren, on people who have saved their whole lives and done the responsible things.
The liberals feel like they can have all this spending but not pay for it themselves. So I think going over the fiscal cliff, at least, we are all sharing in the responsibility of paying for the big government we seem to want.

You had me until the bull crap about liberal spending. Liberals want to increase taxes and reduce spending, conseratives just want to cut services to people who have nothing. So-called liberal spending you hate is spending on social services, many that are required, some that are not. Money can definitely be saved in that area, cutting Social Security payments to people who don’t need them is one way to save. Increased taxes on people and corporations who now avoid paying a fair portion of tax is another way.

But the FACT is most of our current problems come from unfunded, wasteful, senseless wars we didn’t have the will to win, just wanted to make changes in their governments. Look where the deficit was when Bush took office, almost none, then look at what Bush left. It has increased substantially under Obama, a lot of that is a continuation of the Bush wars and interest on the debt, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

[Calling Your Bluff]

its as plain wrote:

<quoted text>
You had me until the bull crap about liberal spending. Liberals want to increase taxes and reduce spending, conseratives just want to cut services to people who have nothing. So-called liberal spending you hate is spending on social services, many that are required, some that are not. Money can definitely be saved in that area, cutting Social Security payments to people who don’t need them is one way to save. Increased taxes on people and corporations who now avoid paying a fair portion of tax is another way.
But the FACT is most of our current problems come from unfunded, wasteful, senseless wars we didn’t have the will to win, just wanted to make changes in their governments. Look where the deficit was when Bush took office, almost none, then look at what Bush left. It has increased substantially under Obama, a lot of that is a continuation of the Bush wars and interest on the debt, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

First of all, please define a "fair share", in other words, how much is enough? Fair means an increase to everyone. A lot of the debt, and deficit, was not for the wars, and is on the increase. It all needs to stop. Liberals have no intention of decreasing spending, their game plan is to raise taxes now, cut spending later. The problem is that "later" never comes. This administration cannot even get a budget past the Senate (same part majority), let alone obtain House approval. Obama said he was going to cut the deficit in one half in three years, and that has not happened. When the lower and middle class Obama electorate, see how much Obamacare will cost them, along with the fiscal cliff, maybe then some real change will happen, but until then??? Bring on the cliff.

[Question]

its as plain wrote:

<quoted text>
You had me until the bull crap about liberal spending. Liberals want to increase taxes and reduce spending, conseratives just want to cut services to people who have nothing. So-called liberal spending you hate is spending on social services, many that are required, some that are not. Money can definitely be saved in that area, cutting Social Security payments to people who don’t need them is one way to save. Increased taxes on people and corporations who now avoid paying a fair portion of tax is another way.
But the FACT is most of our current problems come from unfunded, wasteful, senseless wars we didn’t have the will to win, just wanted to make changes in their governments. Look where the deficit was when Bush took office, almost none, then look at what Bush left. It has increased substantially under Obama, a lot of that is a continuation of the Bush wars and interest on the debt, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

Democrats could have stopped it (fiscal irresponsibility) when they were in control from 2006 through 2010, but they added to the problem at record rate, meaning they approved it. WHY?

Democrats were also a part of the congress that approved the wars of both Bush presidents, meaning they believed the "false intelligence" to be a clear and present reality. WHY?

[Informed Opinion]

Good points.

Perhaps it's because just like owners of the NFC teams and the AFC teams. The owners don't care really don't care at all who wins the Super Bowl, as long as there is a Super Bowl, and the taxpayers keep subsidizing their billion dollar profits.

Republicans and Democrats don't really care whose theories are used to run the Republic, as long as the system created to assure their control, and their ability to loot the country, is not challenged.

Consider the War in Iraq, the biggest debacle in the history of country. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, killed 6,000 American troops, lost Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, destroyed the sworn enemy of our enemy Iran, created thousands of new terrorists, and spent trillions creating billions of borrowed dollars.

But we did create billions in profits for B-P, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, General Electric, Dyncorp, Lockheed Martin, etc.

So the Iraq War was a huge success - only for the intended beneficiaries. The rest got screwed.

