Better than my kids can come up with.

-We were outspending The USSR

-We are at war (100 years of it if we go McCain's way. So long black budget ink)

-We were fixing our military (Richard? What do you think we need to do NOW after 7+ years of GOP influence on our military?)

I get it, Richard. If it wasn't for all that other stuff that happens in the world; if we could just budget in a ter, tax cuts woulda shoulda coulda balanced the budget. It's amazing how reality gets in the way of the best conservative plans.....

Kevin "Hack" King

Yep, things have changed from when I first arrived here 21 years ago. I weighed only 180 pounds back then.

Good luck in Okie-homma. Please stay in contact. I occasionally have business in Tulsa and OKC.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Next bloggers meeting is at the Cattleman's in the stockyards in OKC. Be there or be square.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I should have my ticket booked this evening and I'll see if any schedules coordinate.

Git, let me know, please! It would be a shame if I wasn't there!! My U-Haul is almost loaded, but it's a bit slower than Hack's preferred mode of travel. Especially when I'm pulling a car trailer.

The good news is that the price of gas in AR and OK is around 3.40/gal.

Hack, any chance you could make it?

Stay tuned.

In regards to those oil prices.... I hope the bottom falls out and a bunch of speculators see the need to fall to their deaths.

Okay... maybe not. That was bit harsh.

...and it IS disgusting, regardless of political affiliation or anything else that has nothing to do with basic MATH.

The value of the American dollar has not been taking a dive because of the media, it's been declining because of TRILLIONS of dollars in debt and a government that can print money at will, thereby making their currency worth less.

Of course, those trillions in debt belong to someone and those happen to be other countries like China who may not always care about what is good for the USA. Hey, no worries! The percent to GDP is about the same as when other Repubs had deficits! Nevermind that the whole percent to GDP gets skewed because one of the components that comprises the GDP is government spending.

Reagan running deficits wasn't the "voodoo economics" part that Bush famously called it. That term was used by him to describe basic supply-side philosophy that tax and spending cuts will boost the economy. During Reagan's terms, there weren't spending cuts though, there were record spending INCREASES so of course there were very large deficits. What Bush Sr. said was about the Laffer Curve and supply-side theory, not running a deficit or anything else. He simply didn't believe supply side econ would work, which no one knows at this point since spending was increased instead of cut.

Clinton was a total sleaze and a disgrace at times, but still had some balanced budgets and even a surplus at the end, which I prefer much better than trillions in debt held by hostile countries and still increasing deficits. People complain about being held hostage by OPEC and big oil...how about when your monetary and entire fincial system is held hostage by China and a few other countries? Suppose China decides next week to pay for their oil with the euro instead of the US dollar or dump 25% of their American holdings? The "bright side" is that such a move could cause global financial collapse,something that would make all the American debt worthless among other things, so the Chinese and others will likely never do such as it would ruin their own investments. America is so big into debt elsewhere that it is in other countries' best interests to "help" the US go even further into drowning debt.

Do you really believe "voodoo economics" ended the Cold War? Aside from the fact that the Soviet Union rolled home from WWII in horse-drawn carts (peruse old newsreels at your leisure), the trickle down theory is different than the "spend them into the ground" after-the-fact theory.

Your FRNs are fake, Ruth. There's no lipstick pretty enough for that pig.

Just an FYI; they were still using those same carts in 1990.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

THE PROBLEM!!!

People who feel that as long as they are personally "okay" there is not really a problem are exactly the problem with America today. To cavalierly shrug off historic deficits, foreclosures, and dollar devaluations while ignoring the rising cost of your average American to drive, eat, and heat/cool their home is the essence of conservatism's problem. Your average free-market conservative could give a rat's butt as to what other American's are facing. Just keep the taxes low and the troops fighting. This level of cynicism is sickening. Anyone who cares about their fellow man is a whining liberal who can't just get use to stepping over the dead bodies on the way to The Avenue.

Let me ask you this, Ruth, when you get your budget laid out on the table, with bills to be paid left and assets right, do you give a dang what percentage of the GDP or GNP it is? Do you think your average person thinks of life as a percentage of our outsourced GNP? Come back to reality every now and then. It would do your argument some good!

Kevin "Hack" King

You missed my point completely. I responded with facts and numbers. You responded with emotion, which is the real problem. I do care about the GDP and the fact that this story ($490B “record” deficit) exploits the ignorance of the average reader. It's not a record. I'll prove it to you.

Real economists and accounting experts don't compare apples and oranges. They don't try and make silly comparisons between Reagan era dollars and current dollar values. Because it is dishonest. When you compare Reagan's 6% deficit (when you adjust current year dollars to compare with Reagan era dollars) to the current projected 3.5% deficit, there is absolutely no record here.

Also, you wrongly assume that I support a $490B deficit. I do not. I think it is way too much. It is a lot of money. I don’t like debt. But we are at war. Whining liberals tout the huge dollars we are spending on the war effort. That only proves your ignorance. The war effort currently consumes only about 3.5% of GDP. Unlike the peak of WWII when it consumed 38% of GDP. That’s right, 38%!!! So get a grip.

My point is that this story, like many others put forth by the liberal main stream media, is attempting to paint our economy on the brink of collapse. It is not. Because the main stream media knows that many ignorant voters merely vote their pocketbooks. When the economy is bad, they vote for change. As long as ignorant folks like you act out of pure emotion, you’ll keep getting candidates like “The One” who pander to the masses and promise folks anything they want to hear - like a $1000 rebate to every family based on confiscated windfall oil profits. Wealth re-distribution at its best. Ben Franklin said it best, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Guess what. Oil companies’ current profit margin is only 7.4%. More than twice that amount goes to the government in corporate taxes. By comparison, pharmaceutical companies currently average a 25.9% profit margin. As much as you would like to blame our nation’s deficit all on Bush, it is Congress that authorizes, and then appropriates, all government spending. So there is plenty of blame to go around here. The fact remains that every post-WWII administration has run a deficit. Even Clinton (when you average his 8 years).

