Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BUSH

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The hypocracy of our society these days blows my mind. We watch as firefighters and civilians die of heart attacks daily, yet we fill our stomachs with the greasy mess that causes it. We read the newspaper articles of those who die in situations they never should have been in, yet we constantly put ourselves in danger of being the next. We demand respect because we are there for our community on a daily basis, yet we refuse to give respect to the leader of our own nation. Hell, there's even those who can't even respect the firefighter next to them, only because they don't recieve a paycheck. Oh, but giving the fire service $100,000,000 is going to be the salvation.

    We still allow kids to play with matches. Let houses burn because of wiring that should have been replaced years ago. Let arsonists get away with a slap of a hand. But, that brand new fire truck that the federal government is going to buy a few fire departments is going to cure the problem.

    I don't know about you, but I didn't join the fire service to have the nicest equipment available. Not to be paid handsomely. Not to be able to retire by the time I'm fifty. I did it to serve my community. To help those in need. We deal with people on a daily basis that are having the worst day of their lives, yet we fight and squabble over a tawdry $100,000,000 that most of us will never see a single dime, while at the same time refusing to look at the big picture of the whole budget plan and the benefits it has. Definitely not how I pictured the fire service.

    Comment


    • #32
      Its mind boggling to me reading these posts regarding the president. I sit here wondering how many of the authors here have taken the time to write/call their elected representatives in Washington. Remember, only Congress can spend your money. I think it would be time better spent writing your Congressman and Senators and urge them to vote accordingly rather than griping in this forum.
      So far I don't see any fat interns under this presidents desk.
      Stay Safe.

      Comment


      • #33
        I've been posting exclusively on the main thread about this issue, but I've seen the same general opinions here, so let me add my $0.02.

        First of all, anyone who thinks that the government taking money out of circulation in the form of taxation is the way to stimulate the economy really needs to go back to high school macroeconomics class. Federal tax cuts, judiciously applied and accompanied by spending cuts (or at least a slowdown in growth of the burgeoning federal budget) during the Reagan years actually increased the amount of money in the U.S. Treasury, while stimulating one of the most complete and successful turnarounds of the U.S. economy in history. Imagine that! Economic prosperity, *plus* and increase in the federal government's stash. How could anyone possibly believe that the government taking more money AWAY from us and redistributing it via various social engineering projects could stimulate a capitalist economy, entreprenuership, and creation of jobs? That's like believing that the moon is made of cheese. No offense, daysleeper. I was also a political science major, and I don't ever recall learning that in my macro or government classes.

        The main problem I have with the FIRE Act, and have had since the beginning, is that it's a barely concealed vote-getting ploy. The politicians offered us a quick lick of the federal lollipop, and many of us jumped at it as if we'd been starving. We've been played - played by politicians who think so much of us that they truly believed that our votes could be bought with a thousand bucks (and we're proving them right with all of this screaming about Bush "cutting our budgets"); we've been played by the leadership of the IAFF (notice I said leadership, guys and gals), who blindly support Democratic candidates not because they're concerned about fire safety and the welfare of firefighters, but because union bosses generally get richer and more powerful when Dems are in office; we've been played by the Democrats, and most especially the last administration and the Algore campaign, who suddenly and miraculously became supporters of the FIRE Act when it looked like they needed the votes, after ignoring it for years; and finally, we've been played by ourselves with these emotional appeals to the nobility of the fire service and emotional essays about firefighters dying - as if that extra thousand bucks was going to save a single firefighter's or civilian's life.

        Finally, I question the wisdom of wishing to have your funding administrated by a federal bureacracy, thousands of miles away from your town, by non-fire service people who couldn't care less about your town's unique challenges and needs. The fire service is a local function, for good reason. Funding and spending can be sought, administered, and controlled much more effectively, efficiently, and successfully by local fire service people, or at least people who are intimately familiar with the local area, and all of its unique circumstances.

