When Al Gore says ...

[etech]

Gov. Bush
In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote.

Yep, sounds like he has ruined Texas, that's why the voters of Texas relected him to a consecutive term, the first Govenor of Texas so honored.

Looks like the liberals need to make up some more lies, that one won't fly.

 

[403Forbidden]

<< The point is that women has a family but she is so dependent on government programs that she won't even turn to her family first for help. >>



You assume that the son is either:

1) able to buy the medicine for his mother
or
2) willing to buy the medicine for his mother

You haven't proved either of these assumptions.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Clearly if he lives on a thousand acre ranch, is financially able to, and wants to take care of her, he will be providing her with the needed medication.

 

[403Forbidden]

<< Clearly if he lives on a thousand acre ranch, is financially able to, and wants to take care of her, he will be providing her with the needed medication >>




I'll concede that the son might be able to afford the medicvation.

But just because someone lives on a large ranch doesn't that they
automatically want to help their parents

 

[etech]

Gore's New Friend Comes Home Tired

Skinner said she did not want to take money from her son, Earl King, who lives on an 80-acre ranch. ``When I can't support myself, I'm done,'' she said. ``You've got to have some pride.''

So she would rather take other peoples money then depend on her own son. Where is the pride in taking charity from others then from your own family?
&quot;Her son said he understands her need to be self-sufficient and thinks many people in her generation are the same way.&quot;

Many of them lulled by the sense of false security that the Democrats are pitching.


I did mistake the size of the ranch but considering some of the outlandish lies thrown out by the Dems, I consider that a minor faux paus. The rest of the story is still true.

 

[403Forbidden]

Ok so now it's an 80 acre ranch...not 1000.

If the son wanted to help his mother, he would.

Obviously, he doesn't want to help...and he is not legally obligated to help.

 

[Napalm381]

Here's some of that &quot;pure fantasy&quot; about Gore being a big spender:

<< If you make less than $60,000 a year and you decide to invest $1,000 in a savings account, you'll get a tax credit which means, in essence, that the federal government will match your $1,000 with another $1,000. If you make less than $30,000 a year and you put $500 in a savings account, the federal government will match it with $1,500. If you make more than $60,000 and up to $100,000, you'll still get a match, but not as generous. >>

I don't even WANT to know how much that will cost.

 

[403Forbidden]

<< Here's some of that &quot;pure fantasy&quot; about Gore being a big spender: >>




uh..if you're gonna quote me...please at least be accurate.

I never said Gore was not a big spender.

I said it is PURE FANTASY to think that Gore &quot;will enslave the US on entitlements until the economy tanks under his taxes and the government till is broke.&quot;

 

[PistachioByAzul]

It's pretty sad. If the Democrats are going to pitch us some sob story, at least they could find a real one. This woman is just a stupid self-righteous b!tch.

 

[403Forbidden]

hahahaha he still lives at home with mommy?? heheheheh

 

[Napalm381]

<< will enslave the US on entitlements >>

This is certainly an entitlement.


<< until the economy tanks under his taxes >>

How else do you suggest financing it besides taxes?

While it may not &quot;cause the economy to tank&quot;, I find it hard to believe that a program of this sort would not cost a sh|tload of money. So much for paying down the debt like Gore always likes to brag about.





<< Yeah, but try and sock away $500.00 a year in savings while only making $30,000.00 a year >>

I don't think it's as hard as it sounds. That's only about 10 bucks a week. Cut out a case of beer or some other non-necessity every week, and you're there. Finding 10 bucks a week in savings when you make about 600 a week isn't impossible.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

I'm still in High School, isn't that natural?

 

[etech]

No need to yell 403,

Let's see, can anyone name an entitlement program that has been discontinued? Can anyone name an entitlement program where the benifits have been cut or reduced without being replaced by another program?


Slave.
One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence.