The real thing that amazes me about your postings AF A-10, is that you assume “the One” is going to magically save the day and make everything better. How ignorant.

Since you are in the military, what do you think “the One” is going to do to defense budgets? During the Clinton era, defense budgets were flat lined for eight years with the only increases being adjustments for inflation. The net result was a dramatic lack of military preparedness. Today, there are not enough soldiers available for the conflict we are currently waging. After “the One” gets finished with the defense sector, you probably won’t even have the luxury of serving your country. You will either have no AF job, or not enough $in the AF budget fly planes to maintain readiness. Obama’s ignorance and outright disdain for the military exceeds Clinton’s. Good luck with that. With Obama in office, you have a dismal military future to look forward to – guaranteed. So, from a personal standpoint, I find your blind support for Obama quite puzzling.

Of course, you are sure to reply that you’d never be that “self-serving”. Go ahead, put yourself on that pedestal. Just don’t look down. You and “the One” are headed for a fall. And like Humpty-Dumpty, there won’t be enough super glue on the planet (the one Nancy Pelosi is trying to save), to put it all back together again.

If Pelosi really wants to save a planet, recommend she start with Pluto. Pluto lost its planet status a while back. After she retires from politics, maybe she can convince everyone that Pluto really is a planet after all! With her shameless partisan antics last Friday, I’m starting to think she belongs on Pluto. Our current “do nothing” Congress will be remember as the one of the most ineffective in modern history. Great leadership ? No. She has forgotten that she works for the people. Her efforts to cover the backsides of her fellow Democrats, as the American people clamor for Congress to do something, is an example of what is wrong with our American political system today.

Term limits NOW! Self-serving politicians like Pelosi need not apply.

Ruth Kimble

You scolded me with this...

"You responded with emotion, which is the real problem."

Then.....

you said this...

"Whining liberals tout the huge dollars we are spending on the war effort. That only proves your ignorance."

and this....

"As long as ignorant folks like you act out of pure emotion, you’ll keep getting candidates like “The One” who pander to the masses and promise folks anything they want to hear..."

and even this.....

"you assume “the One” is going to magically save the day and make everything better. How ignorant."

Typical.

Show me anything I've posted that suggests Barack will "save the day."

Explain to me how voting yourself a tax cut is not "voting your wallet."

Tell me what other industrialized nation has cut taxes when they were at war. (side note, if the cost of the war is now not a problem, Universal Health Care won't make a dent in our economy will it? Let's get 'er done now!)

Tell me what you drink in the morning when you wake up, so I can make sure there is none of such in my cupboards.

Wow!

Kevin "Hack" King

OK, here it is:

You asked, "Show me anything I've posted that suggests Barack will "save the day."

Hope you're hungry cause you are about to eat your own words.

Here is one of your posts to Richard on 22 July:

Richard, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I've missed you...
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 6:57pm.

" . . .Cheers, and trust me when I say you will benefit from Obama's policies of balancing the budget and mending international fences whether you like it or not!"

How's that for your best impression of Obama "saving the day"?

You really believe Obama will balance the budget? Now there's a real fairy tale . . .

Ruth Kimble

You aren't far from competing with Lily-beepers. Wow!

I thought you guys didn't want anything out of Washington?
Pelosi was trying to help you! She exhibited real leadership there in my opinion.

Also, you wrongly assume that I support a $490B deficit. I do not. I think it is way too much. It is a lot of money. I don’t like debt. But we are at war. Whining liberals tout the huge dollars we are spending on the war effort. That only proves your ignorance. The war effort currently consumes only about 3.5% of GDP. Unlike the peak of WWII when it consumed 38% of GDP. That’s right, 38%!!! So get a grip.

What we need to get a grip about is to change our country from being a 'war-based' economy to being a peace/progressive economy. After WW II Roosevelt and Truman turned our country around after a disastrous Hoover mismanagement. We've seen the pattern throughout history. Presidents who believe that business is the core of American government rather than the welfare of the American citizens are not good for America. What do you think Ruth Kimble?

I believe the best presidents find a delicate balance between the two (as long as you are talking about “welfare OF the American people” and not “welfare FOR the American people”). I believe faith based community initiatives are far superior to federal gummament handout programs.

When citizens realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, by electing politicians who promise them generous benefits (i.e., health care for everyone), eventually, our nation will collapse from the weight of its own loose fiscal policy. Is that where you want to go? Is that the kind of welfare of the American people you are talking about? I hope not.

Business and entrepreneurship are essential ingredients that make our economy healthy and our nation prosperous. Be careful what you tax. History has shown, whatever you tax, you usually get less of it. Ask yourself why so many American corporations are taking their business overseas. Ask yourself why there are more tax lobbyists in Wash DC than any other kind of lobbyists. Why has the tax code been amended 16,000 times? Answer: To give a break to special interest group who lobby politicians.

What do you think about the Fair Tax, David’s mom?

