This is getting pretty funny alright. Clinton veto's welfare reform? I think twice? Then finally bows to the pressure of a "Republican" House and Senate? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Do you honestly think Bill Clinton would have pushed for welfare reform? Do you think it was on his agenda? Or do you believe he was cowed in to it by the conservatives who set the agenda with their contract with America?

Can you define what you mean by corporate welfare? I don't understand what that is. As I understand it, I'm employed by a "corporation". We produce services for our customers and employ close to 100,000 people who then consume goods and services made by other "evil corporations" who employ other people who must also be evil by definition "guilt by association". It must be nice to live off of the annuity of your parents and perhaps administer their trust? Going to and fro and helping the downtrodden in your daily philanthropic duties? While the rest of us are condemned to the daily grind of working for "evil" corporations?

The last time I checked, I thought the AARP and others lauded the president's efforts with Medicare "reform" which to me is BU!!$H!T because it's just more handouts which strikes me as odd that you don't support this? Interesting... They're giving prescription drugs to the old people and you don't support it? What kind of a heartless monster are you DB?

I'm curious, how much do you feel someone should be "allowed" to make? Are you familiar with the definition of the term Marxist?

Robby ... you drink too much koolaid
try bean sprouts....

Then you might be able to comprehend what corporate welfare in America is.

Marxist. C'mon you drink too much of the Bush Kool aid to use this term with any accuracy.

I truly do not believe in Corporate welfare. The concept is alien to me. Take my company, we're a phone company, we are a fortune 50 company. We are large and heavily regulated by the Federal government. But there are business expenses for example that can be written off. So suppose my company buys a truck and says it's a business expense, and therefore, tax deductible. And they can amortize that over 3 or 4 years. At the end of that time, the asset is fully depreciated. So what does the company do? Why they sell it, give it to charity, whatever, and buy a new one, and begin to depreciate it (write it off).

Now if you remove or limit or lessen their ability to do what I just described above, what do you think the company will do? Will they continue to buy a new truck every 3 or 4 years? Or will they patch ol bessy up and keep her running? This is an overly simplified example, but an accurate one none the less. This type of “corporate welfare” is what drives the engine we call our economy. Tinker with the fuel to air mixture, and it’s liable to start knocking… There’s just no such thing as “corporate welfare”. Corporations are made up of people, they employ people, they consume goods and services made by other people, and the world goes round. So if you’re against corporate welfare, you’re against people, period.

That is a false and deceptive arguement basically intended to shift focus away from the big picture to your own personalized and very simplified scenario. Your scenario is fundamentally diversionary.

Even if I accept your scenario as a fact on it's own merit, it doesn't really deal with the huge, very complex and highly (intentionally) obscured big picture of corporate welfare reality. It's so much bigger than your simple scenarios that come from your own companies experience.

So even if your scenario is true its darn irrelevant in the grand scheme of things....

Open up your perspective and consider things beyond your own companies experience..

DB

I say damn the corporations. Don't let them make money. Then take all the money from the "rich" and give it to the poor. Our world would be a much better place. Right?

Corporations would close or move offshore. No more jobs.

But that would be okay because we still have the "rich" to soak. Of course take away the profit incentive and they would stop investing and generating wealth.

But that's okay. The government will take care of us. Won't it?

It was tried before. Remember the USSR. It FAILED.

Robby, Marxist was on the mark. Good posts.

OK so you have a working stiff like me who works his ass off for $150,000 salary and I have to pay 35% taxes and you have some lazy heir that makes $150,000 in dividends on stocks that his daddy gave him and he pays 15% or less on his taxes.

Do you really think that is fair??

Bush's policies rewards wealth... not productivity and hard work....

You have proven your complete lack of understanding of the term Marxist...

"some lazy heir that makes $150,000 in dividends on stocks that his daddy gave him and he pays 15% or less on his taxes. "

Kerry has a son?
or were you refering to one of the Kennedy clan?

You see they already made/married into their money. They just don't want us to make ours

Quote from “dbguru”
“Bush's policies rewards wealth... not productivity and hard work....”

So with your above statement, do you believe that a McDonalds burger flipper should get paid $500,000+ a year? They work really freakin hard and produce a lot. When I was 16 and washed dishes at a restaurant, it was the hardest job I ever did... should you and Kerry reimburse me for my work and productivity?

do you believe that government money (i.e., our tax dollars) should be spent on bailing out corporations?

does it alter your perspective if the CEO is bringing in a multiple million dollar salary + perks?

