On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:09 PST, shadow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01-Dec-04, Travis Pahl wrote: > > TP> I am not sure how this is relevant. What I am saying is that in order > TP> to help some reduce their spending themselves in debt, you have to stop > TP> them from calling up the credit card company and asking for a increase > TP> in their limit. Will it solve the problem by itself? No. But it will > TP> help.... > > Travis, that's closing the barn doors after the horses are out.
All the horses are not out. Most people are not broke yet. But if we keep letting them raise the limit and then raise spending and then raise the limit and then raise spending for ever, we will eventually be broke. I do not care which happens first but the two are connected. Say no to one and it will be easier to say no to the other. > TP> ... The other side of it is that they need to stop spending. The > TP> problem is the republicans are a shopoholics and like most addicts, > TP> refuse to admit they have a problem and even worse, they blame it on > TP> their freinds the Democrats.... > > There is HUGE dissension within the GOP right now over the bloated budget. That is great. Somehow I have little faith that the limited government ones will win. Why? Becuase I have heard this all before. It is a show they put on to convince people they are the limited government party. After they the show has been running long enough for people to notice, they will stop the show, increase spending and the cycle will continue. > TP> ... When I point out that the republicans just called for another > TP> increase to their credit limit to pay for yet another shopping spree, > TP> roberts response is "the demcorats only voted against it to be > TP> different." it is like listening to little kids squablle over stupid > TP> things ignoring the real problem at hand.... > > You're both right, but I believe Robert sees the raising of the debt limit as > syptomatic rather than causitive. Failure to raise that limit would have > caused serious problems with govt bonds and the falling dollar would plummet. No. the increases in spending cause that. Raising the limit is just a band aid to the problem that masks the real problem. Remove that band aid and let everyone see the damage that has been done. The sooner the better. > TP>>> ACtually i think most of the population is responsible.... > > s>> Did you see the red/blue map broken down by counties? > > TP> That does not really show anything important. First of all it shows > TP> land mass rather than population, and it shows an all or nothing when > TP> in fact many counties are 50/50+1. And lastly, it just shows who > TP> people voted for between two nearly identical candidates that most > TP> voters thought were the only real choice. > > They WERE the only two choices for people who insist upon voting for a > candidate with a chance to win. right. But there is more to an election that picking a winner. And just becuase they are the only two with a chance to win does not mean that either is worth voting for. What I grow tired of is that both of these sides use the other to justify their mans actions. If you want to vote for the guy, fine. But do not try to justify his actions by saying they are better than the other guy. Morals are not a relative thing. The green river killer killed 51 men or whatever the number was. he was a bad guy. Can I go kill 45 people and say it is okay because I did not kill as many as he did? No. killing is wroing regardless of whether someone else did more. The same is true with what Bush does. He is wrong, and regardless of whether he was the best choice between the two candidates with a chance of winning he is wrong. If you think it is voting for fine, do it. But do not justify it as robert continually does. > TP> It does not show however what people thought about increased spending. > TP> And in that regards most people i beleive do want a more controlled > TP> limited spending from the feds. > > The majorities in the blue pockets are people who LIKE govt spending. They should start voting for the republicans. They have increased spending far more than the democrats have. Makes you wonder what the red folks like. > r>>>> And the news media have enormous influence on how representatives and > r>>>> their issues are portrayed. In effect the media move the voters, and > r>>>> the voters move gov't.... > > TP> Most republicans love fox news and talk radio. Watch and listen to > TP> them and you will hear/see people asking for smaller government all > TP> the time. > > True, and those in the blue pockets (almost half the voters) loathe Fox News > and talk radio. Fox News is available primarily on cable, whereas CBS, PBS, > NBC, and ABC are almost everywhere. Their influence is still enormous. I am well aware of where all the media is available. My point merely was that there is mass media that is republican freindly and calls for decreased spending. The republican voters listen to and watch it alot, and yet the republican politicians ignore it and pay attention to blue media. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
