U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2006, 07:17 PM
 
Location: N.H.
1,022 posts, read 3,147,331 times
Reputation: 453

Advertisements

I didn't know he's GOP I was trying to show that both parties need to get ride of the fraud and scum but yes he should be incarserated he broke the law. sorry if it looked as though I was just hitting the dems that wasn't my intent. and ya I know JIM WEBBS books are fiction (good thing too) but man he has something wrong upstairs issues he needs to address. lol GOOD writer but um a little to vivid almost like he's done some of the stuff.[/quote]

sorry that was a typing to fast error. but seems I was right anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2006, 08:05 PM
 
311 posts, read 549,335 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dufferz View Post
You may want to check you fact book here. Barney Franks is a Democrat. He is just another example of a double standard. If a Republican had a home that was use for a gay house of ill repute (trying not to get sensored), then that republican woud be gone for good but never forgotten by the Dems. I wish the Democrats would have the same ethics standards that they expect the republicans to have. That would be refreshing!
Good response!
What a "refreshing" thought! Not many times you see Barney Franks' name here.....its usually those "closet Republicans that don't practice what they preach!" that are held up as an example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2006, 08:08 PM
 
311 posts, read 549,335 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhyrnut View Post
and ya I know JIM WEBBS books are fiction (good thing too) but man he has something wrong upstairs issues he needs to address. lol GOOD writer but um a little to vivid almost like he's done some of the stuff.
Very true....maybe Webb and Kitty Kelley have something in common!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2006, 09:38 PM
 
9,716 posts, read 12,938,315 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
The government does a couple of things pretty well. One of them is defense (pertaining to the organization of a military and the ablility to defend the 50 united states).
Our military spending (for current and past military) takes somewhere between 30% to 70% of our annual budget -- depending on who's figures you look at and what they are including in the "cost of Defense."

Interest on the public debt is another 10% -- and that amount is rapidly rising since we have borrowed like there is no tomorrow for the last 20+ years.

You think we are doing a good job at Defense... Well dang! We ought to be! We're throwing billions of dollars into Defense! And don't forget that all those military retirees (and their families) get very nice retirement benefits that we all get to pay for for a long long time. (Look at that Veteran who was on TV today -- 111 years old and fought in WWI! How long do you think he's been retired?) And here's a little nugget of information from the NY Times on disabled veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq:

"The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged."

There are currently 2.6 million Veterans receiving some sort of disability compensation (according to the article). 292,000 of them are from the Persian Gulf War in 1991! That was a short war and hardly anyone died in that! Imagine how many there are going to be total from Afghanistan and Iraq this time around! (This article ran in the NYT on 10/11/06. Title was "Data Suggests Vast Costs Loom in Disability Claims." I'm afraid of posting too much copyright stuff but the whole article is available on the Internet.)

Please don't take this to mean that I would like to see Military spending cut. I don't want to see that. But we need to realistically look at how much this is costing us and quit equating that cost to the cost of providing school kids milk through Head Start. The cost of Defense is so high, I don't believe we could give away that much milk in 100 years!

Anyway...

Where do you propose we cut? Social security and Medicare have been "Pay as you go" for as long as I've been contributing to them and I don't believe they should even be part of the government budget since that money is contributed separately. (And it's not our fault the government refuses to quit borrowing out of it.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2006, 09:45 PM
 
9,716 posts, read 12,938,315 times
Reputation: 3315
Barney Frank is an openly gay Democrat -- but this is the first I've heard about him running a gay "house that collected money for sex." LOL! He's been in congress for about 20 years. When did he find time to do this? And who were his customers?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2006, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Navarre, Florida
327 posts, read 173,390 times
Reputation: 86
Exclamation What should we cut? Besides some people's....blank

UB50 -

I personally believe that we should scale down welfare and government programs similar to that so that SOME people will actually get off their booties and work...why should we have to pay for their laziness?!? At least make it REALLY DIFFICULT to get benefits unless you can prove you deserve them. I know a lot of people who take advantage of these programs...some drive much nicer vehicles than we do...sigh...

