Rep vs. Dem Differences

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul
Sengupta" wrote:

Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country
wealthy.
Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

wow! you don't understand Republicans.


Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be
more
evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
before
marriage, homosexuality and so on.

and you don't understand Democrats either.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=557746

"Newps" wrote in message news:ccKdneZWWrnmU6XcRVn-
The more money you have to spend the better
the economy will be.

I didn't agree with it when Reagan called it the "trickle down" theory, but
I think it's because I don't think that money necessarily trickles down. It
can, but it also trickles over and up.

An economy depends on the movement of money from one entity to another. If
everyone just held on to their money at the same time, the economy would
cease to be. The more money I have in my hand, the greater the odds that I
will give it to another person in exchange for goods and/or services.

I have a very liberal neighbor, a carpenter, who was bitching about how bad
the economy is right now. I told him that it wasn't that bad to me, as I
handed him over 6K to build a screened-in porch onto my house!

The irony of that moment made us both laugh.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

Trent Moorehead wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message news:ccKdneZWWrnmU6XcRVn-

The more money you have to spend the better
the economy will be.

An economy depends on the movement of money from one entity to another. If
everyone just held on to their money at the same time, the economy would
cease to be.

As long as you do anything with your money except literally put it in
your mattress the economy gets bigger.



I have a very liberal neighbor, a carpenter, who was bitching about how bad
the economy is right now. I told him that it wasn't that bad to me, as I
handed him over 6K to build a screened-in porch onto my house!

The irony of that moment made us both laugh.

That's because he never really though about it but simply spouted the
union line.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

Very simple. The more money you let all people have the more money that
can ciruclate in the economy. The more you have the more that trickles
down. For example 4 years ago I put an addition on my house for $55K. If
I don't have access to that money the contractor I hired doesn't get the
job. He makes a certain amount of profit, now he can trickle down some of
his money to somebody else by spending his money on something that is
important to him. The more money you have to spend the better the economy
will be.

Ok, so what part of what I said does not match with what you said?

Regardless, like I said, the way to maximize taxpayer's take is to reduce
the size of government, not increase it.

A lot of economists disfavor the "trickle-down" theory as not being as
efficient as more balanced tax cuts. It does *seem* like it could work, but
the studies don't seem to clearly bear this out (IIRC there was a lot of
excess funds at the top being saved or invested overseas so not helping this
country's economy).

I'm not for higher taxes, certainly. However, I do believe we need a
smaller government as a first step. Democrats are called "Tax and Spend"
but Republicans are turning out to be "Spend and Borrow" which is even
worse.

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Legrande Harris wrote:

When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
believe it was about a 15 minute gap.

So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
investigate.

The problem with this line of logic is that the 8 minutes of inaction
was after he was told about the second plane. He had been told of the
first plane prior to entering the classroom. You need to rewrite your
conclusion.

The White House response to the criticism if GWB was that he wanted to
project an air of calm and being in control in the face of crisis, and
not immediately rush from the room.

I only brought this up to correct the facts. Personally, I probably
would have sat there just like GWB. I watched it live on TV, and it
took a bit of time after the second plane for me to figure out what was
going on. However, I'm not the President, and I don't have a direct
line to the FAA, who had a better idea of what was happening.

Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
informed.

Pretty easy choice to me

Maybe not as easy, with the correct sequence of events.

Lets see

8:45 First attack

8:46 Jets Scrambled

President told ?, Was Kerry told?

9:03 Second attack

President told, Kerry must have known by now, goes into 40 minute
stupor.

9:08 All flights in New York area banned,

9:11 President reads to kids until 9:11

9:24 FAA tells NORAD flight 77 possibly hijacked

9:25 FAA shuts down all airports nation wide

Kerry is coming out of his stupor, unless he was told later than 8:45,
then he would still be in a stupor.

9:31 Bush issues statement "apparent terrorist attack."

9:40 Flight 77 crashes into Pentagon.

If Kerry was told after the the second attack then he would be coming
out of the stupor now.

9:45 Cell phone call indicates that flight 93 is hijacked

9:45 FAA orders all aircraft to land

9:55 Scrambled Jets reach Washington, DC area

10:07 Flight 93 crashes

Just what could Bush realistically have done from 8:45 to 10:07 that
would have changed anything in the slightest?

Maybe Moore is the idiot here Sometimes emergencies demand more
thought than action.

Legrande Harris wrote:

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Legrande Harris wrote:

When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
believe it was about a 15 minute gap.

So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
investigate.

The problem with this line of logic is that the 8 minutes of inaction
was after he was told about the second plane. He had been told of the
first plane prior to entering the classroom. You need to rewrite your
conclusion.