The influence is important here. When someone becomes dependent on government income (entitlements/charity) then they take that into account in their budgeting. Once that happens it cannot be taken away or reduced. It is political suicide to even think about reducing the American population's dependence. But then the next politician needs to be elected so he makes a new promise that gets him voted in. After him is the next with new promises and soon the people are dependent/enslaved to the government. The problem is the politicians have figured out how to make &quot;future generations&quot; pay for all of this. The time is soon coming when the future will be here, the money won't be. I don't want to see that come to pass.

 

[charrison]

A couple things to clear up.

1. The state is funded by a lottery. It is a tax, it is not the only one. I am greatly against this tax on people that are bad at math. It was sold to the state of texas by democrats to fund schools. However the funds generated by the lottery just go into the general fund.

2. The state minimum wage is the same as the rest of the nation. Realistly with the tight labor market, people are getting >$8 to flip burgers in places.

 

[MrChicken]

<<< Yeah, but try and sock away $500.00 a year in savings while only making $30,000.00 a year >>

I don't think it's as hard as it sounds. That's only about 10 bucks a week. Cut out a case of beer or some other non-necessity every week, and you're there. Finding 10 bucks a week in savings when you make about 600 a week isn't impossible>

I once made 30,000 a year and I can tell you I didnt have that $10 bucks a week to spare. I remember budgeting money and after all my bills were paid, I had about $28 a month left over. This was while I was eating 1 chicken breast and Ramen noodles every night for dinner. Once or twice a week i'd splurge and eat macaroni and cheese.
Eventually I got a raise and worked my way out such dire straights.

Now to be fair, I could have sold my house and moved into a 1 bedroom apartment and sold my car and bought a beater and then saved that $500 a year. I think you can see why I stayed with house and the reliable car.

 

[Napalm381]

No, lotteries are a tax on the mathematically incompetent

 

[Zucchini]

The poor and stupid. I walked into a 7/11 today and there was a big line .. i guess the lottery jackpot must have been high. The woman at the front of the line was buying 30+ tickets.. talk about crazy. People in line were getting kind of angry hehe. Poor woman doesn't realize that one ticket is good as 30 considering the odds.

 

[Napalm381]

The sad thing is, many of those lottery ticket buyers are people who really don't have the money to burn on such crap. My girlfriend used to work in a grocery store...she says people would buy food with food stamps, and use their cash on lottery tickets :| If you asked them to light 30 dollars in one dollar bills on fire, they'd slap you. But if you call it a &quot;lottery&quot; they line up in droves to do the exact same thing.

 

[MrChicken]

If you think lotteries are bad, you should visit a casino. Talk about robbing the poor.
Of course it's a free country and people are allowed to throw their money away.

 

[403Forbidden]

repubs are funny when they are upset

 

[Napalm381]

<< repubs are funny when they are upset >>


Red Dawn is still the funniest of all.

 

[Zucchini]

Well i don't think we should get rid of lotteries, its a fun thing. People just need to learn that one ticket is all you need

 

[pidge]

Bush sucks.

Gore sucks even more.

It's a choice of the lesser of two evils. We aren't getting control with either candidate. Only a democrat or republican will get elected president and only a person who can be controlled by his party and bought out by special interest groups will be nominated by their party as their presidential nominee. So I am choosing Bush for these reasons:

Taxation-Unfair taxation by Democrats and irresponsible spending habits

Promises-Gore will say anything to get elected, even if he doesn't mean it. I don't want that kind of person to be president.

Abortion-I am against it.

School Vouchers-I am for it. Also, I believe Bush would be better at increasing teaching standards.

Foreign Policy-Cheney's knowledge and leadership superceeds both Gore and Liberman

Also, Gore keeps mentioning how he has dedicated his whole life to fighting for the American people. He has never been part of the private sector. How am I going to trust him to come up with ideas to stimulate the economy when he never been part of the private sector. The founding fathers never intended for Americans to be life long politicians. They invisioned succesful people leaving their homes and entering politics to better they country and returning after a period of serving the nation to their homes and private sector. I really don't understand what makes Gore such an expert and why people regard Bush as a twit? Bush was succesful in the private sector. Gore did horrible in school and was kicked out of one school for poor grades and dropped out of another one, also for low grades. Just because you have spent your whole life in politics does not make you an expert.