        This is not a budget cut, people. We never had the money in the first place. You weren't going to close up shop if you didn't get those pennies from the feds. Your time and energy would be more productively and successfully spent in securing a positive, reliable local funding source for fire suppression and prevention operations than whining about the President, and threatening to organize marches. The fire service is not, never has been, and never should be the responsibility of the federal government. In fact, if anyone can cite me the specific portion of the Constitution that refutes this, I'll be glad to eat my words. But I don't think I'll be doing that.

        ------------------
        J. Black

        The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated.

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi, Mongo.

          >>First number is Reagans, second is congress (in billions)<<

          [#'s snipped]

          A couple questions about your numbers.

          First, is it appropriate to include years where congress wasn't controlled by the democrats, since you said spending increased as a result of the democrats? Don't both parties share equal blame from 81 to 87?

          Secondly, do the #'s showing Congress's spending show their proposed budgets compared to Reagan's proposed budgets, or the amount of spending *after* mandatory spending and off-budget increases are included? As you probably know, there can be a huge difference between the two numbers.

          Another question for you, albeit perhaps a bit off topic: I glanced in on another thread and noticed that you were discussing how a variety of things that the federal government currently funds are unconstitutional. Could you provide some citations of cases substantiating that claim? I'm legitimately curious.

          Comment


          • #35
            is it appropriate to include years where congress wasn't controlled by the democrats

            Sure, there is plenty of blame to go around. The House was controlled by dems during the Ragan years, the senate from 81 to 87. Reagan signed all these budgets too.

            But what you need to do is go back and read your own post that I was responding to which states:

            Take a look at the budgets that Reagan proposed that were *always* bigger than the budgets that the democratic Congress approved.

            The facts are different than the statement you made and I can find no source, dem. or rep., that states otherwise.

            Consider this too, when the republicans had the senate, the average increase by congress over Reagans proposed is 2.82%. When the democrates controlled both houses it averaged 4.25%....

            Secondly, do the #'s showing Congress's spending show their proposed budgets compared to Reagan's proposed budgets, or the amount of spending *after* mandatory spending and off-budget increases are included?

            The numbers posted for congress were the congressional requested/approved amounts.

            Could you provide some citations of cases substantiating that claim?

            No legal citations that I am aware of, just the words of the founding fathers in documents like the federalist papers and such that clearly state their meaning. And since we're a little off topic, if I may...

            Some like to say that the federalists papers and other writings regarding the constitution by our founding fathers have no basis (for lack of a better term) today. Yet they use one of these writings by Jefferson in a clarification regarding the phrase 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' as their basis for the religious bashing they do...

            Comment


            • #36
              >>Sure, there is plenty of blame to go around. The House was controlled by dems during the Ragan years, the senate from 81 to 87. Reagan signed all these budgets too.<<

              Just as a point of clarification, the Senate was controlled by *Republicans* from 1/81 to 1/87, if my memory is not failing me. You can't really blame a Democratic Congress for the budgets that were passed during that time, if the Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats.

              >>The facts are different than the statement you made and I can find no source, dem. or rep., that states otherwise.<<

              Here's why your information doesn't match mine: most websites show the amount of $ that Congress eventually spent, not the amount of $ that Congress proposed in its budget. The reason? Mandatory spending and off budget increases.

              Here's an example: Congress doesn't budget any particular amount of $ for spending on something like welfare. They simply say "any individual on welfare will get XXX amount of $" and then just pay that amount of $ to anybody that's on welfare. They guess how many people will need to be paid, but it's impossible to really know.

              Most people assume there's two numbers worth knowing: 1. Reagan's proposed budget; and 2. the amount of $ Congress actually spent. But that's forgetting a third number: Congress's proposed budget. Usually the amount of $ spent by Congress is different than what they've actually proposed because of off-budget increases and mandatory spending. The *proposed budget* by Congress is what I'm talking about, not the amount of $ that actually ended up being spent.

              It's been years and years since I've actually crunched the #'s, but I remember that if Congress had passed Reagan's budgets without any changes, they would've ended up spending something like $30 billion more during his presidency than what was proposed by Congress's budget.