The White House response to the criticism if GWB was that he wanted to
project an air of calm and being in control in the face of crisis, and
not immediately rush from the room.

I only brought this up to correct the facts. Personally, I probably
would have sat there just like GWB. I watched it live on TV, and it
took a bit of time after the second plane for me to figure out what was
going on. However, I'm not the President, and I don't have a direct
line to the FAA, who had a better idea of what was happening.

Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
informed.

Pretty easy choice to me

Maybe not as easy, with the correct sequence of events.

Lets see

8:45 First attack

8:46 Jets Scrambled

President told ?, Was Kerry told?

9:03 Second attack

President told, Kerry must have known by now, goes into 40 minute
stupor.

9:08 All flights in New York area banned,

9:11 President reads to kids until 9:11

9:24 FAA tells NORAD flight 77 possibly hijacked

9:25 FAA shuts down all airports nation wide

Kerry is coming out of his stupor, unless he was told later than 8:45,
then he would still be in a stupor.

9:31 Bush issues statement "apparent terrorist attack."

9:40 Flight 77 crashes into Pentagon.

If Kerry was told after the the second attack then he would be coming
out of the stupor now.

9:45 Cell phone call indicates that flight 93 is hijacked

9:45 FAA orders all aircraft to land

9:55 Scrambled Jets reach Washington, DC area

10:07 Flight 93 crashes

Just what could Bush realistically have done from 8:45 to 10:07 that
would have changed anything in the slightest?

Maybe Moore is the idiot here Sometimes emergencies demand more
thought than action.

So it really doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did, you would simply
find fault with Kerry no matter what the situation was, and adapt your
story to fit?

In article
le.rogers.com,
"Icebound" wrote:

...snip... Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

This is a good thing...
... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
involved in producing those earnings.

Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of
the
infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use
to
distribute their goods and services?

By the above, I must conclude that you are more in favor of
a user fee basis for taxation rather than a tax on income. Yes?


Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?


.....

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
le.rogers.com,
"Icebound" wrote:

...snip... Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

This is a good thing...
... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
involved in producing those earnings.

Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of
the
infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use
to
distribute their goods and services?

By the above, I must conclude that you are more in favor of
a user fee basis for taxation rather than a tax on income. Yes?




I am in favor of fairness, simplicity, and in favor of acknowledgement of
the complete costs.

The current mish-mash of taxes by municipal, state, federal
jurisdictions...taxes on property, income, sales, and "other".... AND
user-fees.... has evolved only because stuff keeps getting through the
cracks...industries who pollute but don't clean up... tax-law that favors
one group or industry over another...individuals and corporations with
creative accountants... businesses who fail and are bailed out from
bankruptcy (along with their creditors) ..... and so governments have been
forced to make up the difference through this mish-mash.

I sort of favor a totally transaction-based system. A penny out of every
hundred dollar transaction (or whatever) no matter whether it is a deposit
of income, a payment of your mortage, or a purchase of an ice-cream cone.

It should be reasonably fair.... at least as fair as what you have now....
because the biggest payers to the taxation coffers would be those that
receive the most and buy the most.... and those are probably the ones that
use the infrastructure the most. And it could probably be applied to
offshore transactions that come into or out of the country.

And all the book-keeping is done by the banks and retailers. No forms to
fill out for you and me!


Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?



That would be nice. But then, that would be the taxpayers and the taxpayers
don't want to pay more taxes. It would be the biggest industries, but then
they have bulk contracts that allow them power for cheap. etc., etc.

Newps wrote:

That's because he never really though about it but simply spouted the
union line.

If he's building porches on houses, he's probably not union.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?


Not a bad idea, so long as those users are informed of that issue beforehand
and have a choice as to whether to "use" power from that plant or not. The
problem with must "regulated monopoly" utilities is that they are guaranteed
a certain ROI and this does not factor in a lot of externalities.

The initial promise of nuclear power was that it would be so cheap there
would be no need for meters. Unfortunately it turned out to be much more
complex than that and the designs went astray, with bigger and bigger single
reactor generators. There are other technologies that promise less
difficult to deal with waste and better resistance to thermal runaway but
they haven't yet gained wide usage. I still believe in the idea of nuclear
power, but somewhat differently executed than the present systems.

What I don't like is the immunity from damage claims the power companies
have in the case of radioactive release enough to destroy habitability. I
have zero control of whether the local company has a thermal fission turbine
a few miles away from me yet they and my homeowner's insurance company won't
cover me if something goes wrong. I know I can evacuate my family and
myself even under the worse of scenarios, in a non-panic way, but my bank
will still want mortgage payments even though my home might be worth zilch.