 

[etech]

more pure fantasy for you 403Forbidden

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Tax Cuts Better For The Economy Than Spending Increases. ?[T]he likelihood of maintaining a still satisfactory overall budget position over the longer run is greater, I believe, if surpluses are used to lower tax rates rather than to embark on new spending programs. History illustrates the difficulties of keeping spending in check, especially in programs that are open-ended commitments, which too often have led to larger outlays than initially envisioned. Decisions to reduce taxes, however, are more likely to be contained by the need to maintain an adequate revenue base to finance necessary government services. Moreover, especially if designed to lower marginal rates, tax reductions can offer favorable incentives for economic performance.?
(Chairman Alan Greenspan, Testimony Before the House Committee On Banking and Financial Services, February 17, 2000)

Gore?s Economic Plan Would Destroy Our Prosperity And Lead To An Economic Downturn.
Taxpayers would be in a worse position under Gore. They?d be stuck having to support existing federal spending, plus an army of new billion-dollar programs, most people?s taxes would be as high as ever, and tax revenue still wouldn?t produce enough to feed the beast. . . . If Gore had his way, taxpayers could be strapped without an economic downturn. (Debra J. Saunders, Bush Tax Plan Beats Gore?s Big Spending,The San Francisco Chronicle, August 25, 2000)

Gore?s Spending Plans And Over-Regulation Will Slow Investment And Growth. ?The investor class is beginning to focus on Gore?s anti-business presidential theme. It seems increasingly clear that a President Gore will heavily regulate a number of business sectors in the U.S. economy, especially ones he does not consider socially useful. . . . Gore?s over-regulation, however, along with his spending plans, will drain resources from the productive private sector and slow investment, jobs, and growth.? (Larry Kudlow, ?The Gore Correction: The Vice President is Spooking the Markets,? National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, September 21, 2000)

Gore Tells Reporters He?s Ready To Raise Taxes In A Recession - Even Bill Bradley Wouldn?t Do That! ?Gore told the press that if recession were to develop, he might have to cut spending to maintain a balanced budget. The New York Times reported Gore?s promise to raise taxes in a recession to defend the surpluses. The idea of doing either is economic nonsense, since both would deepen a recession. The idea is a political nonstarter.? ?[Bradley said] Mr. Gore was making a mistake in being willing to raise taxes to finance programs during an economic downturn. . . . ?You don?t raise taxes in bad economic times,? Mr. Bradley said. ?That?s when you cut taxes. Raising taxes in dire economic times makes the economy worse. That?s when you put money in people?s pockets.??(Greider, William, ?Gore Wants To Keep Shrinking Government Debt,? The Nation, August 21, 2000; James Dao, ?Bradley Says Ruling Out A Tax Hike Is Dishonest,? The New York Times, December 7,1999)

 

[pidge]

<< And this socalled Tax cut is Fair and Responsible? Where did you ever get the Idea that the Republicans are Responsible?? All they care about is Pork and Power and when I mention Pork I'm not talking about Monica Lewinsky >>



The last 8 years, my middle class parents haven't gotten any help from the government. Sure they make more but they also get taxed a lot more than before the Clinton administration. Neither candidate may be able to provide a good tax relief for the middle class but I am getting sick and tired of hearing each of Gore's spending proposals. I can just see increased taxation under Gore to support his new spending plans. The worst is when Gore keeps saying &quot;You aint seen nothing yet&quot;. That is scary.



<< Sure say that now but wait until you accidently become Pregnant! >>



I have been tried to be responsible regarding that area. My girlfriend once thought she was pregnant because she was late by almost two weeks but abortion never popped into our minds. We wanted to be responsible for our actions and we never considered having an abortion. She wasn't pregnant though so I guess it may not weigh as much as if she was but its the best I could come up with.



