Hmmm, Lieberman and Cheney ready to go at it ;)

[pidge]

Copy and paste with pride

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."-Al
Gore

"Democrats understand the importance of bondage between a mother and
child."-Vice President Al Gore

"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my
fellow astronauts."-Vice President Al Gore

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit. Mars is somewhat the same distance
from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there
are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that
means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can
breathe." --Vice President Al Gore, 8/11/94

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's
history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century.
I didn't live in this century." -- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more
freedom and democracy - but that could change." --Vice President Al Gore,
5/22/98

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and
that one word is 'to be prepared'." --Vice President Al Gore, 12/6/93

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
--Vice President Al Gore, 11/30/96

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made
good judgments in the future." --Vice President Al Gore

"The future will be better tomorrow." --Vice President
Al Gore

"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
--Vice President Al Gore, 9/21/97

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have
a tremendous impact on history." -- Vice President Al Gore

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
--Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of
NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." --
Vice President Al Gore

"Public speaking is very easy." --Vice President Al
Gore to reporters in 10/95

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Democrat."
--Vice President Al Gore

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people
going to the polls."-Vice President Al Gore

"When I have been asked who caused the riots and the
killing in L.A., my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for
the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The
killers are
to blame. --Al Gore

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms
of not having it." --Vice President Al Gore, 5/20/96

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may
not occur." --Vice President Al Gore, 9/22/97

"For NASA, space is still a high priority." --Vice
President Al Gore, 9/5/93

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that
teach our children." --Vice President Al Gore, 9/18/95

"The American people would not want to know of any
misquotes that Al Gore may or may not make." --Vice President Al Gore

"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to
enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made." --Vice
President Al Gore

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's
the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." -- Vice President
Al Gore

"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice
President Al Gore

AND, OF COURSE, (TO ALL USERS OF THE INTERNET), THE ALL
TIME FAVORITE QUOTATION OF MR. AL GORE:

"As many of you know, I was very instrumental in the
founding of the Internet." --AL Gore to Katie Couric

 

[etech]

Millenium
"I think Bush-Cheney is the way to go. Their platform is most in line with what I believe. Isn't that what this election is all about? "

Applauding, That is perhaps the most lucid thought tonight.

It's not whether someone wears to much makeup, blinks, or occasionally stumbles over a word. Lying is relevent, though the Gore internet thing has been overblown.
It should be about who will represent you and your beliefs the best.
Fairer taxes, less taxes, less government, a comprehensive energy policy ,a more logical plan for social security. Those are some of the issues that are important to me and why out of the choices we have I support Bush and Cheney.

 

[DanC]

LMAO

 

[DanC]

<< It's not whether someone wears to much makeup, blinks, or occasionally stumbles over a word >>


The whiners sure thought it was vitally relevant in the last round.
Suddenly though...

&quot;It's not FAIR&quot;
&quot;Someone ought to make a LAW&quot;
&quot;The Government should PROTECT US&quot;

Blah, blah, blah....

Overthrow the damned government. It's corrupt.

 

[DanC]

Yep - got the last word on that one.

 

[Opinionated]

Barring some phenominal shift in the alignment of the universe, I will be voting for the Bush/Cheney ticket on November 3rd.

What I find absolutely unforgivable, is that both parties talk about how to USE the surplus. There is only ONE way to &quot;USE&quot; the &quot;SURPLUS&quot;: Pay down our incomprehensible debt.

Frankly, to my way of thinking, we don't have a &quot;surplus&quot; as long as we have a national debt. We actually have a little extra at &quot;payday&quot; to devote to the debts we built up when we couldn't make ends meet.

Now, I'd like to have lower taxes too. I'd like my Mom to get &quot;free&quot; prescription drugs... etc, etc.... BUT....

As long as we have a multi-trillion dollar debt to pay off (and 23+ percent of every tax dollar is spent on debt service....interest), I don't think we should even TALK about a tax cut. Keep taxes where they are and put every cent of the &quot;surplus&quot; toward the debt, until it's paid off in full....

