A Prayer from Chris Guynn

Rod wrote

> rant rant rant, We have had no fiscal conservatives in decades. As
> long as they loot the funds collected for Medicare and Social Security
> to augment the general fund, no one has ever balanced a budget.

Unfortunately true. Wouldn't it be nice to have one now?

Increasing taxes paid by the productive members of society, to balance
expenses that should never have been funded by the government in the first
place, is not fiscally conservative, even if it does balance the budget.
Both by definition, and by convention, the being conservative means reducing
spending rather than increasing funding to balance it.

Lee

"ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
news:wrKdnQfqGPK-s3TanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eM9Gj.36073$J41.1447@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we could actually get someone in office who understood fiscal
> > conservatism? Looking at our upcoming options, that's highly unlikely.
>
> The only fiscal conservative (that I remember) as marked by actually
> spending less government money than what was taken in is Bill Clinton.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
>
> http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
>
> What's that big blue blip hiding in the bushes?
>
>

So the Republican Congress, who passes the budges that the President can't
change....gets no credit?

Dennis

"Rod" <log_dog@verizonnet.addthedot> wrote in message
news:47e98d79.1143580781@news.verizon.net...

> We have had no fiscal conservatives in decades. As
> long as they loot the funds collected for Medicare and Social Security
> to augment the general fund, no one has ever balanced a budget.

Loot is a bad choice of words for a loan.

When the discussion changes from the government as a whole to individual
budgets within the government, the management element properly evaluated is
the manager directly responsible for the individual budget or budgets. It's
fair to evaluate the President's performance on the whole or sum of all the
budgets but it's not fair to evaluate the President's performance on the
budget for Defense or Agriculture, for examples. You don't like that Social
Security funds are loaned to the Federal Government? Write your elected
officials and express your displeasure. Vote accordingly. It's a wide
brush that paints all politicians as liberal. Probably your splashing a
little paint where it doesn't belong. Of course, it's easier to dump all
the fish in one barrel instead of sorting them into size and type.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fMhGj.10743$9O.643@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> ben bradlee wrote
>
>> There you go off on another rant that has nothing to do with the
>> discussion. How much more effort would need to make to actually
>> contribute something?
>
> Let me know when you manage to do so.

What? Are you saying there is something your don't already know the answer
to? I really doubt that don't think you know when I manage to do do.

"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f75f$47e9cba6$4c49ae41$24529@KNOLOGY.NET...
> "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
> news:wrKdnQfqGPK-s3TanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@centurytel.net...
>>
>> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eM9Gj.36073$J41.1447@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
>> >
>> >
>> > Perhaps we could actually get someone in office who understood fiscal
>> > conservatism? Looking at our upcoming options, that's highly unlikely.
>>
>> The only fiscal conservative (that I remember) as marked by actually
>> spending less government money than what was taken in is Bill Clinton.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
>>
>> http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
>>
>> What's that big blue blip hiding in the bushes?
>>
>>
>
> So the Republican Congress, who passes the budges that the President can't
> change....gets no credit?

I'm sorry but I miss your point as it relates to fiscal conservative. Is
your question a pun amplified by the word "credit?" You can give Congress
credit for anything you want to give Congress credit for.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:49:48 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
>news:wrKdnQfqGPK-s3TanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@centurytel.net...
>>
>> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eM9Gj.36073$J41.1447@newssvr14.news.prodigy.n et...
>> >
>> >
>> > Perhaps we could actually get someone in office who understood fiscal
>> > conservatism? Looking at our upcoming options, that's highly unlikely.
>>
>> The only fiscal conservative (that I remember) as marked by actually
>> spending less government money than what was taken in is Bill Clinton.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
>>
>> http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
>>
>> What's that big blue blip hiding in the bushes?
>>
>>
>
>So the Republican Congress, who passes the budges that the President can't
>change....gets no credit?
>
>Dennis
>
>
Perhaps we should have a couple more pols run for president on a
ticket including support for the line item veto. That way we will
never put the lid on the pork barrel

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:10:39 -0500, "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me>
wrote:

>
>"Rod" <log_dog@verizonnet.addthedot> wrote in message
>news:47e98d79.1143580781@news.verizon.net...
>
>> We have had no fiscal conservatives in decades. As
>> long as they loot the funds collected for Medicare and Social Security
>> to augment the general fund, no one has ever balanced a budget.
>
>Loot is a bad choice of words for a loan.
>
>When the discussion changes from the government as a whole to individual
>budgets within the government, the management element properly evaluated is
>the manager directly responsible for the individual budget or budgets. It's
>fair to evaluate the President's performance on the whole or sum of all the
>budgets but it's not fair to evaluate the President's performance on the
>budget for Defense or Agriculture, for examples. You don't like that Social
>Security funds are loaned to the Federal Government? Write your elected
>officials and express your displeasure. Vote accordingly. It's a wide
>brush that paints all politicians as liberal. Probably your splashing a
>little paint where it doesn't belong. Of course, it's easier to dump all
>the fish in one barrel instead of sorting them into size and type.
>
>
If it were a loan wouldn't there have been a payment made by now ? At
least 1 or maybe slow down the speed with which you, um what did you
call it ? Borrow ?

"Rod" <log_dog@verizonnet.addthedot> wrote in message
news:47ea4660.1190952078@news.verizon.net...
>>
> If it were a loan wouldn't there have been a payment made by now ? At
> least 1 or maybe slow down the speed with which you, um what did you
> call it ? Borrow ?

Here is where the glitz of bullshit outshines the reality of finance. How
boring is loaning the government money, seeing it paid off, then reinvested?
Over and over a million times over?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

If you read the information you'll know more than you do now. The important
point, whether correct or not, is that the U.S. Government is expected to
settle the debt - just like it has every other debt - by payment in full.
The world financial system would collapse if that were not the expected
outcome. Not quite as glitzy as the bullshit is it?

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:58:45 -0500, "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me>
wrote:

>
>"Rod" <log_dog@verizonnet.addthedot> wrote in message
>news:47ea4660.1190952078@news.verizon.net...
>>>
>> If it were a loan wouldn't there have been a payment made by now ? At
>> least 1 or maybe slow down the speed with which you, um what did you
>> call it ? Borrow ?
>
>Here is where the glitz of bullshit outshines the reality of finance. How
>boring is loaning the government money, seeing it paid off, then reinvested?
>Over and over a million times over?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
>
>If you read the information you'll know more than you do now. The important
>point, whether correct or not, is that the U.S. Government is expected to
>settle the debt - just like it has every other debt - by payment in full.
>The world financial system would collapse if that were not the expected
>outcome. Not quite as glitzy as the bullshit is it?
>
>
Moonbat alert

>If you read the information you'll know more than you do now. The
>important
>point, whether correct or not, is that the U.S. Government is expected to
>settle the debt - just like it has every other debt - by payment in full.
>The world financial system would collapse if that were not the expected
>outcome. Not quite as glitzy as the bullshit is it?

Funny how blind a liberal can be to what's going on around them. Large
businesses are, pretty much across the board, prohibited from borrowing
funds from their employees' retirement accounts. It's an inherent conflict
of interest that has proven, time and time again, to be too much to resist.
You want to see just how bad it can get, take a good look at what happened
to the retirement funds of former employees of Easter Airlines, Enron or any
other large business that got into financial trouble.

The United States Government is the largest business in the world. Why
should the rules for it be any different?

Lee