              >>No legal citations that I am aware of, just the words of the founding fathers in documents like the federalist papers and such that clearly state their meaning.<<

              So is it fair then to claim that laws are unconstitutional, just because they don't comport with the federalist papers? Isn't it more appropriate to look to 225 years of jurisprudence to see what's constitutional and what's not?

              Comment


              • #37
                One-L

                "Just as a point of clarification, the Senate was controlled by *Republicans* from 1/81 to 1/87, if my memory is not failing me. You can't really blame a Democratic Congress for the budgets that were passed during that time, if the Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats."

                No, you're right, Congress wasn't controlled by Demos during Reagan years. But the House was. One point you missed, though. While either house can propose bills, then the other takes them up, then conference committee works out the differences. But that's not true with budgets. They all start in the HOUSE. Officially, they don't even start with the President's proposal (although by custom they frequently do). In fact, Reagan's budgets were frequently ignored by the hostile House, drifted far afield, then were dragged back by the Senate and the conference committee (and the people, complaining to their reps!).

                It's also important to look at the "distribution" of those budgets. In many cases, Reagan proposed far LESS in many areas of social spending, corp. welfare, and pork, but far MORE money for DOD. These proposals were REVERSED by the House.

                Another big factor you've left out is that Reagan repeatedly asked for cuts in different programs, and in the budget as a whole. While he lowered taxes in '81, he raised them in '86. This tax increase (supposedly) were sold based on their being $2 in budget cuts for every $1 in tax increase. Guess what? No budget cuts.

                Now this isn't entirely the Demos fault. It is entirely the Congress's fault. Unfortunately, many of the pseudo-conservative Republicans are still there, and still spineless.

                "So is it fair then to claim that laws are unconstitutional, just because they don't comport with the federalist papers? Isn't it more appropriate to look to 225 years of jurisprudence to see what's constitutional and what's not?"

                No! The 10th amendment clearly states that MOST of the things the Feds do today are not their job. The reason they get away with this is two-fold. First, too many people selfishly say "give me my share" while not understanding it shouldn't be there to give and second, this isn't 225 years of jurisprudence. It's all based on one decision, by the Supreme Court, in 1933, regarding one of FDRs New Deal programs. This one decision placed the "commerce clause" in such a powerful position, that today whether I can plant rice in a swamp, on land I own, or not, can be determined by the EPA or BLM, depending on whether they consider it a "wetland" or if there are any "threatened" species on it, all because I 'might' sell the rice, and it might get transported out of state, so (trumpets here!) it falls under the commerce clause.

                Never mind that telling me what I can do on my land violates at least 4 Amendments, and all of the reasons stated in the Federalist papers for both the "commerce clause" and those amendments.

                And three different SCs since have questioned the ruling - thinking it might be flawed, but guess what! Courts have to go by PRECEDENT. So once one judge (or set of judges, in this case) screws up a decision - the rest of history is stuck with it. Only in this case, tax and spend liberals don't think of it as being "stuck". They think of it as a license to confiscate as much as they can, dole out as little as they can get away with, and try to make as much of the population "think" that they depend on them (the government) for their very existence. Because this is what buys the votes that keeps them in power.

                If only we could find a way to convince more people of fallacy of these arguments. Then we could throw a whole bunch of corrupt politicos out and get this country back on track.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Put me in Mongos corner!Everytime I saw a union brother with Gore shirt or sign a check went to the RNC.As to the IAFF spending my dues money on candidates I will NEVER vote for well can you say paycheck protection?
                  They say they were just looking out for my interest(as a firefighter)well I put my countries interest ahead of mine.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Here's why your information doesn't match mine: most websites show the amount of $ that Congress eventually spent, not the amount of $ that Congress proposed in its budget. The reason? Mandatory spending and off budget increases.

                    It’s mandatory to give folks on welfare and unemployment a raise? It’s mandetory to pay more for an item than agreed to at the time the contract was let? Cost overruns are the contractors problems, not the purchaser.