Think about it.... Then you'd have freed up 23% of a 1.6-2.0 trilion dollar budget to do with whatever the country decides..... 23% tax cut across the board? Put the surplus into a &quot;rainy-day&quot; endowment fund to MAKE money in good times, and smooth out the bumps in the not so good times....

Just my opionion...

 

[DanC]

A fine opinion it is...
Let me add this -



<< both parties talk about how to USE the surplus >>



If there is a surplus it means just one thing... WE ARE OVERTAXED!

 

[JellyBaby]

Opinionated,

If there was demand, they could pay off the debt in under then years maybe less. But nobody seems to care. Politicans are on a shopping spree and it's our credit cards they're using. There's no legal recourse. They can't keep printing more money to cover things. Eventually, unless I have this completely wrong, somebody's gonna pay. Of course it won't be politicians and they know it. I see a &quot;no win&quot; scenario here while repulicrats and demlicans continue to hold us spell bound under this two party fiasco.

 

[Opinionated]

RD, right you are.... Looking at the wrong month on the calendar. Actually, I vote well before the actual election day as a rule. Never know when I might be called away at the last minute, and I'd hate to miss out on a vote.

DanC, good point.... We ARE overtaxed.... but as long as we owe... what is it... 5-6 trillion dollars in debt, frankly we SHOULD be running a &quot;surplus&quot; to pay it off. Carrying a debt in the &quot;good times&quot; is just bad policy.

If you've sucked a large portion of the available capital (domestic that is) out of the market, what happens if you have a sudden huge need for additional credit... say a war.... or perhaps a financial melt-down. The domestic capital sources may be tapped out... then you are faced with &quot;begging&quot; internationally.... (albeit, a great deal of our current debt is already held by foreign sources). -- Sorry... getting a bit far afield I guess, but I'm rather &quot;Opinionated&quot; when it comes to budgetary issues..... and perhaps just about everything else.

 

[pidge]

I do believe we are overtaxed however we do have a huge debt. My opinion is this. It would be great if we took all that surplus to pay the debt that we owe. Any financial advisor would suggest the same. The problem with the government is that they always find ways to spend the money. I am sure if we all said no to a tax refund, the government would take a huge portion of the money for other causes and not put it towards the debt that we owe. This happens time and time again. I always here problems here at home where the few times where propositions for tax increases to pay for school needs always ends up going to beurocrats and administrators and the schools are left wondering that happened to that tax increase that was meant to help the schools.


All things being equal, I would agree that our first priority should be to pay down the debt but all things aren't equal. If the government doesn't have enough money, they tax us without asking if we can afford it. If we ask for a tax break/refund, no no no. The government could not function with a tax break. It would cripple them to much.

 

[Opinionated]

JB - IF we dedicated the entire surplus toward debt payment, I would hazard a &quot;guess&quot; that we could indeed pay the debt off in ten years, maybe even less.

Do y'all realize what would happen if we began retiring debt EARLY? I'm no economist, but I can't help but think that interest rates would be significantly lowered across the board, thus making each dollar of debt reduction &quot;worth&quot; more than the dollar paid.... a form of reverse compounding interest.

Plus, the more afordable capital would be returned to the private markets for use by business (cheaper capital would make it possible to combat spending power erosion naturally vs. artificially by the FED).

Now as to HOW to make it happen....

I can think of several ways to make it happen.... One that comes to mind is an all-out BAN on non-direct political contributions. BAN contributions to PACS OR political parties in general. All political contributions must be by individuals ONLY, limited in amount by law, and contributed DIRECTLY to candidates ONLY. That would not only lessen the money influence of &quot;special interests&quot;, it would actually starve PACS to death, and break up the two-party system. &quot;Parties&quot; would have to form around candidates (or slates of candidates), as the candidate campaign committees would be the only politically funded entities.

Get the PACs and parties out of the way, and the voices of the candidates could be heard without as much coersion by party bosses and elites.

THEN, grass roots efforts by fiscally sane folks COULD have a genuine hope of putting candidates on the ballot that would pledge debt payoff as a TRUE priority.