BTW, I realize there are exceptional circumstances and situations.

It also infuriates me that we, as taxpayers, are paying for federally funded abortions...that's a whole different post and a never-ending conversation.

Last edited by Kimbercuddles; 11-10-2006 at 10:22 PM.. Reason: I'm a dork...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2006, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Port St. Lucie and Okeechobee, FL
1,305 posts, read 4,931,176 times
Reputation: 1069
Kimbercuddles, please do some research before forming your opinions. Regarding federal funding of abortions, check into the Hyde amendment of 1976, which prohibits federal funding of abortions except for cases of rape, incest or the medical necessity of saving the Mother's life, and only for those eligible for Medicaid.

Regarding welfare, under President Clinton, a sweeping welfare reform law was passed (after several attempts by conservatives to embarrass the administration with phony welfare proposals). There are effective limits on how long eligible people can claim welfare if they are able to work.

The old wive's tales about welfare queens driving Cadillacs was debunked many years ago.

Your prejudices are showing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2006, 11:44 PM
 
Location: NC
1,250 posts, read 2,262,924 times
Reputation: 584
His boyfriend was the one actually running the house of ill repute out of Barney's DC apt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2006, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 636,444 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post


Where do you propose we cut? Social security and Medicare have been "Pay as you go" for as long as I've been contributing to them and I don't believe they should even be part of the government budget since that money is contributed separately. (And it's not our fault the government refuses to quit borrowing out of it.)
How about we start with the billions of dollars for the pork projects that our dear congresspersons appropriate as a way of buying votes from their state. Robert Bird is a prime example. Half the state is named after him, and Ted Stevens in Alaska with his bridge to nowhere.

We keep voting these guys in, so are we not sending a message that "we can be bought" and "cut everywhere else, but not my state". There is so much fat in the government that we could cut billions and not touch any specific program such as head start.

The problem is, we cannot even reduce spending. Only in America can a president call for a smaller increase that what congress was proposing to spend on a program, and have the Dems scream that the program funding is being cut, and we believe it! That would be like me asking my boss for a 10% raise, and when he gave me 5%, I complained that I got a 50% cut in my raise.

So they play word games and keep the fat rolling, and we keep sucking it down like a hungry little piggy. I am affraid too many Americans are convinced that Uncle Sam is in fact our Sugar Daddy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2006, 12:57 AM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 636,444 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by pslOldTimer View Post

Regarding welfare, under President Clinton, a sweeping welfare reform law was passed (after several attempts by conservatives to embarrass the administration with phony welfare proposals). There are effective limits on how long eligible people can claim welfare if they are able to work.

The old wive's tales about welfare queens driving Cadillacs was debunked many years ago.

Your prejudices are showing.
Interesting interpretation of what happened. When the republicans took over (much like the dems did this week) Clinton was forced to the table by a congress bent on providing welfare reform. Clinton did not really have much of a choice in the matter, he knew the public wanted it (remember, he lived by the focus group studies that he continually did) and the public was wanting reform. If you really think that Clinton would have done welfare reform all by his lonesome if the GOP had not taken over congress, you are out of touch with the goals of the DNC... bigger government, more people dependant on the government. He just cut the best deal he could and got credit for it.

Did you know that women on welfare can stay on welfare if they have young children... as long as they don't have a man in the house? So, they basically get paid to have babies. My sister in law was a welfare recipient for years and she would tell us how much she "made" over the year on Welfare. Really it was a case of how much of my money she took.

We can argue all day about whether welfare recipients deserve what they get, but how about a better idea? Instead of collecting all the pork for those programs, what if the government passed through 100% of this money to the states and to the local government either on the county or city level. The county or city would then distribute the funds as needed. Would it not be better for someone local, who know their people to, in a responsible way get the funds to the right people? Why does the government in Washington DC need to get my money, keep most of it for pet projects, send a few cents on the dollar back to my state for a program that has little or no local control over how it is spent.

PS. I've been in plenty of low income projects. I've seen them in their cars, smoking (not cheap) talking on their cell phones (way not cheap). No, not all, but enough to make you wonder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top