DeLay is going down. Having lived in Dallas Texas all my life, I know all about Texas politics.

I am so happy Perry just got on the Intelligent Design bandwagon… We are going to have Democrat Governor.

yay

-Hype

Tom DeLay and Irony seem to be meeting in some of the most inconvenient places these days.

This is a fine example of wealth distribution. Take from the haves and give to the have-nots. From the achievers to the non-achievers. Punishing the evil wealthy is the easiest route compared to the guts it takes to oppose wealth distribution, thus helping the poor help themselves out of poverty. It seems that the nutty libs are too worried about losing votes and hurting someone’s feelings.

The money that is saved by reducing wealth distribution and taxes will leave businesses ready and willing to create more jobs, pay higher wages, provide better benefits, increase market share by conducting more research and development, increase quality with technology and lower consumer prices because of lower overhead. The average profit margin for Fortune 500 companies is 6% and would stay at that rate after a portion of the enormous tax burden is lifted because of supply and demand. The nutty libs would rather cripple business by seizing tax revenue and giving hand outs to the have-nots (which ultimately cripples them) vice helping businesses create jobs for them. So much for “ask not what your country can do for you…”

I found where you got your numbers now… A nutty lib arts college studied the history of poverty and their numbers are strikingly similar to yours. Anyone can manipulate numbers to say whatever they want. Proof of this is the numbers change depending who is doing the research and how they define poverty. Just the fact that the numbers and conclusions are coming from nutty libs makes them suspect. But just for the sake of argument let’s assume your numbers are correct… If your numbers are correct, there is a correlation between the number of poor in America and the health of the American economy. When the economy is healthy, GDP is consistent or increasing, and the DOW is consistent or increasing, poverty goes down due to more economic opportunity, not because of more gov hand outs. When economic health indicators slip a bit, poverty goes up.

“Liberals” also vary. I lost money when Clinton didn’t take the fifth in front of his grand jury, as I had hoped he’d do. Horrible mistake. Like it or not, Clinton lied to a grand jury, and afterwards, I thought he should have resigned. Rule of law preserved, Al Gore would have been an incumbent president going into 2000, that would have suited me fine. However, Mc Cain would have been my first choice. Yet a lot of my friends would call me a liberal.

I am anti-corporate bribes, rather than liberal or conservative. I live in a republican suburb in Georgia, many would consider me a liberal. I voted for Nader, although if my state had been close I would have gagged and voted Gore or Kerry. After the SC primary 2000, I wouldn’t vote for a Bush if I was on fire and he had an extinguisher. I voted for HW Bush the first time though, against Dukakis, but now I’m kind of sorry, even though the old man is the best of the lot.

Right now, we have too many legacy families in office, Murkowski comes to mind as one of the most egregious, but so does Gore, Clinton, Bush, ad infinitum. People don’t realize how closed the parties are. They won’t nominate anyone who disturbs this part of the party system: That the parties are the only legal recipients of large donations, and these donations are bribes, so that lobbyists can sit at the sides of congressional committeees and write law. Nader’s right, its a corrupt corpocracy.

Neither party wants to change this, and they will not permit anyone dedicated to changing this to rise. It is the source of their power, and the allocation of collected monies to go-along-get-along candidates is the “party discipline” they both enforce. Family cabals and our two parties will continue to be controlled by large monied interests who ‘help’ committee members write legislation while citizens enjoy pop culture and mouth the “freedom” myth, and the American exceptionalism myth..

I want some honest government that benefits the populace as a whole, not Alston and Bird clients. Liberal? Conservative? With their pre selected platforms of irrelevance? Make me laugh. Gay marriage, and all that jazz, these are red meat issues. (I assumed they just wanted accesss to health care, like every one else.)

Dem vs Republican, as futile as Spy vs. Spy. Its the corporate stranglehold on the process that needs to be broken. I remember in 1999-2000 ATT was the #1 funder of the Republican National convention. They were the #3 donor to the Democratic convention. Corporations simply bribe (I mean contribute to) both parties so that no matter who wins, they have that all important access to congressional committeee activity. I think many people know public floor votes are pre arranged; pre arranged balances between party interests and constituent pandering.

Campaign finance reform, redistricting reform, and tunring out multi generational family dynasties is where its at.

Jenna Bush vs Chelsea Clinton in 2020? Don’t laugh, you people keep voting for legacy after legacy, wake up, its a false choice. You get corpocracy either way. Now, red meat guy, am I a liberal or a conservative? Is such a distinction important? I’m not sure it is.