If you have not read the latest book (Fair Tax: The Truth), recommend you do so. There is a coming national debate on this issue. Ignore it at your own peril. The Fair Tax is one of the most dramatic concepts ever conceived in terms of retuning power to the people. People will finally control how much tax they pay based on how much they consume. And Washington’s endless tinkering with the tax code (spurred by lobbyists) at the expense of the average American will end (as long as we hold the line and permit no Fair Tax exemptions). Does the Fair Tax have some warts? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But getting taxed ONCE, at the retail level, is infinitely better than being taxed multiple times on income (Fed withholding), payroll (Soc Security & Medicare), death, and capital gains including every penny of earnings you get from savings and investments (even after you have already paid tax on the initial income!) Out tax system is broken.
Washington, DC does not like the Fair Tax because it takes away their power and shifts it to the people. If we hold the line and make sure no Fair Tax exemptions are granted, politicians will no longer be able to grant favors to special interest groups by creating tax loopholes and passing legislation favorable to special interests. That’s why Wash DC hates the Fair Tax. Because it takes power away from the politicians! The people will have to make this change. Because the government, of their own accord, never will.

Read the book and decide for yourself. But I fear you will probably just take the easy way out and read the garbage spouted by Jeffc and other liberal bloggers on this site as they pontificate and trash the Fair Tax out of sheer ignorance (they refuse to read the book) . What is that old saying? “You can take a mule to water . . . “

(also, see NUK’s good points below . . .)

Go Fair Tax!!!

Ruth Kimble

I have probably posted 20+ pages of stuff here about the Fair Tax. I believe that I have been wrong on one insignificant item: that it taxed insurance payouts.

If you're so sure I'm trashing the Fair Tax out of "sheer ignorance" then list my mistakes. Frankly I don't believe you know what your talking about.

"The people will have to make this change. Because the government, of their own accord, never will."

You realize that's impossible don't you? I fear your knowledge of how our government works is as limited as your understanding of tax policies.

As for the Fair Tax, let me ask a simple question to see if you understand even the basics before I spend more time on it:

If you make $1000 a week and take home $800, what is your paycheck going to be the week after the Fair Tax is instituted?

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Please don't bring that stupid book up again!

It would simply create more crooks than we have now!

Just drop it, we won't have it!

I was merely stating the "Fair Tax-tistas" mantra, anyway. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Well, the silence is deafening from Ruth. She's probably skimming the book again before she responds because she made an accusation then didn't know the answer to back it up when questioned about a fundamental point. You know, this happens a lot. My prediction is that I will be ignored. If I were her I'd do what I'm going to do; watch the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

Thanks for your comprehensive answer. You've made some incorrect, but understandable assumptions. I'm a fiscal conservative! You're right, the Fair Tax has some areas that need working on - but please don't assume that all social liberals are also fiscal liberals. The moderates of this world should be able to sit down and discuss ideas that will benefit our democratic society and republican government. Most people that I know have read everything they can get their hands on regarding funding our government. (The government’s funds are the funds of the people) How foolish for anyone to 'assume' that a 'label' identifies the total of a persons thought. I don't consider anyone in the discussion of living up to the words of our Constitution a 'mule'. What are the areas that you consider need to be improved in the Fair Tax proposal?

I believe the Fair tax proposal is pretty good on its own merits. Some of the hype in the book is a bit over the top. For example, abolishing the IRS. The book really needs to openly admit that a significant size new government agency will have to be created to enforce collection of the consumption tax. That includes internet purchases – currently untaxed by most states – and the myriad of services that make up the majority of the US economy.
I believe the Fair Tax rate (23%), if enacted with no exemptions (and the 16th Amendment is repealed) will actually go down after a few years. Believe we could add a clause that permits the government to raise the Fair Tax in times of war by 2-3%. It would pay for the war effort. Instead of creating red ink and increasing the national debt. Also, more Americams would feel that they are doing their part to support the war effort. Today, despite the global war on terror, most Americans lives re main unaffected.
Also, at first, I believed the Fair Tax rate of 23% would encourage a huge underground economy to blossom. However, I did some independent research trying to test my theory that nations with high tax rates (especially high VATand sales taxes) also have large underground economies. The results were inconclusive. S Korea’s underground economy is approx 51% of their GDP. But their sales tax rates are not that high. Overall, huge underground economies seem to be created more by cultural influences and a myriad of other factors. I could not find a direct consistent tie to high sales taxes.
Thanks for the pleasant give and take.
Ruth Kimble

Believe we could add a clause that permits the government to raise the Fair Tax in times of war by 2-3%. It would pay for the war effort. Instead of creating red ink and increasing the national debt. Also, more Americams would feel that they are doing their part to support the war effort. Today, despite the global war on terror, most Americans lives re main unaffected.

We're definitely on the same page here. I was a child during WWII - and remember the selling of bonds; victory gardens; etc., etc., etc. I feel that all we've been asked to do for our currenet war effort is 'shop'. . .and grieve. My grandson is now in Iraq - and we're anxiously awaiting his return this year! I hope that there are more of us seriously studying the Fair Tax proposal.

I think you have touched on the basic difference between most liberals and conservatives: just what is "good" for the welfare of the American public? When it comes to business, will it be socialism or laissez-faire? Or, is it something in between that is constantly shifting? American government tends to fall squarely in the middle, shifting towards socialism at times and anything goes for a while. So do the voters. When the voters are happy, they aren't that concerned on the whole about how much money Exxon makes. When gas hits $4, they suddenly care a ton(or at least the media and pandering politicians do).

Liberals were drug kicking and screaming into reality by Bill Clinton on the business issue. He saved the party from becoming insignificant by heading to the right on issues liberals were getting creamed over: welfare reform, free trade, balanced budgets and not totally rolling over for Big Labor and minorities. Of course, the defeat of universal health care early was a lesson that Clinton learned from and made sure didn't happen again. If Obama, Shillary or other "progressive liberal" thinks that the tide can be shifted back toward creeping socialism, they'll start losing the voting public again.