It is interesting to note that the last balanced budget we had was under Clinton, a Democrat, and the deficit returned ass soon as Bush cut taxes and government revenue by tax breaks to the richest.

Bring on that "fiscal cliff"- let's swan dive off that thing, it can only improve things.

[Synergy]

Informed Opinion wrote:

Good points.
Perhaps it's because just like owners of the NFC teams and the AFC teams. The owners don't care really don't care at all who wins the Super Bowl, as long as there is a Super Bowl, and the taxpayers keep subsidizing their billion dollar profits.
Republicans and Democrats don't really care whose theories are used to run the Republic, as long as the system created to assure their control, and their ability to loot the country, is not challenged.
Consider the War in Iraq, the biggest debacle in the history of country. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, killed 6,000 American troops, lost Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, destroyed the sworn enemy of our enemy Iran, created thousands of new terrorists, and spent trillions creating billions of borrowed dollars.
But we did create billions in profits for B-P, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, General Electric, Dyncorp, Lockheed Martin, etc.
So the Iraq War was a huge success - only for the intended beneficiaries. The rest got screwed.
It is interesting to note that the last balanced budget we had was under Clinton, a Democrat, and the deficit returned ass soon as Bush cut taxes and government revenue by tax breaks to the richest.
Bring on that "fiscal cliff"- let's swan dive off that thing, it can only improve things.

I was thinking Clinton had a Republican congress. No?

[Question]

Why should the "Fiscal Cliff" be avoided?

[Informed Opinion]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>I was thinking Clinton had a Republican congress. No?

I think you are thinking correctly, at least for the last term.

That's a good reason to never let either the Republicans or Democrats have all the power.

At least when Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum have to share power, the result is better than when either one can unilaterally act.

Just a thought.

[American Bulldog]

Clinton had a democrat led house and Senate for two years 1993 to 1995. The rest was with republican controlled house and senate. Clinton signed alot of good bills that were crafted by the republicans. He did what was best for the country, can't say that about the clown we have now.

[Calling Your Bluff]

What we have now, is a three party system; Republican, Democrat, and Obama's.

[Missy]

I will not vote for anyone presently serving in congress due to the childlike way they have conducted themselves lately and I sent both Gingrey and Isakson messages stating such.

[independent]

Calling Your Bluff wrote:

What we have now, is a three party system; Republican, Democrat, and Obama's.

intresting,but of the'three parties',which do you support most?

[Informed Opinion]

American Bulldog wrote:

Clinton had a democrat led house and Senate for two years 1993 to 1995. The rest was with republican controlled house and senate. Clinton signed alot of good bills that were crafted by the republicans. He did what was best for the country, can't say that about the clown we have now.

Clinton signed NAFTA and the the law that repealed Glass-Steagall (allowing investment banks to pretend they were ordinary banks and ordinary banks to gamble and speculate with taxpayers' money at taxpayers" expense).

Clinton was rewarded with millions in consulting fees, millions in gifts to his "Library", and millions to "serve" on corporate councils and boards.

All that for selling out the working man.

But he proved that all you have to do to balance the budget and pay down the national debt is not be quite as incredibly wacko and/or corrupt as President Cheney.

[Bored]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Clinton signed NAFTA and the the law that repealed Glass-Steagall (allowing investment banks to pretend they were ordinary banks and ordinary banks to gamble and speculate with taxpayers' money at taxpayers" expense).
Clinton was rewarded with millions in consulting fees, millions in gifts to his "Library", and millions to "serve" on corporate councils and boards.
All that for selling out the working man.
But he proved that all you have to do to balance the budget and pay down the national debt is not be quite as incredibly wacko and/or corrupt as President Cheney.

Boring.

[who I support]

Alfred E. Newman

[Lived there]

who I support wrote:

Alfred E. Newman

Wise choice and far, far better that who is up there now!

[Lived there]

... than who is ....

[Informed Opinion]

who I support wrote:

Alfred E. Newman

Now I really feel old. People my age actually remember Alfred E. Newman and Mad Magazine. Thanks a lot.