Hey Ryan. It’s funny how your numbers are nowhere to be found, anywhere. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and researched your numbers and sure enough, not even close. Where did you get your numbers? You nutty libs will stop at nothing for the perception of being right.

It’s also funny how the other day you implied that poverty was completely out of control because of the evil repubs. Now you say the system works. And you use made up numbers in an attempt not to look foolish. Typical nutty lib garbage.

Take all the swipes at me you want. I can take it. Unlike the nutty libs, I don’t think it is a weakness to listen to other arguments.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.See http://TheFuturum.com – you can send message to eternity there.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.as

To put this in perspective, in 1991, those making more than $200,000 a year approximately constituted the top 1 percent. This group reported $403 billion in Gross Adjusted Income, and paid $100 billion of that taxes — an effective rate of 25 percent. Suppose that were raised to 70 percent, which would have brought in $282 billion in taxes. That�s an extra $182 billion, which could have given a pay raise of over $5,000 to each of the nation�s 35.7 million people in poverty. Essentially, this would have eliminated poverty in America. (Remember, most of the nation’s poor are already working; the extra $5,000 would easily boost them out of the danger zone.) (17) And we could accomplish this without changing the taxes of 99 percent of Americans.

It doesn’t take heroic efforts to reduce poverty dramatically. Taxing the top 1 percent at 1950s levels would largely accomplish this.

Don’t give yourself so much credit. I swat you like the insignficant flea you are. Your sense of your effect on others is as out of touch with reality as everything else you post. My suspicion is that this ‘imagination’ comes more from the effect I have on you, than and your desperate NEED to believe you actually have an impact. The only impact you have is to demostrate how ill prepared you and your entire party are to either legislate or serve this country. You’re a stupid redneck boob.

” I guess we will have to agree to disagree.”

No we don’t, to do that you’d have to offer something legitimate – which you have not done. You can disagree all you want, but I’ve proven you wrong. You’re an IDIOT.

““…Clinton also reduced poverty…”
Comment by Ryan Neat
Exactly right, like I said, by welfare reform. There’s another thing we agree on!”

Ah, but see if this were the truth you say it is, then the poverty would have continued to reduce under bush – the OPPOSITE has happened. Also, the poverty rates decreased under Johnson and Carter as well. In otherwords you are jumping to a ‘conclusion’ that is NOT demonstrated by facts – but then again you’re a stupid hack, so what other option do you have?

“Your language is simply lovely, Ryan. So witty and original… Psssssssst… The only KKK member of the Senate is Democrat Robert Byrd from WV.”

From the party that brings us Ann Coulter, you dare lecture others on their language? You’re an idiot you retarded moron! FYI, not only is this statement a LIE, it also demostrates the very bigotry I stated. Unlike Strom Thurmond or any of the other morons of the republican party, Byrd not only left the KKK, but in fact HE PUBLICALLY APOLOGIZED FOR HAVING EVER BELONGED, AND HE PUBLICALLY DENOUNCED ALL OF THEIR VALUES. For a group who claims they want to give people a second chance, you not only show your lack of forgiveness, but also your SMEAR tactics that are so entirely fascist and unamerican.

You’re a retarded idiot who can’t post a SINGLE accurate fact. Not only are you outclassed here, you barely qualify as literate on any of the topics you posted. I see now that your ‘education’ beyond high school has been restricted to propaganda sources. Grow up and learn something before you come back here. At this point you just look like another stupid republican inept propagandist who prefers to lie than admit their failures! Get over yourself you loser – a little monetary success doesn’t make you smart or ‘better’ than anyone, but in your case it’s clearly turned you into a stupid jackass!

Percentage of americans living in poverty at the beginning of the 20th century: 40

Percentage of americans living in poverty at the beginning of the Johnson’s administration’s war on poverty: 22

Percentage of americans living in poverty at the end of the Clinton administration: 11

Percentage of americans living in poverty currently: 13

Not only has the ‘war on poverty’ reduced it from 40% to 11% under Clinton.

Unfortunately republicans want not only their own conclusions, but their own facts. They pretent like the efforts against poverty haven’t been effective, and this is largely bullcrap, like everything they post. They’re self agrandizing under-educated and unsophosticated morons.

“…Clinton also reduced poverty…”
Comment by Ryan Neat

Exactly right, like I said, by welfare reform. There’s another thing we agree on!

