Nov 8: Best Day Ever
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Well, at least from family side most of the ones from Utah are Republican. I'm interested to see what will happen with a Democratic House. I was sad that Pete Ashdown didn't win the Senate. We will have Orrin Hatch until he dies.
I'd say that being Republican gives more of a reason to comment on my left-wing wacko posts.
That's too bad about Ashdown, but he never really had a chance against Hatch.
Well, she has said she won't try to get the President impeached, so I for one don't have any use for her.
To me, it doesn't matter what the Dems do. I'm even ok if the congress and the president just spend the next couple years bickering and not getting anything done. A complete stop is preferable to full-steam ahead if you're heading the wrong direction.
That being said, I do think that the most important thing that the Dems can do is what they've been talking the most about: oversight. This president has had free reign for far too long.
I have never before read your blogs Ben, but this one I had to see. Im so glad that the Dems got the House and Senate, becuase I want to pay more taxes, and let them spend it on stuff I dont agree with. I also hope they cut military budget, then we wont have any problems anymore becuase well be invaded. I hope soon we pull out of Iraq, and stop invading countries that pose threat. This way they can see what pansies weve become and maybe, just meybe they will pull another 9/11 and we can blame it all on Bush!
Which is better, 'tax and spend' or 'borrow and spend' so that our kids and grandkids are saddled with our debt? The Republicans and Bush in particular are borrow and spenders. It's irresponsible and really screws our kids.
When was Iraq a threat? When did they pull their first 9/11? The average Iraqi is less safe now because of our 'war'. Our 'war' has become the #1 recruiting message for terrorists. We as Americans are less safe now because of our 'war'. Going into Afghanistan made sense; they were supporting the actual people who attacked us. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism or American security. Furthermore, it further isolates us from the rest of the world which will make future efforts more difficult. This will only get worse as we lose our status as the only superpower.
Who blames 9/11 on Bush? I do blame him for a lot of things, but not 9/11.
Great day indeed! The Dem have already announced that they will increase personal property tax in MD by 4%. That is awesome! We already live in the highest taxed area in MD and nothing to show for it. The Dems here are already saying you have to spend to make changes. I will say that I would like a balanced gov't not just one side controlling. Which is what we will have now and come Jan. Now the Dem will seriously scale back our military, back to nothing like Clinton did. We will then have to fight to build it back up. Iraq is not our threat. Lebannon and Korean is, but it is too late right now to do anything. As for Rumsfeld that was the one best thing about the 8th of Nov. He has no military experience or knowledge. He was the cause of firing most of our best military leaders and running our military into the ground. Rumsfeld said we could fight 2.5 wars and right now we are in the middle of 1.5 and cannot meet the needs to fight that. The Dems gripe about all the repuplican bloat programs I guess we will have to see what they have in store. Hopefully they will destroy the no child left behind act and make the teachers start teaching again. As for MD, Cardin won and he destroyed Baltimore. So we get to see what he will do to the state. It was funny to see the mud slinging from the Dem during the campaign and not one from the Rep in MD. 
Don't get me wrong; I don't think the Dems are all that great, either (although, I do agree with them a little more often than Republicans). I'm mainly happy because now there is not just one party in power.
Obviously, I can't speak to Maryland-specific issues (although, it does seem like political suicide to flat-out announce you're going to raise taxes by 4%), the idea that Dems spend more than Republicans is just not held up by the facts. Reagan spent more and increased the size of government more than anyone before him. Then, Bush I beat him. Then, Bush II beat them both. The last three Republican presidents have all increased the size of government, spent more and increased the national debt more than anyone in the history of the country including any Democrat.
And on the subject of taxes: Bush did cut some taxes. The overwhelming majority of the cuts went to the ultra-rich instead of to the people it would actually help and would actually spend it, thereby helping the economy. I seriously doubt that (nationally, at least) there'll be any large-scale increase in taxes. I don't think they'll even roll back the Bush tax cuts which they should (there's a chance that they'll roll back the cuts for the ultra-rich, but we'll just have to wait and see). Our country can't afford these tax-cuts, so we shouldn't have them, unless we also cut some spending. Bush cut taxes without cutting spending, so our debt has skyrocketed.
I agree that Clinton wasn't great for the military. But, Bush and Rummy haven't been any better. Rummy's whole thing was to make the military smaller so that it could move quickly, which sounds like a pretty good idea to me. The problem is that he and Bush ignored the advice of the military leaders (the ones who actually know what they're talking about) saying that their idea wasn't going to work.
I don't really think that the Democrats are going to massively reduce funding to the military. However, I do think they'll be more circumspect when thinking about military issues going forward as opposed to Bush's cowboy shoot-first-forget-about-the-questions attitude.