Do you think there are people who voted for Bush who think we invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons and we should not be in Iraq?...that "terrorism" is now on the rise instead of diminishing?... that we are making five more terrorists for each one killed?... that we are not safer, but more at risk because of the policies followed? What do you call these people? Turncoats? Traitors? Conservatives gone bad? Why do you have to put a label on everyone. That is truly a sign of shallow thinking. I call them Americans. In a Washington AP article in my local paper it discusses Americans thoughts on terrorism as reflected by polls. Half of Americans have concerns that terrorists might be winning the war on terrorism, and 1 in 5 believe strongly that way. Two thirds said it was likely that terrorists would strike in the US before the Nov. elections. A third said it was likely there would be an attack at one of the political conventions this summer. Two thirds of Americans acknowledge concern that terrorists may be recruiting faster than the US can keep up. A third feel strongly this is the case. The Bush administration calls the invasion of Iraq as "a front line in the war on terrorism". Those who say Bush made a right decision to invade Iraq, 48 percent, are now about even with those who think it was a mistake, 49 percent. Sampling error was +- 3%. I guarantee that a lot of these people voted for Bush. Do you think of all of these people as "commie liberals"? That would be very wrong. This is not a case of ultra-liberals against ultra-conservatives as much as you would try to make it to be, and as much as you might think, you are not smarter than all of these people. This is people, like you and me, trying to understand and make their minds up on what they think is RIGHT (as in not wrong). Try to stick with the issues and see both sides. We'll all be better for it. Unfortunately, when people lie or try to hide or cover up things in the past, it becomes an issue. Many of us are forgiving people, and can put that aside depending on the magnitude of it. If there is a track record of it, people become concerned. In politics, perception is everything and the spin doctors spin. You have to get past the spin whether you're for it or against it. I supported two Republican governors in Illinois who did well and were both multi-term govs. I supported Ronald Regan. I am a conserv-eral. My belief: we need the money being spent in Iraq being spent here and our foreign policy cannot take another four years of the Bush administration! He just has the wrong people around him and they made some bad decisions. I think he could have been a good president had he not been so influenced by those people, but the buck stops with the president. Besides that, he refuses to pronounce NUCLEAR. Never! He will not! Does that say anything to you about the man's character. Taken with all of the other "personal revelations" that have surfaced. It does me. It's something I can't overlook. If he corrected himself, I would overlook it. The fact that he's gonna damn well do whatever the hell George Bush is gonna do and to hell with everyone who doesn't like it...... some might think that's a good trait for a leader. I don't in this case. In this case, It belittles everyone else who takes the time to "get it right". Perception is everything. It's NUCLEAR, stupid!

Thanks for sharing your views again AJ.

I'd much rather have a President that makes a decision based on what he believes - then sticks with it to see that decision through - than to have one that changes his opinion with the polls.

Take Jimmy Carter for example. I think he was one of the worst Presidents ever, policy wise, but you knew - and still know - where he stands. He's a honorable man - just wrong.

I firmly believe George Bush has the same type character. He's an honorable man. I also believe that George Bush is on the right track. I thank God every night that he's our President.

^
now thats what Im talking about.


hey, Robby nice words as always.


and after alls been said Kerry is still a KOOK!

I'd much rather have a president that could see through all of the smoke being blown up his proverbial in order to make his own decision! God told George that he was doing the right thing, while the same God told the Muslims that George W. was Satan! Go figure! I pray to God every night that George W. doesn't talk to God again.

"Do you think there are people who voted for Bush who think we invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons and we should not be in Iraq?...that "terrorism" is now on the rise instead of diminishing?... that we are making five more terrorists for each one killed?..."


AJ_CHICAGO,

Let's play a game. Pretend you are a US Senator who has just been elected President of the United States and you are now in your first 100 days in office. You feel exactly as stated in your above quote. You used the above quote as a platform in your election bid. Now that you are in office, what do you do to "remedy" the situation?

Not sure. That's like asking someone to put the genie back into the bottle or the hornets back into the nest. I'm not sure. Let's say I'm not yet elected. I'm torn between (A)pick a Jewish VP", (B)pick a muslim VP, (C)go ahead and invade Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, Germany, and France....for a start. I sure wouldn't want to talk, to negotiate with these and other friendly countries. My stick's bigger than your stick so why should I have to deal with any of you.....right? Just like Jesus Christ said, "You're either with me, or against me"........right? Or was the George W?........I get them confused.

Kerry who?

LMAO........................Marla

AJ_CHICAGO,

If a political candidate is running an election based on the belief that the current President "let the genie out of the bottle" and the candidate claims to be able to do a better job, the candidate has a responsibility to offer a plan for how to "put the genie back in the bottle." After all, if the genie really is out of the bottle, one of the requirements of the job is to put it back in the bottle and anyone running for President should be fully aware of that job requirement.

When criticizing the current president over his pronunciation of the word "nuclear", keep in mind that when faced with a real world situation that any incoming President would face, your answer was "I'm not sure". It is easy to complain about something but much harder to offer viable solutions.

Since you are not sure of your answer, feel free to insert your preferred presidential candidate's plan for putting the genie back in the bottle in place of your plan and test to see if it will be an adaquate substitution.

Every candidate running for President should be expected to offer viable solutions.

YEAH, I'm pretty pissed off that Clinton and his administration didn't find a cure for cancer while they were in. He was there for 8 years for God's sake! And still no cure for cancer? How could he have dropped the ball like that? I'm sure glad the dem's didn't win in 2000 since they had 8 years to cure cancer and did NOTHING!!

Not sure. That's like asking someone to put the genie back into the bottle or the hornets back into the nest. I'm not sure. Let's say I'm not yet elected. I'm torn between (A)pick a Jewish VP", (B)pick a muslim VP, (C)go ahead and invade Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, Germany, and France....for a start. I sure wouldn't want to talk, to negotiate with these and other friendly countries. My stick's bigger than your stick so why should I have to deal with any of you.....right? Just like Jesus Christ said, "You're either with me, or against me".....right? Or was the George W? I get them confused. Aw, to Hell with Spain! They're just a bunch of hot headed, fast talking, nitwits anyway.....right? To Hell with anyone who doesn't agree with ****** Cheney and Don Rumsfeld! And that includes Colin Powell, that pansy.....right? Afraid of the repercussions of smearing some Arab and American blood around in the sand. What's he thinking? Poor Colin, he must be tossing and turning. He's got to be torn between loyalty and doing what he thinks is right. He may be ruined by this administration because of his loyalty. I think I would have voted for him. I hope he distances himself somehow, but I can't see how without resigning.