Likewise, if conservatives think that businesses should get big subsidies while being allowed to do whatever they feel like(you can't have it both ways, or shouldn't be able to!), voters will say NO. It doesn't help when "conservatives" decide that free trade isn't really "free" and steel tariffs are a good idea, a de facto ban on online gambling through heavy and complex financial regulations here and abroad that violated free trade agreements is good, and a massive farm bill that reeked is all fine and dandy. Then, it gets diffiuclt to tell what is a "conservative" and what is instead just another self-serving political opportunist with no principles or ideology whatsoever besides "get re-elected."

But I don't think that it has been difficult at all telling the difference between a conservative and just another self-serving political opportunist. What has been hard to find is a CONSERVATIVE at all anymore. And it was the Republican Congress that brought Clinton to the right--when he saw the writing on the wall. He's a P.O.S. but he's not dumb!

an average free-market conservative believes and cares about? I really take exception to your statements. You have no IDEA how much we help others that are in need. I'm really glad to hear of people that want to help others; that is why I am a member of several organizations that do just that. YOUR level of cynicism is disturbing in that you make the assumption that conservatives care nothing for their fellow man and liberals are all heart. I think you need to check your own facts.

ArmyBratwurst, you had a case of bad timing when you said to Hack: "How do you know what an average free-market conservative believes and cares about?"

Not two hours later the Citizen posts the latest drivel from Dr. Wally Williams, a high priest of the free-market conservative cult. This week, Dr. Wally attempts to equate "welfare" with "theft".

Sadly, a great number of well-intentioned people actually believe that malarkey.

The government has no constitutional right to take my or anyone's money to pay for welfare. And besides that, they do a crappy job spending money on anything. I know I can do an better job helping people with my own money and many others feel the same. Oh, and Dr. Williams isn't an average anything. His columns are head and shoulders above the "drivel" from someone in need of a tissue!!

Since day one on this blog I have heard the message of "keep my taxes low." "We don't need no stinking Good Will store." End government handout programs. We don't need the department of education. Oh, and KEEP my taxes LOW. I've seen and heard the poor called "leeches, scumbags, warfrats, etc." And not by liberal voices.

What else am I to gleen from that constant conservative message? Am I missing something?

Has the message been, "Let's balance this budget?" Conservatives even lined up against the GI Bill, because heaven forbid we spend money on PEOPLE and not just the defense industry. Armybrat, look up who supported the GI Bill and who opposed it. Is the current president a man who was elected with conservative support or liberal support?

I stand by my cynicism in responding to someone trying to sugar coat our shameful deficit.

And I still love ya,

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Mr. King,

Republicans opposed this bill because the Demoratic leadership tied billions of dollars in other measures such as heating subsidies to the "poor" and extended unemployment benefits. They were not against the giving GI's a leg up, they were against all of the other weights that the Democratic leadership weight it down with. This is why the line item veto needs to be brought back.
How disingenuous of you not to list all of the facts behind what actually occurred.

for being of voice of reason on here. As usual the dems. want everyone to support people who refuse to work. Then they cry and snivel when the taxpayers encourage our congressman not to fall into the trap.

Anything John McCain has to say about our current situation in Iraq is more credible than somone who: A. has never served, B. has no family members in acitve duty right now.

As long as McCain has one son in the Navy and one who is in the Army stationed in Iraq right now, I find him more credible.

When was the last time we had a Commander and Chief who had his sons active in military service? Some of you historians jump in and help out with that question. I'm certain the answer is a President before I was born.

When John McCain said that Iran was training Al Qaeda, was that credible? When he said the sunni awakening occured after the surge, was that credible? When he told us the war would be easy in 2003, was that credible? And was Mr. Fred correct in why Repubs did not support the GI Bill (for soldiers you seem to think don't want to work)?

Kevin "Hack" King

It is not the soldiers who do not want to work. The bill was attached to more spending on welfare programs. While our soldiers are worth more money the welfare recipients are not, in my opinion.

We already are spending and astounding 6 hundred billion on welfare people, teaching them only that the whole world owes them a living.

Nice try. I'll give you an A for effort at trying to twist my words and make it appear as though I was trashing our soldiers.

After all, you are telling us that he has instant credibility based on his prior service..

"Iran training Al Qaeda?"
"Sunni awakening happening after the surge?"
"Telling us how easy the Iraqi conflict would be up to 2004 and then reversing to become a Bush critic in 2005?"

Where is the beef? Where is his credibility? And where can I get an "oops it really works tire guage?"

With respect to the GI Bill:

You, for some reason,are trying to make an argument that the Republican candidate for president did not. Read his words one more time, Skyspy:
as reported in USA Today with link provided in my post from 08/08/08:

"McCain said Webb's bill would be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services."

and....

"Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly."

So Skyspy, if you are saying the people who stood to gain from the GI Bill as per McCain's words, were the problem, you would be talking about those troops who did not need so large an incentive to afford college and become officers (in McCain's opinion). That is his argument. And if you think riders to bills are new to congress or particular to democrats in any way, you are sadly misinformed.

Kevin "Hack" King

James, was in the Marines in WWII as an officer in a commando unit.

Elliott, was in the AAF.

John and Franklin jr, were both in the Navy.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

It's a shame that we have to go that far back.

Have a good day.

My older brother was in the Navy and served in Vietnam. Got a cousin in the 82nd, another just got out of the 101st.

I realize you're too modest to admit this, but most of us with long memories recall that you were a Double-Naught spy for the CIA when your Dad was president...

Agreed. You do the same buddy!!!
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

You might want to know which excuse the GOP is using today to defend turning their backs on veterans. Disingenuous? Here's a link for you.