I completely agree about no child left behind. It just perpetuates the practice of teaching kids to take the tests. It does nothing to increase critical thinking skills which is what you really need to succeed.
You're lucky that your Repub didn't mudsling; he's probably the only one in the country, however. In general, both sides ran very dirty campaigns this time.
p.s. can you back up your statement about the Dems coming out and saying that they're going to raise PP tax by 4%? I'd love to see how they explain it.
p.p.s. Wasn't Steele not mud slinging because he was too busy petting a dog and not saying anything substantive?
Yes Regan was the big spender but we were in the midst of the cold war if you remember. As for tax breaks he did give them to the rich because they were paying half their salaries in taxes. That is from Sandy telling us all the time about it. We did get the child credit which I'm sure will be changed. As for the property tax increase. It was on local news 2 nights ago here and NPR Delmarva. the increase is going to be for new programs in education and environment. For the dog petting commecrial that was only the 1st and only one they played before they went into a barrage of others about his issues he is pulling for like stem cell research, spending cuts and the regular stance that almost everyone took. Yes he supported Bush but so did the majority of the Rep Party. Now for military. Rumsfeld wanted to get rid of ground troops which you need to fight wars. He felt they were useless and that everything could be fought with tanks and bombs. Sure he had the same premise as Clinton and cut the military by 40 percent and bomb the hell out of everything. I think we should just use our surplus of proton bombs and turn Afghan into a sterile parking lot. But to win a war you need soldiers. Yo can't just send in small units of seals and rangers expecting that will do the job. You might as well join the UN's military and speak french. To be a super power you have to have a large military! During office Bush rebuilt our military back to where it was before Clinton cut and destroyed it. We had to retrain and recruit because Clint had them training as police when they were in Iraq. Blackhawk down rings a bell. That was due to cuts and lack of training for new recruits.
Re: Reagan: So was every president before him back to WWII and they managed to not break records.
Without discussing Sandy in particular, I don't really feel too badly for rich people paying half their salaries in taxes. First off, they don't. They have expensive accountants to make sure of that. Secondly, they have benefited the most from the freedoms that this country provides, they should give back the most. Thirdly, it's hard for me to feel badly for them when their half-income enables them to buy a mansion and a live a life of luxury while others are starving. I feel the same way about myself; I have no problem paying higher taxes than those who are less fortunate than myself.
I agree with you about the soldiers, but I think saying that Clinton 'destroyed' the military is a bit of an exageration. I don't get your point here, though:
QUOTE:Clint had them training as police when they were in Iraq.
Do you mean Rumsfeld? Also, this brings up an interesting point: who should do the policing after an invasion?
On a side note: hit the enter button now and then! It's hard to read your big blocks of text. Thanks!
p.s. again... Thanks, Jeff and Marshall for posting. I don't usually get any good debate about political stuff on the blog. It's cool that we can have differing opinions about this and not want to kill each other.
who said I dont want to kill anybody
Add Comment
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Well, at least from family side most of the ones from Utah are Republican. I'm interested to see what will happen with a Democratic House. I was sad that Pete Ashdown didn't win the Senate. We will have Orrin Hatch until he dies.
I'd say that being Republican gives more of a reason to comment on my left-wing wacko posts.
That's too bad about Ashdown, but he never really had a chance against Hatch.
That's too bad about Ashdown, but he never really had a chance against Hatch.
Well, she has said she won't try to get the President impeached, so I for one don't have any use for her.
To me, it doesn't matter what the Dems do. I'm even ok if the congress and the president just spend the next couple years bickering and not getting anything done. A complete stop is preferable to full-steam ahead if you're heading the wrong direction.
That being said, I do think that the most important thing that the Dems can do is what they've been talking the most about: oversight. This president has had free reign for far too long.
That being said, I do think that the most important thing that the Dems can do is what they've been talking the most about: oversight. This president has had free reign for far too long.
I have never before read your blogs Ben, but this one I had to see. Im so glad that the Dems got the House and Senate, becuase I want to pay more taxes, and let them spend it on stuff I dont agree with. I also hope they cut military budget, then we wont have any problems anymore becuase well be invaded. I hope soon we pull out of Iraq, and stop invading countries that pose threat. This way they can see what pansies weve become and maybe, just meybe they will pull another 9/11 and we can blame it all on Bush!
Which is better, 'tax and spend' or 'borrow and spend' so that our kids and grandkids are saddled with our debt? The Republicans and Bush in particular are borrow and spenders. It's irresponsible and really screws our kids.