“You’re an idiot, a bigot and a moron. Move along back to your NC KKK websites, and stop pretending you care, or that you want a debate.”
Hysterical nutty lib shrieking by Ryan Neat

Your language is simply lovely, Ryan. So witty and original… Psssssssst… The only KKK member of the Senate is Democrat Robert Byrd from WV.

There’s only one political nut here, Stubain, it’s you. I base my opinions on history, facts and experiences that go beyond myself but to entire world of expertise – you base yours on anecdotal and personal baggage without regards to how that reflects in the rest of the world or not. We not only aren’t anything alike, but we aren’t even on the same political ’spectrum’. I believe in truth more than politics, you prefer politics over truth. You’re an idiot, a bigot and a moron. Move along back to your NC KKK websites, and stop pretending you care, or that you want a debate.

“Look, the government can’t be all things to all people. We have had a “social safety net” since 1933 AND POVERTY KEEPS INCREASING, you said it yourself, Ryan.”

You’re an idiot, a moron and compulsive LIAR. I already correct this lie last week from you. Poverty is almost half what it was under Johnson, despite the UTTER FAILURES of Reagan, BushI & BushII all three of which WORSENED POVERTY, while Carter and Clinton also reduced poverty. Your statements are bullshit, just like you!

This link is a perfect example of what I am talking about on the topic of the poor, working poor and personal responsibility. This guy didn’t make excuses when things didn’t go his way. He didn’t blame anyone or point fingers. He took the situation for what it was and moved forward. It was neither luck nor government “hand outs” that helped this guy out of bad situation. It was his own determination, work ethic, and resourcefulness and his lack of excuses that got him back on track. “When all you have are lemons, make lemonade.”

http://www.boston.com/ news/ odd/ articles/ 2005/ 08/ 27/ nh_mans_no_1_job_is_dealing_with_no_2/

Comment by stubain — October 22, 2005 @ 2:43 pm”

I posted this the other day in another section, but the point applies here as well.

Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills

2005 – 13,997
2004 – 10,656
2003 – 9,362
2002 – 8,341
2001 – 6,333
2000 – 4,326
1999 – 2,838
1998 – 2100
1997 – 1,596
1996 – 958″
Comment by Ryan Neat

Ryan! Hey pal. Fancy seeing you here. I don’t know where you get your numbers, but I tend to agree. Gasp!
I agree with you! For the love of Burt and Ernie, what’s this world coming to? Two political nuts on opposite ends of ideological spectrum who agree on something. I would bet we agree on more things than you think. If you want to scream and yell and blast the Pres and Congress for overspending, I will be right there with you.

“And ironically he uses the term ‘victicrat’, which was coined by Larry Elder (a black man who prefers to blame black people with all of their problems).”
Comment by Ryan Neat

Does that make him an evil, racist, classist, bigot too? I suppose by that rationale that Bill Cosby (and countless other well-known individuals who think similarly to me) is of the same type.

I am still waiting on what right-wing blogs censor content so lefties can’t post there.

Look, the government can’t be all things to all people. We have had a “social safety net” since 1933 AND POVERTY KEEPS INCREASING, you said it yourself, Ryan. I think people are far smarter and far more resourceful than the nutty libs give them credit for. If the “social safety net” was more strict (not eliminated), I truly believe that people would do what they need to do to make it. As it stands now, they need not think outside the box or live inside their means because it’s too easy to get WIC, public housing, basic health care, child care, or any of the other necessities of life – ALL provided by the tax payer. You can take the new laws making it harder to fill for bankruptcy as an example. People flocked by absurd numbers to file before the new law took effect. Even if it is in the back of their minds, people will buy cars and houses and who knows what else that they can’t afford because they know all they have to do is file for bankruptcy and relieve themselves from some of the responsibility. It’s not going to be that easy anymore and that’s a good thing. Young men and women do not have to worry about breeding children they can’t afford because they know that government (tax payer) will provide the basic necessities of life for them. 70+ years of a “social safety net” and yet poverty grows. Repub or nutty lib, it didn’t matter- poverty has continued (by percentage) to slowly increase (except for a short time when there was welfare reform in the 90’s). Like it or not, 70+ years with the same mentality is proof enough that this system DOES NOT WORK. Even further proof is the ONLY argument the nutty libs can come up with is “you’re a racist, classist, fascist, bigot, stupid redneck….!”

I can see where all of these “social protections” would be a necessary thought process of the nutty libs – they need the votes. They pander to the non-achievers to secure a vote. I know, I know… Repubs do it too, just in other areas.