                    Here's an example: Congress doesn't budget any particular amount of $ for spending on something like welfare. They simply say "any individual on welfare will get XXX amount of $" and then just pay that amount of $ to anybody that's on welfare. They guess how many people will need to be paid, but it's impossible to really know.

                    Then they need to control the number of people on welfare more, or better yet do away with it all together.

                    The *proposed budget* by Congress is what I'm talking about, not the amount of $ that actually ended up being spent.

                    A) All but one of Reagans’ budget was declared DOA to congress (I think it was Tip Oneal that said that). Not enough spending.

                    B) Make life easier on everybody, post the numbers. The ones I gave are the only ones I can find on liberal and conservative web sites.

                    It's been years and years since I've actually crunched the #'s, but I remember that if Congress had passed Reagan's budgets without any changes, they would've ended up spending something like $30 billion more during his presidency than what was proposed by Congress's budget.

                    Counterpoint, if congress had held to Reagans budgets, we’d have had a $130 billion surplus.

                    So is it fair then to claim that laws are unconstitutional, just because they don't comport with the federalist papers?

                    Yes, they do not comply with the intent of the authors for the foundations of our government

                    Isn't it more appropriate to look to 225 years of jurisprudence to see what's constitutional and what's not?

                    No. Just because a court rules one way doesn't make it right. Might make it law, but it's still may not be right. I'm sure you have positions that don't square with the court.

                    And actually, it’s probably more like 70 years and it’s liberal interpretation, not jurisprudence. For the most part, everything was rolling along just fine until FDR got the RAW Deal started. I’ll refer you back to RJE for the rest of this - especially the history lesson in the other forum on this subjuect. I’ve only been conservative for the last 9 years.

                    Oh and while your researching congress proposed budgets, check out the amount we’ve spent on social programs and compare that amount to the national debt. Notice anything funny?

                    If only we could find a way to convince more people of fallacy of these arguments. Then we could throw a whole bunch of corrupt politicos out and get this country back on track.

                    I do think some wheels are turning in some heads.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I even voted for bush, but now I wish Gore or Nader had won. I think bush will realize his mistake when his ranch in crawford Tx. catches on fire and there isn't enough money to fund the local vollies.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "I think bush will realize his mistake when his ranch in crawford Tx. catches on fire and there isn't enough money to fund the local vollies."

                        Yep, those vollies are gonna close up shop without that $2000.00 from the Feds. Great argument!

                        ------------------
                        J. Black

                        The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I even voted for bush, but now I wish Gore or Nader had won. I think bush will realize his mistake when his ranch in crawford Tx. catches on fire and there isn't enough money to fund the local vollies.

                          You've changed your mind over one issue? You'd rather vote for a guy that refused to state a limit on the amount of tax you should pay? You'd rather vote for a guy that thinks you should have 1.5 gallon flush toilets in your house, but has the full flush beauties in his? (my point is he has one standard of living REQUIRED for you and another for him).

                          You'd rather vote for a guy that wants to break up the largest corporations in the US and have them owned by the 'people?' You would rather vote for a guy that would have mandated a 100% tax when you make over $100,000? A guy that would cut militar spending by 50% so he could increase welfare by 50%? (you should really visit the green party platform before you say Nader again).

                          Did you really vote for Bush or we're you just joking?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Yes I did vote for Bush. Mainly because of his good job he did as gov. I had no idea that he would screw up this bad on the national level. Anyways, I guess I should have looked at the issues more closely.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              pfr172 -

                              Actually, what you *should* do is to look at this issue more closely before you make any blanket statements. I'd suggest you read all of the posts on this forum, plus those on the main thread, titled "Bush Recommends Cutting FIRE Act..."

                              You might learn that what the President has done is kill a bill whose sole purpose was to get firefighters, and mainly firefighters' union leadership in the IAFF to whore out their votes for a few dollars.

                              Fire service funding is a local/regional issue, not federal.

                              ------------------
                              J. Black

                              The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                deleted

                                [This message has been edited by ggtruckie (edited 03-14-2001).]

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X