When was Iraq a threat? When did they pull their first 9/11? The average Iraqi is less safe now because of our 'war'. Our 'war' has become the #1 recruiting message for terrorists. We as Americans are less safe now because of our 'war'. Going into Afghanistan made sense; they were supporting the actual people who attacked us. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism or American security. Furthermore, it further isolates us from the rest of the world which will make future efforts more difficult. This will only get worse as we lose our status as the only superpower.
Who blames 9/11 on Bush? I do blame him for a lot of things, but not 9/11.
When was Iraq a threat? When did they pull their first 9/11? The average Iraqi is less safe now because of our 'war'. Our 'war' has become the #1 recruiting message for terrorists. We as Americans are less safe now because of our 'war'. Going into Afghanistan made sense; they were supporting the actual people who attacked us. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism or American security. Furthermore, it further isolates us from the rest of the world which will make future efforts more difficult. This will only get worse as we lose our status as the only superpower.
Who blames 9/11 on Bush? I do blame him for a lot of things, but not 9/11.
Great day indeed! The Dem have already announced that they will increase personal property tax in MD by 4%. That is awesome! We already live in the highest taxed area in MD and nothing to show for it. The Dems here are already saying you have to spend to make changes. I will say that I would like a balanced gov't not just one side controlling. Which is what we will have now and come Jan. Now the Dem will seriously scale back our military, back to nothing like Clinton did. We will then have to fight to build it back up. Iraq is not our threat. Lebannon and Korean is, but it is too late right now to do anything. As for Rumsfeld that was the one best thing about the 8th of Nov. He has no military experience or knowledge. He was the cause of firing most of our best military leaders and running our military into the ground. Rumsfeld said we could fight 2.5 wars and right now we are in the middle of 1.5 and cannot meet the needs to fight that. The Dems gripe about all the repuplican bloat programs I guess we will have to see what they have in store. Hopefully they will destroy the no child left behind act and make the teachers start teaching again. As for MD, Cardin won and he destroyed Baltimore. So we get to see what he will do to the state. It was funny to see the mud slinging from the Dem during the campaign and not one from the Rep in MD.
Don't get me wrong; I don't think the Dems are all that great, either (although, I do agree with them a little more often than Republicans). I'm mainly happy because now there is not just one party in power.
Obviously, I can't speak to Maryland-specific issues (although, it does seem like political suicide to flat-out announce you're going to raise taxes by 4%), the idea that Dems spend more than Republicans is just not held up by the facts. Reagan spent more and increased the size of government more than anyone before him. Then, Bush I beat him. Then, Bush II beat them both. The last three Republican presidents have all increased the size of government, spent more and increased the national debt more than anyone in the history of the country including any Democrat.
And on the subject of taxes: Bush did cut some taxes. The overwhelming majority of the cuts went to the ultra-rich instead of to the people it would actually help and would actually spend it, thereby helping the economy. I seriously doubt that (nationally, at least) there'll be any large-scale increase in taxes. I don't think they'll even roll back the Bush tax cuts which they should (there's a chance that they'll roll back the cuts for the ultra-rich, but we'll just have to wait and see). Our country can't afford these tax-cuts, so we shouldn't have them, unless we also cut some spending. Bush cut taxes without cutting spending, so our debt has skyrocketed.
I agree that Clinton wasn't great for the military. But, Bush and Rummy haven't been any better. Rummy's whole thing was to make the military smaller so that it could move quickly, which sounds like a pretty good idea to me. The problem is that he and Bush ignored the advice of the military leaders (the ones who actually know what they're talking about) saying that their idea wasn't going to work.
I don't really think that the Democrats are going to massively reduce funding to the military. However, I do think they'll be more circumspect when thinking about military issues going forward as opposed to Bush's cowboy shoot-first-forget-about-the-questions attitude.
I completely agree about no child left behind. It just perpetuates the practice of teaching kids to take the tests. It does nothing to increase critical thinking skills which is what you really need to succeed.
You're lucky that your Repub didn't mudsling; he's probably the only one in the country, however. In general, both sides ran very dirty campaigns this time.
Obviously, I can't speak to Maryland-specific issues (although, it does seem like political suicide to flat-out announce you're going to raise taxes by 4%), the idea that Dems spend more than Republicans is just not held up by the facts. Reagan spent more and increased the size of government more than anyone before him. Then, Bush I beat him. Then, Bush II beat them both. The last three Republican presidents have all increased the size of government, spent more and increased the national debt more than anyone in the history of the country including any Democrat.