The GI Bill was too generous!

If your unsteady accusatory finger is too shaky to click the link, here are the highlights:
According to the GOP nominee for president:

"McCain said Webb's bill would be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services."

and....

"Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly."

That is out of McCain's mouth Fred Garvin. Read it again. And tell me who is wearing disingenuous pajamas this evening?

Oh! and... cheers, I guess

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: Fred, what happened to the line item veto under the republican lead house and senate?

I'd rather be able to use my money to help those in need in the way I see fit. Also, I am tired of the government funding everything that they do. They are notorious at mis-managing funds and simply do NOTHING well when it involves money. I don't call people those names but I do recognize the difference between hard-working poor and someone that thinks the world (or maybe the government)owes them EVERYTHING. I also want our soldiers and their families to be taken care, especially those that have had injuries in this war. And believe me, I have contacted those that oppose that funding!

"I do recognize the difference between hard-working poor and someone that thinks the world (or maybe the government)owes them EVERYTHING. I also want our soldiers and their families to be taken care, especially those that have had injuries in this war. And believe me, I have contacted those that oppose that funding!"

Then I'd probably label myself as a conservative, but that hasn't been my experience.

Besides the Goodwill store backlash here in benevolent Fayette County, this is yet another local example of *compassionate conservatism as I've seen it play out:

School vouchers are good if they pay for my kid at Woodward Academy.

School vouchers are bad if they pay for a Clayton County kid to come to a Fayette County school.

You may not hurl the insults at those on government assistance, but so many of your political allies do. I have often wondered what thoughts go through their minds when they are at church. The names I listed have come directly from these blogs. There are other names used to describe that stereotypical welfare mom that I won't repeat.

At any rate, I believe that the GOP will make the necessary changes as they analyze their performance in the 2006 and upcoming 2008 elections. I do feel that my concerns about "I've got mine" policies and sentiments are well founded and justified by the political directions of the republican party. I'll be the first to welcome a change in that direction.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Wait just a second and let me see if I hear you correctly?

You would only want school vouchers to be able to go to a private school? If you live in Fayette County why would you want your child to go to Woodward Academy if Fayette County has the best schools around?

I do believe that we should be allowed to let our kids go to the school of our choice. We pay for them to go to school.

If people are taking their kids out of Fayette County to go to another school and there is room in Fayette County what is the problem with the people wanting the best for their child also to come to Fayette County?

Do you think vouchers should be allowed for only private schools?

I would vote for school vouchers.

School vouchers will never happen because alot will leave their public school for a private one or a better school like Fayette County and leave their school with a problem on their hands if alot want to leave their school.

I believe we will never have school vouchers because of the problems in so many of the other schools. Fayette County has good schools, why go to a private school if you live here?

When I read this about 7 AM it was posted under a different name, just curious, why the change?

I yam what I yam....Popeye

You probably had not washed your face and did not read it correctly.

Maybe Olive Oil did not read it to you correctly.

Or you didn't have your glasses on.

Your wrong, I was in bed sleeping at 7 AM.

I reposted at 11:58am today since I did not get a response.

The orginal post was at 3:07 am today.

There is not a change. I just wanted a response. Same name as of 3:07am.

OK, if you want to play, first I had already showered, and I know I read it correctly.

It's Olive Oyl, not Oil.

I don't need my glasses to read the screen.

I didn't say you wrote it at 7 I said I read it at 7.

I don't care when you reposted.

I know the original post time.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Earlier I asked a question about vouchers. Would someone like to respond to that?

If not I guess everyone agrees that if vouchers were used in schools that we could go to any school we want.

Your question was in a discussion where you asked Kevin if he supported vouchers only for Fayette-to-private schools and not Clayton-Fayette, and that wasn't his point. His point was that school voucher proponents think that way, not himself.

As far as school vouchers and why would anyone go elsewhere since Fayette Co has good public schools, there are a few reasons. First would be that while "good" is nice, "the best" is even better. The next reason is that some parents who don't want to home-school would like to send their kids to private schools for religious, cultural, and other reasons.

No I don't agree that any voucher solution would include enrolling into any school anyone desires. Private schools are private and admission is a privilege, not a a "right" like it is with public schools. That's a huge factor as to why private schools are superior to public schools. They get to kick out or deny admission to students they don't want for a variety of reasons.

As far as whether a voucher system could be used for students to leave one district and go to another, that's certainly possible and already happens under NCLB, though it isn't very widespread yet.

I think since we pay taxes for our kids to go to school we have the right to send our kids to the school of our choice if there is room in the system.

It's not that I am leaving Fayette County. I do think some parents in Fayette County would like to have their kids in a private school setting for a number of reasons.

We hear all the time Fayette is the best would you not agree? I don't know if you have kids in school. I do have kids in school and pay for them to go to school.

As far as Private schools get to kick or deny admission to students they don't want you are wrong. You have to pass a test to get into a Private school. If you doubt they are being fair, ask to see the test.
Why would they deny them to go to their school if they pass the test?
What are the reasons? It is true that you have to have references which I do support for Private schools.

I think it is only fair if Fayette has the room and we do get vouchers that kids can go to our school.

Some of our parents would be changing schools in Fayette County for a number of reasons. I would like to know how many already go to a Private school that live in Fayette County and why?

If you are thinking the other kids would be behind at the level of Fayette County schools, let them take a test.

I welcome vouchers because we are paying for our schools.

I don't see how vouchers could be done because alot could pass the test for Fayette and that would hurt their schools in their area. They also could pass the test for a private school.

We should have that freedom to choose.

...but I do agree that the taxpayer money should follow the student and not be confined to only one school district. I do favor a voucher system, though some of the proposals that GA has considered are pretty lacking.