<< Boy you are an easy mark for them. What makes you think that it will be better? You know what happens when Republicans set up stupid programs like this? Their Buddies take advantage of it. If for some reason Bush is elected and is able to pull this off (no way in hell will he be able to do it in reality) But let's say he does. This will create a whole new Cottage Industry of Private Schools with unaccredited Teachers who will actually do a worse job than the Public Schools.The reason, because the children will come in Second behind the bottom line..Profit Pidge. These Private Schools will be like the Nursing home industry. Sure there will be a few good ones but there will also be some bad ones (a whole lot run by Republicans no less)The only thing that will happen is that the kids will get dumber and we the taxpayer will end up shelling out more money to fix this half cooked scheme by the half wit from Texas. Dumb Idea put forth by a Dumb Candidate hoping to sucker some Dumb voters to vote for him. >>



Bush has stated that he will leave vouchers to the states to decide. So no state will be forced in vouchers. What vouchers will create is a choice. If certain private schools do not perform up to the standard of similar public or private schools, then parents will choose not to send their students to that particular school. If private schools were such a bad place to send kids, then 54% of teachers, the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United states would not send their kids to these private institutions. I hope when Pidge Jr. comes around, that I will be able to have a choice of where I want to send him.




<< Yeah, why do you say that? He was part of a Administration that had a terrible record regarding Foriegn Affairs. Lucky for them they had a chance to kick the sh!t out of some third world Despot and his army of trained monkeys. That was a Turkey Shoot and notthing else. Hell if it wasn't for casualties caused by freindly fire I think we might have lost maybe 30 personel. Let's see what other situation did we have that Cheney was part of?? Oh Yeah, Panama. Man what a Heroric mission that was...NOT!! We had to send troops just to oust one retarded General to keep him from ratting on Pappa Bush about America's invovement in the Cocaine trade while Bush was VP and Head Spook for the CIA. Yep Cheney's the man..if you want somebody that's good at kicking butt on third world nations. >>



Compare that to today's administration. We get into a war and we almost run out of missles. We do not permit pilots to retire because we are short on pilots (airlines pay more to pilots than what the government would pay them to be a fighter pilot). Our military is in shambles because they are terribly underpaid. Oh yeah...what kind of tactic was it of the Clinton administration to release to the public details of what they planned on doing to melosavich (sorry, don't know how to spell his name)? Look at our missle defense plans under Clinton. We let China steal our technology for nuclear heads. The CIA says they hardly know anything about Korea. Should we get into a war with Korea, we would not be as prepared as we should be. There is a lot more. I am only 24 so I may not have as big of grasp on foreign policy as you do Red, however, if I was to rate Clinton/Gore on foreign policy, I would give them a very low grade.



<< Now you are guessing and guessing wrong. He did terrible as an Oil Man. He needed his Daddy's buddies to bail him out costing the Sharehoders of his company and the Company who bailed him out major money. As for the Rangers, well lets see, he was behind getting the Public Financed Staduium built which increased the value of his team 5 fold then sold it for a tidy profit...at the expense of the taxpayers..Zero marks for being succesful in the private sector. >>



I'll give you this one Red. I am not to sure about how he was able to succeed in the private sector. I am really impressed with Cheney's success in the private sector but with Bush, I have very little knowledge, only that he is succesful. I would just not want someone who has spent his entire career in politics as Gore has to represent me. I want two people who have worked in the private sector. I have very little respect for politicians and since that is all Gore is (a life long politician), I have even less respect for him.



<< Geez Pidge, now that the truth comes out there really isn't a reason to vote for Bush is there..unless you are foolish! >>



You haven't mentioned Gore's faults. To me, there is no reason to vote for either Gore or Bush, but I am forced to choose one of the candidates that the corrupt political system has provided me.

Bush sucks.

Gore sucks much more.

I guess I will vote for Bush. I still respect you a lot Red but you haven't convinced me that I should vote for Gore.