And on the subject of taxes: Bush did cut some taxes. The overwhelming majority of the cuts went to the ultra-rich instead of to the people it would actually help and would actually spend it, thereby helping the economy. I seriously doubt that (nationally, at least) there'll be any large-scale increase in taxes. I don't think they'll even roll back the Bush tax cuts which they should (there's a chance that they'll roll back the cuts for the ultra-rich, but we'll just have to wait and see). Our country can't afford these tax-cuts, so we shouldn't have them, unless we also cut some spending. Bush cut taxes without cutting spending, so our debt has skyrocketed.
I agree that Clinton wasn't great for the military. But, Bush and Rummy haven't been any better. Rummy's whole thing was to make the military smaller so that it could move quickly, which sounds like a pretty good idea to me. The problem is that he and Bush ignored the advice of the military leaders (the ones who actually know what they're talking about) saying that their idea wasn't going to work.
I don't really think that the Democrats are going to massively reduce funding to the military. However, I do think they'll be more circumspect when thinking about military issues going forward as opposed to Bush's cowboy shoot-first-forget-about-the-questions attitude.
I completely agree about no child left behind. It just perpetuates the practice of teaching kids to take the tests. It does nothing to increase critical thinking skills which is what you really need to succeed.
You're lucky that your Repub didn't mudsling; he's probably the only one in the country, however. In general, both sides ran very dirty campaigns this time.
p.s. can you back up your statement about the Dems coming out and saying that they're going to raise PP tax by 4%? I'd love to see how they explain it.
p.p.s. Wasn't Steele not mud slinging because he was too busy petting a dog and not saying anything substantive?
Yes Regan was the big spender but we were in the midst of the cold war if you remember. As for tax breaks he did give them to the rich because they were paying half their salaries in taxes. That is from Sandy telling us all the time about it. We did get the child credit which I'm sure will be changed. As for the property tax increase. It was on local news 2 nights ago here and NPR Delmarva. the increase is going to be for new programs in education and environment. For the dog petting commecrial that was only the 1st and only one they played before they went into a barrage of others about his issues he is pulling for like stem cell research, spending cuts and the regular stance that almost everyone took. Yes he supported Bush but so did the majority of the Rep Party. Now for military. Rumsfeld wanted to get rid of ground troops which you need to fight wars. He felt they were useless and that everything could be fought with tanks and bombs. Sure he had the same premise as Clinton and cut the military by 40 percent and bomb the hell out of everything. I think we should just use our surplus of proton bombs and turn Afghan into a sterile parking lot. But to win a war you need soldiers. Yo can't just send in small units of seals and rangers expecting that will do the job. You might as well join the UN's military and speak french. To be a super power you have to have a large military! During office Bush rebuilt our military back to where it was before Clinton cut and destroyed it. We had to retrain and recruit because Clint had them training as police when they were in Iraq. Blackhawk down rings a bell. That was due to cuts and lack of training for new recruits.
Re: Reagan: So was every president before him back to WWII and they managed to not break records.
Without discussing Sandy in particular, I don't really feel too badly for rich people paying half their salaries in taxes. First off, they don't. They have expensive accountants to make sure of that. Secondly, they have benefited the most from the freedoms that this country provides, they should give back the most. Thirdly, it's hard for me to feel badly for them when their half-income enables them to buy a mansion and a live a life of luxury while others are starving. I feel the same way about myself; I have no problem paying higher taxes than those who are less fortunate than myself.
I agree with you about the soldiers, but I think saying that Clinton 'destroyed' the military is a bit of an exageration. I don't get your point here, though:
Do you mean Rumsfeld? Also, this brings up an interesting point: who should do the policing after an invasion?
On a side note: hit the enter button now and then! It's hard to read your big blocks of text. Thanks!
Without discussing Sandy in particular, I don't really feel too badly for rich people paying half their salaries in taxes. First off, they don't. They have expensive accountants to make sure of that. Secondly, they have benefited the most from the freedoms that this country provides, they should give back the most. Thirdly, it's hard for me to feel badly for them when their half-income enables them to buy a mansion and a live a life of luxury while others are starving. I feel the same way about myself; I have no problem paying higher taxes than those who are less fortunate than myself.
I agree with you about the soldiers, but I think saying that Clinton 'destroyed' the military is a bit of an exageration. I don't get your point here, though:
QUOTE:
Clint had them training as police when they were in Iraq.
Do you mean Rumsfeld? Also, this brings up an interesting point: who should do the policing after an invasion?
On a side note: hit the enter button now and then! It's hard to read your big blocks of text. Thanks!
p.s. again... Thanks, Jeff and Marshall for posting. I don't usually get any good debate about political stuff on the blog. It's cool that we can have differing opinions about this and not want to kill each other.
who said I dont want to kill anybody
Add Comment