I'm a Woodward alumni and lived in Fayette at the time I was attending and most Fayette students transferring over were either being held back a grade immediately or placed in remedial classes at enrollment. What I took for granted as a given in terms of academics was foreign to some 4.0 Fayette students who got shocked when suddenly being in a pretty demanding environment. So, you don't have to tell me the benefits of private school education or how their admission process works

Fayette has come a long way in the last 20 years or so and I don't think as a parent that the cost of Woodward at around 15K/year would give my remaining HS child an education that is superior enough to warrant the expense. If there was a voucher system in place that paid half, I still don't know. If maybe my kid was struggling academically, socially or in any way or I felt like she was succeeding due to the work being dumbed-down and lower standards, sure. I just don't think that is the case. Now, if this scenario was fast-forwarded a few years, I think she'd be in Woodward right away. This is about the best Fayette schools will be right now, and I think decline is inevitable.

You're on the money about the voucher plan. They love it for those who can already afford private school. They hate the access it might provide it for those who can't afford private school but could afford our better-performing, Fayette-taxpayer-funded, public schools.

Parents in Dekalb are getting a not-so-funny wakeup call about No Child Left Behind (aka "voucher lite"). They got to move their children to schools that weren't failing. They just don't get a school bus to take them there. Working-class parents have the choice of getting to work late or unemployment. Families that can afford one parent who will stay at home, however, will be just fine.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Let's be clear on one thing, it wasn't benevolent Fayette County with the backlash, it was your own benevolent PTC that pitched the hissy fit.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Gees, you and Armybrat ought to get a room with this love fest.
One need not over dramatize either our respect for each other's opinions, nor to debaise them either.

We can disagree without it getting personal either way.

As to the Deficit, take a look at the non-discretionary spending, compare it to the GDP and then tell me how you are going to cut the budget and to make it balanced.

History and common sense says that you either raise revenue or cut spending, or a combination of both.

Washington, whether run by Democrats or Republicans have not cut spending, although, it was Republicans under Clinton who voted for a bill that allowed the President to CHOP out the waste. Democrats fought against it.

So, the question then is how do you raise revenue.

Many options are available. The first is to raise taxes.

Well, lets just assume that this is your preferred method.
So lets raise taxes and balance the budget.

To balance the budget, all we need to do, is to take 94% of the income of every American, and the deal is done. Balanced budget, no more problems.

But I suspect you might question if that confiscatory amount of taxation might be detrimental. True?

Well thats where you and I differ. I believe that taxes inhibit the individual from producing and producers are needed in this type of a government. So if you take too much, the producers will just quit producing, then the goose that layed the golden egg is dead.

The question is to find where the fair rate is. (Me I'm for the fair tax, but thats another blog subject.) Kennedy, Reagan and Bush no. 43 all proved that reductions in tax rates INCREASES tax revenues. People invest their tax savings in small businesses, purchases etc. this produces income and that income produces more purchases and investments in more businesses. This in turn increases even more incomes that are then taxed at the lower rate, and viola, a tax revenue increase.

But that's too hard I guess for a person who lives off of the taxes of producer's to understand. Mind you, the military is a necessary and welcomed part of our society, but it doesn't produce a tax base. Its like insurance on our home, we never need it until we need it. But it doesn't make the home appreciate in value, it does protect it when damage is caused to the infrastructure.

For one to tax income, one needs to first produce income. That which hinders income like taxes, decrease income. Its a vicious circle, but true nonetheless.

Another way to increase tax revenue is to increase the size of the economy. Here Democrats hold an outstanding advantage. From 1960 until 2004, the real GDP grew an average of 17% during Democratic presidential terms, and an average of less than 12% during Republican presidential terms. The economy never grew as rapidly as the Democratic average during any single Republican 4-year term, and it never grew as slowly as the Republican average during any single Democratic 4-year term.

First, GDP includes government spending, so a growth in GDP is not necessarily always "great." If the GDP is growing mainly due to the fact that the government is spending their way into oblivion, that's not the growth that succeeds long-term. Matter of fact, that is EXACTLY what the US has been doing for over three decades now....growing the economy based on increasing debt, both at the government and personal level.

If the Dems controlled Congress the entire period of time you reference, I might buy the argument, but the president himself hardly has the kind of power over the economy that you seem to be attributing here.

The use of GDP in of itself as some kind of measurement of the economy is faulty to begin with and was never intended for that purpose. Of course, politicians warped what is simply a measurement of types of economic activity into a political football.

OK, now I'll pretend you just made a great counter-argument and go drink a beer

Actually, even with the massive Republican deficits the GDP is slowing. Here are the decade numbers: GDP per cap growth per annum as follows: 1950's 2.3%, 1960's 3.0%, 1970's 2.2%, 1980's 2.1%, 1990's 1.9% and 2000-2005 1.7%.

Forbes/Bloomberg speculate that the reason is that Dem's shift taxes to the wealthy and tax cuts to the middle class thus putting more money in circulation while Rep's shift tax cuts to the rich who generally invest it in stocks and bonds which vastly increase their wealth but does very little for GDP growth.

Enjoy your beer! It's such a nice day that I'm not going to spend it on the computer either.

We can disagree without it getting personal either way. If only that were true on this blog.

Dear David's Mom,

We can disagree wihtout it getting personal. But I by no means am opposed to well placed satrical or sardonic comments, especially when thrown at our political view points and leaders.

You have always been extremely pleasant, albeit, in my humble opinion, a bit naive, but thats because my experiences have been so very different from yours I suppose. Nonetheless, mocking each other in a fun and sophisticated way is okay with me.