 

[ElFenix]

opinionated seems to have paid attention in economics class. bravo!

 

[ElFenix]

parties would still form, you don't need money to support them. parties serve a vital role in &quot;democratic&quot; systems. they are &quot;linking&quot; devices, spreading information to the public, which doesn't have time to research it all. PACs do a similar thing for politicians. each side provides its point of view in its own biased manner and the politician can choose which side will best help him get re-elected. i don't think there should be any limits on campaign contributions, i see it as a restriction on political speech, and i am definitely anti-censor. oh, and all interests are &quot;special.&quot;

you're right, the gov't debt competes for the same financing as private debt, so because of gov't debt we have less investment, higher interest rates, etc.

 

[Opinionated]

ElFenix - Don't get me wrong. I don't have any problem with political parties per se. I do see them as a potentially useful tool in the political process, but I DON'T think they should be funded by political contributions.

Frankly, I thik MORE real information would be available to voters without the &quot;money shield&quot; currently available to parties, PACs, and &quot;independent issue committees&quot;.

I MIGHT be convinced under certain scenarios that liberal limits on INDIVIDUAL DIRECT contributions could be tolerated. However, I do NOT consider MONEY to be speech as defined in the Constitution. Money serves as an amplifier to make a wealthy man's speech &quot;louder&quot; or more important than a poor man's speech. I do not believe the framers of the constitution envisioned free speech as a right that is exercised proportionate to a man's disposable income. Rather, I think the content/ideas to be the key. The amplification of speech should only be to the extent that the recipients of that speech agree (or disagree) with the ideas, take them up as their own, and carry them to the polls.

Yes, all interests are &quot;special&quot;. However, in today's political reality, an interest's degree of &quot;Specialty&quot; is defined by the size of the mountains of cash one can generate to broadcast it.

 

[BenSkywalker]

&quot;Do y'all realize what would happen if we began retiring debt EARLY? I'm no economist, but I can't help but think that interest rates would be significantly lowered across the board, thus making each dollar of debt reduction &quot;worth&quot; more than the dollar paid.... a form of reverse compounding interest.&quot;

Not quite. The interest on the debt is calculated to be payed off(just the interest) for each year, and it was last I checked ringing in at just under $200 billion. Paying down a dollar does indeed save money in the long term due to the reduction of the interest due on the debt, but the way in which the government &quot;pays down&quot; the debt is to simply hold on to the money and pay off the holders of the debt instead of refinancing the old debt to new debtors. Holding on to the surplus negates the need to refinance the existing debt.

The interest rate right now is raised not due to the debt or deficit, it is currently at a higher rate then it could be to attempt to slow the rate of economic expansion to a sustainable number. Without any further deficit, and the actual amount of government bonds circulating decreasing due to the money being held as part of the &quot;surplus&quot;(we do have an honest surplus right now, ignoring the SS income entirely) we do not need an artificaly inflated interest rate to be able to finance the debt/deficit(basic supply and demand).

Tax cuts, which have yet to ever reduce the amount of government revenue, could be seen as a much better way to reduce the debt as its' size is reduced on a percentage basis when compared to GDP. For instance, if you had a debt of $100,000 and had an infusion of cash of $50,000 what would you do? Paying off the debt would be one option but what if you knew of a solid investment that could gain you double or tripple the percentage points that you owed on the debt? Same basic principles apply when discussing tax cuts &quot;vs&quot; paying down the debt. &quot;Investing&quot; tax revenue back into the economy has always produced superior results as long as spending is kept in check.

 

[ElFenix]

ben- the yield on a t-bill is set by the gov't and printed on the bill. a t-bill is considered to be the safest investment in the US, you will always get the money back. that being said, would you rather have a t-bill at 5% or a gm bond at 5%. gm is a good company, but there is still some risk involved, so people will go to the t-bill. gm has to price its bond higher, say 8%, to compete. so the cost of money to gm is higher than it would be had the t-bill not existed, this is why interest rates are higher due to debt.