A Prayer from Chris Guynn

"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?

"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?

While I will agree that, basing the definition on spending less than the
govenrment collects (tax revenues), Bill Clinton would qualify as a fiscal
conservative, I think that the term loses some of its flavor when you
include presidents who raise taxes to cover their spending level instead of
lowering their spending level to meet the tax revenue. I mean, I've

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

Does the projected budget deficit also come from the CBO (along with the
rest of the budget data)?

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%MaGj.36083$J41.26186@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net...
>
> "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
> news:wrKdnQfqGPK-s3TanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@centurytel.net...
>>
>> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eM9Gj.36073$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?
>
> While I will agree that, basing the definition on spending less than the
> govenrment collects (tax revenues), Bill Clinton would qualify as a fiscal
> conservative, I think that the term loses some of its flavor when you
> include presidents who raise taxes to cover their spending level instead
> of
> lowering their spending level to meet the tax revenue. I mean, I've

What you think about tax increases has little to do with being a fiscal
conservative. You can bitch about the government programs; you can bitch
about funding government programs; but when it comes down to the bottom line
the fiscal conservative breaks even managing the programs. Only a dreamer
believes it's possible to run today's government on yesterday's budget.
Finances don't work that way. A fiscal conservative knows what to do and
does what it takes to pay the bills without deficit spending.

> Your mileage may, of course, vary.

I'm sure it will.

> Does the projected budget deficit also come from the CBO (along with the
> rest of the budget data)?

The chart bottom indicates: www.cbo.gov updated 3/6/2008.

"ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
news:m4SdnXs14K1o2nTanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@centurytel.n et...
>
> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%MaGj.36083$J41.26186@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net...
> >
> > "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
> > news:wrKdnQfqGPK-s3TanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@centurytel.net...
> >>
> >> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eM9Gj.36073$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?
> >
> > While I will agree that, basing the definition on spending less than the
> > govenrment collects (tax revenues), Bill Clinton would qualify as a
fiscal
> > conservative, I think that the term loses some of its flavor when you
> > include presidents who raise taxes to cover their spending level instead
> > of
> > lowering their spending level to meet the tax revenue. I mean, I've
>
> What you think about tax increases has little to do with being a fiscal
> conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he doesn't qualify. I'm just saying that
it seems like cheating to raise taxes to cover spending instead of finding a
way to curtail spending to fit within the tax system.

> You can bitch about the government programs; you can bitch
> about funding government programs; but when it comes down to the bottom
line
> the fiscal conservative breaks even managing the programs. Only a dreamer
> believes it's possible to run today's government on yesterday's budget.

In that case, it will be impossible to run tomorrow's govenrment on today's
budget. Following the logical path, eventually, it will require everything
that is produced to sustain the govnerment. That'll be a good day.

> Finances don't work that way. A fiscal conservative knows what to do and
> does what it takes to pay the bills without deficit spending.

While that may technically be the limiting factors in the assignment of the
label, to me the implication goes deeper than that. It's a matter of
connotation versus denotation.

>
> > Your mileage may, of course, vary.
>
> I'm sure it will.

No doubt.

>
> > Does the projected budget deficit also come from the CBO (along with the
> > rest of the budget data)?
>
> The chart bottom indicates: www.cbo.gov updated 3/6/2008.

Interesting... I should spend some time looking through all of that. Right
now though, I've gotta go to work.

>> What you think about tax increases has little to do with being a fiscal
>> conservative.

Bullshit.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he doesn't qualify. I'm just saying
> that
> it seems like cheating to raise taxes to cover spending instead of finding
> a
> way to curtail spending to fit within the tax system.

It's always easier to take more money from other people to keep from
stepping on toes by reducing spending on somebody else's pet projects.

>> You can bitch about the government programs; you can bitch about funding
>> government programs; but when it comes down to the bottom
>> line the fiscal conservative breaks even managing the programs. Only a
>> dreamer believes it's possible to run today's government on yesterday's
>> budget.

Bullshit.

When it comes down to the bottom line, it's our money that's being spent.
I'm way past over spending it on people that are here illegally, to placate
people abroad that hate our guts passionately or, worse, violently, or on
thousands of other things that we could not only live without, but that we
should live without. It is not now, and never has been, the government's job
to take care of those that can't take care of themselves at the expense of
those that do. Charity begins, and should end, at home.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NecGj.9651$Q52.7707@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
> Lee

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?

ben bradlee wrote:
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:NecGj.9651$Q52.7707@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
>>Lee
>
>
> 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?
>
>

Perhaps, ben, When you can overcome your hatred for Lee (and the
apparent insanity that it produces), you can understand the fact that he
did contribute something to the discussion. Seek help. Soon.

--
“TANSTAAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:4eWdnRtT_Ob78XTanZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> - Proverbs 22:3
>

I'm sure I've told you before that your moniker provides more detail about
your thoughts on any given subject than your words about that subject that
are found in the body of your posts . Of course your medical expertise,
knowledge of the Bible, and love for your fellow man come between the last
"d" in dazed and the "c" in confuzzed. I'm guessing the "me too" is coded
by using the double "z" instead of the traditional "s" as in the normal
spelling of confused.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:11:00 -0500, "ben bradlee" <NoWay@Way.Bite.Me>
wrote:

>
>"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
>news:4eWdnRtT_Ob78XTanZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@comcast.com ...
>
>> - Proverbs 22:3
>>
>
>I'm sure I've told you before that your moniker provides more detail about
>your thoughts on any given subject than your words about that subject that
>are found in the body of your posts . Of course your medical expertise,
>knowledge of the Bible, and love for your fellow man come between the last
>"d" in dazed and the "c" in confuzzed. I'm guessing the "me too" is coded
>by using the double "z" instead of the traditional "s" as in the normal
>spelling of confused.
>
>
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.

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.