Heck if Jeff and Hack aren't tearing me a new one every other week, I feel left out and lonely.

OH, and if you want to see an interesting take on Diversity/sensitivity training, then watch Showtime's Penn and Teller's show called "BullSh#T". Their recent show was an excellent take on what hogwash this sensitivity crap is all about.

Our experiences are very different - and to go through this world without being sensitive of the other persons perspective is unwise - and often unproductive. Fortunately, the younger generation, throughout the world is more knowledgeable and sensitive regarding others on the planet. We're in good hands. . . .in spite of those who refuse to be 'sensitive' of others. Wouldn't have to have the 'training' if one could just do unto others, as he/she would want others to do unto him/her.

And sometimes it's a circular firing squad. I like real world examples, Richard. Let's take yours:

"Kennedy, Reagan and Bush no. 43 all proved that reductions in tax rates INCREASES tax revenues."

Richard, what did the federal budget deficit do under Reagan and Bush 43? That's all the example I need.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Kennedy, Reagan and Bush no. 43 all proved that reductions in tax rates INCREASES tax revenues.

If the argument is that the reductions in tax rates are the reason why government revenues increased, I have to disagree. It was a factor, but not the main reason.

Are you forgetting that in 1982 Reagan and the Repubs spearheaded the largest tax INCREASE in US history up to that time? Then they came right back with another one 1983(primarily social security) and another in 1984. Or, how about Bush 43 "read my lips" on taxes that he promptly broke? Add to those tax increases the annual inflation rates and suddenly the increase of federal revenues doesn't appear to be as significant as some touted it to be.

Had Reagan and H held firm on their tax reductions WITHOUT coming back later with large tax increases while also increasing federal spending like drunken sailors, I might see the argument differently.

What Reagan and Bush ultimately proved is that they didn't have the ability or willpower to make their tax cuts stick, but they also dramatically increased federal spending as well as the size of the federal government. I don't think when the voters elected them that is what they were hoping for.

Long fly ball, left field wall....gone!!

It seems we've found something we can agree on.

You apparently still have a job or don't need one, your house isn't about to be foreclosed, And buying food is no problem with your budget!

I'll just bet you don't owe China several Trillion dollars also!

How much did Clinton borrow from China?

The deficit projections do NOT include the full amount of funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor costly tax law changes.

TOTAL PUBLIC OUTSTANDING DEBT AS OF TODAY
9,540,689,536,562.79 THAT NEARLY 10 trillion DOLLARS.

Our Government being run at a deficit has cost us $377 Billion in interest since October 07.

This is NOT an illusion
It now takes $1.57 to by a Euro a year ago this week it took $1.37
These are all measures of the health of a nation's economy.

This is not a healthy American economy and if a China called our debt for some reason our world as we know it would collapse overnight.

As of last Friday the public debt was $9,540,689,536,562, up from $5,727,776,738,304 when Bush took office; an increase of 60%. The total average interest on the debt is 4.461%. The U.S. population is 304,719,602 people.

Bush’s debt increase of $3,812,912,798,258 equals $12,513 for every person in the U.S raising the per capita debt from $18,796 when he entered office to $31,309 per person. This is the “birth tax” today.

The interest on the increase in the national debt under Bush is $170,094,039,930 per year or $466,011,068 per day.

That $466 million per day is just the increase in the interest on Bush’s debt.

Ruth’s “don’t worry be happy” stance pretty well sums up the Republican attitude.

Remember Dick Cheney, “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.”

These people are "conservatives."
They don't plan to pay China back!
We will sometime simply take Hong Kong back, bomb their military into oblivion, and declare them "Mission Accomplished," and write off the debt to them!
Anyway, we plan to get a lot of money from Iraq as soon as we can find out where they are putting their oil money!

in New York a nice surplus too, while we DRAIN our resources.

See another bridge deck collapsed in Minneapolis, wonder how many Republican conventioneers will view that tourist attraction?

Yes that is the John MCsame / Neo Con theory run up huge debts, break every facet of government until you prove it doesn't work, then privatize it.

Works well so far with how they have treated our military. In a few more years, we'll just have Blackwater invade other countries for us.

"Works well so far with how they have treated our military. In a few more years, we'll just have Blackwater invade other countries for us."

I have often felt that it is not a good idea to turn over the government to people who's message is "government is bad." "Government does not work." I can't figure out why such people often make their whole life's work in government!? It doesn't make sense.

And I'm confused at folks who want government budgets chopped and hacked, but want there government to invade and occupy indefinitely. Or folks who are "balanced budget" conservatives but want tax increases kept off of the table. Where does that cash come from? I'll never forget Grover Norquist saying, "Government should be small enough to drag into the bathroom and be drowned in the bathtub." Yeah, I am giving the keys to the country to people who think like him (sarcasm).

What happened to the days when military work was done by military people? Didn't we build showers in wars past that didn't electrocute our soldiers? Didn't we use to feed our own troops with military folks? Did we not have our own drivers that did not make 6 figures?

How would a military man on tour number three wearing body armor bought by his parents not resent a Blackwater guy that has state of the art taxpayer gear and doesn't have to answer to the military? I'd not be happy at all with that contrast.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Top of the morning to you, friend! You allude to a time when the military was filled with single soldiers who by in large were not intent upon staying around for retirement. Personnel costs were relatively cheap, but as the draft became more of a distant memory these costs increased exponentially.

One of my pet peaves during this time was the number of soldier families that were totally dependent upon food stamps for family subsistence. The problem was ignored for decades as pay raises never caught up with inflation and military pay was never a priority within the Beltway.

Your post brought back memories of deployments where uniformed ingenuity built showers with heated water, made do with a mix of local fare and issued green eggs insuring no one went hungry, and erected the most temporary of structures so as not to sleep on the ground any more than necessary. We bitched that outfits like Air America and the like had better equipment or whatever, but in the end we all knew that we would do that which was expected and to insure that each of us came home afterwards.

Just my two cents worth.

Not that I'm quite old enough to remember them, but Hey! I've heard the stories from the old heads. And I wish I'd been around then. My dad and Uncles spin pretty good yarns too.

Truth is, I don't know how we'll collar this budget. Give your shiny blue steel envy-generator a rev for me!

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

...my oversight, so be it!

If I might tread upon your dialog with Garvin, I see us coming out of this funk if and when elected officials put more creedence into what is best for the country instead of what's best either for their party or them personally. Within the Beltway, there's enough "house cleaning" needed that it scares me that it has not been done sooner.

Sorry mate! I was making fun of the way othersidetrax had a crap fit over you having all caps. I didn't mind them a bit.

As for politics; if you can remember back in the early primaries I was praising McCain for staying above board with his campaign tactics. His gutter politics of late.....

Rather lose a war for political reasons..

Paris and Britney ads

Obama tire gages..

This stuff just makes his "I'm running a campaign on the issues" statement ring very hollow. John was so dense that he trashed Obama to the Urban League. Now, I'm not saying that is off limits, but you have to know your audience. Barack came out after McCain and took the high road, leaving McCain looking bitter.

If we aren't talking issues, chances are it is because divide and conquer politics are at work

And Barack should drop that "I don't look like the guys on the coins" thing. That is a non-starter.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

You make my point, either of these two guys could easily remain focused upon what it is THEY believe is best for the country and let the chips fall where they may. High road, low road-they both have traversed steep paths leaning to and fro, their handlers merely shifting with the current wind.

I await a Commander in Chief of the ilk of Truman and the heartiness of T Roosevelt for I believe this country is in dire need of a leader, not a want-to-be. Someone who in the eyes of the American People could embarass those in both houses of Congress to once again be the professionals they are expected to be.

Perhaps someone unafraid to use the word "NO" and mean it. Someone who would make the climate inside the beltway much too extreme for an elected official to remain should he hide bribe money in the freezer, or anyone considering carnal knowledge of a staffer. Someone who considers government service just that, service.

Just my two cents worth.

I'm afraid if you want to can everyone in the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon who messes around with the help, we would not have a government left! (includes Homos)

Newt can fill you in on that if you want details!

I know, brother. I know. Sometimes I wonder if such a man or woman exists anymore. It's as if you don't have to sell your soul, but you have to lease it to the group you think can get you your first government gig. Then you are type cast. Hey, Mike. I'll support you! Say the word! Wait a minute.... my support would kill your campaign in about a half second!

Awwww nuts! I'll get back to you..

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Went through a few of those chow lines myself (circa 71-73).
Military handled it all procurement, logistics, preparation and serving.

Now most everything is funneled through Kuwait and Qatar, Logistics is handled by a Kuwaiti Company (Public Warehousing Corp of Kuwait - now Agility Logistics). They get Multi Billion dollar(nearly 20 billion in past 4 years) awards from DOD to handle and transport supplies into Iraq. Most of their drivers are Pakistani's or Asian's working to send money home. As of last year they'd lost more than 300 drivers in Iraq hauling -- contract work keeps casualties low and off the radar.

Yes the keys to our country in the hands of a few who make their money in Washington as politicians or political hangers on.

We should begin raising taxes by making the lower 50% income earners actually begin paying income taxes instead of relying on the upper 50% income earners carry them. We should also once and for all end the war on poverty. Really, where has it gotten us? In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four. I am all for bringing in more revenue to our government, but it should come from people who are currently and have been given a free ride on the backs of productive Americans.

But Ben Stein said something very funny and quite obvious on Larry King Live week before last. You probably know Ben is a big conservative, but he supports raising taxes on the rich. When asked why, he said:

"Do you know why they call rich people rich? Because they're RICH! That's where the money is!" It's kind of like fishing where the fish are or planting where crops grow. I do agree that we need to trim the pork from welfare programs, but I have literally stepped over the dying in countries that could give a hoot about their poor. Google street scenes of India. Check out bodies in the rivers and on the curbs. That isn't my vision of America. Neither is BMW driving welfare recipients. There has to be a middle ground.

BUT (big but), at a time when we are seeing TRULY UNPRECEDENTED shifts in wealth; the rich becoming much, much richer, why would we not ask them to help balance the budget of the country that has allowed them to work towards and achieve great wealth? Why do John McCain and those who think like him want to give oil companies (for example) further tax CUTS as they make money at a rate that's almost unimaginable? I think we need a comprehensive effort that starts yesterday before China owns us outright.

Cheers, and thanks for your two pence.

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: Hey Skyspy: Almost had the chance to swing by and mend fences with you, but (unbelievably) Delta was a little late. I'll be by though! Cheers!

Stop by anytime, you are always welcome here. We can disagree all we want to about politics, but that doesn't change the fact that I consider you a friend.

If we keep corporate taxes high, more companies will move to other countries. Somehow there has to be a happy medium in the cost of doing buisness here. We should try to get more of our companies back here in the U.S., instead of driving them off with a high cost of doing buisness here.

Welfare programs are a failure. The only thing that welfare has taught people is that the whole world owes them a living.

Look no further than the home makeover people in clayton. When you are given everything for free you appreciate NOTHING!

Our country will be successful when EVERYONE contributes through taxes and hard work!

I'm really not to concerned about the cost per individual. With the inability to control our borders we haven't a clue of what the population is.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.