Our great Democratic Congress

[yunt2ride]

Bush calls for the ban be lifted on offshore drilling and CONGRESS quickly rejects it.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/offshore_oil

[trx#9]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!
Why don't you  post where congress is trying to roll back the tax break that Bush gave the oil companies and he keeps vetoing it. 

[digginfool]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!

Damn, son.  When are you going to start thinking before you type?  So now you're trying to tell all of us it's not Bush, Cheney and all the Republicans; it's all the members of Congress making money from oil.  It's a government conspiracy, Democrats included (they do comprise the majority), raping the pockets of America over oil?  Please, you have got to get a hold of yourself. 

[big-daddy]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!

Damn, son.  When are you going to start thinking before you type?  So now you're trying to tell all of us it's not Bush, Cheney and all the Republicans; it's all the members of Congress making money from oil.  It's a government conspiracy, Democrats included (they do comprise the majority), raping the pockets of America over oil?  Please, you have got to get a hold of yourself. 

[trx#9]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!

Damn, son.  When are you going to start thinking before you type?  So now you're trying to tell all of us it's not Bush, Cheney and all the Republicans; it's all the members of Congress making money from oil.  It's a government conspiracy, Democrats included (they do comprise the majority), raping the pockets of America over oil?  Please, you have got to get a hold of yourself. 

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?
Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price after when he pleaded with them to increase oil production and them refusing too?
I'm neither rep or Dem, I look at everything with an open mind. I personally think there all corrupt but it see more with republicans.
Don't believe everything you here on talk radio, Beavis!

[AintSkeered]

As of the 2006 elections, there are 232 House Dems and 202 Republicans. In the Senate, there's 49 Dems, 49 Repubs, 1 Joe Lieberman and 1 Independent. So, you can't single-out any one party for their incompetence.

More interesting is the age, gender, ethnic and religious background of our Congressional leadership. In the Senate, there are 16 women, the highest number in history. There are 13 Jews, three Hispanics (Mel Martinez, R-FL; Bob Menendez, D-NJ; Ken Salazar, D-CO) two Asian Americans (Daniel Akaka, D-HI; Daniel Inouye, D-HI), one Arab American (John Sununu, R-NH), and one African American (Barack Obama, D-IL). The average age of Senators in 2007 is 62 years. The oldest Senator in 2007 is President pro tempore Robert Byrd (90); the youngest is John Sununu (43).

The 110th Congress includes the most religiously-diverse House in history, including the first Muslims (Keith Ellison and André Carson), the first Buddhists (Mazie Hirono and Hank Johnson), and 30 Jews. There are 42 African Americans (including two non-voting delegates) and 74 female representatives. There are also 27 Hispanics, three Asian Americans, and one Native American (Tom Cole, R-OK).

Communication and Diversity are over-rated! Actions(or lack thereof) speak louder than words.

[digginfool]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

[trx#9]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

You crack me up!






Oh' by the way who financed 9/11?

And keep up your insults, thats about all you got. Don't treat me like your wife, I don't play that game.

[budman]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

[digginfool]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

You crack me up!






Oh' by the way who financed 9/11?

And keep up your insults, thats about all you got. Don't treat me like your wife, I don't play that game.

If I'm Beavis, then you must be Butthead!!     Show me where the Saudis financed 9/11.  There were Saudis involved with Al Qaeda, but then again, there's at least one American as well.  Does that mean we financed our own attack?

[digginfool]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

Clearly, an informed voter.  Just like an informed consumer, informed voters can make intelligent decisions.   

[MedicMudder]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

  Budman you are soooooooo right !!!!!!!!!! and BHO will double the capitail gains tax.if it was not for the evil rich the world would come to a stand still.Think
bout it, has a poor person gave you a job?

                                                            And I am faaarrrr from rich I am a FireFighter/paramedic.

[FishaHallic]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

If I am not mistaken there are more people working in the U.S. gov't right now than there was when Bush took office, so I don't see a shrinking gov't at all.  At least if the Democrats are like you say "Tax and grow government" at least they are trying to raise the money to actually pay for the gov't, the republicans want to "borrow" the money and put off the bill for future generations (your kids, grandkids and their grandkids).  If anyone were to live beyond their means you republicans would be the first one to jump all over them for spending more than they earn but for some reason it's seems ok for the gov't to do that.

There was a thread a several months ago about the gov't considering bailing out home owners in trouble because of rising interest rates.   The same people that jumped all over any thought of the gov't bailing out homeowners spending beyond their means are the same ones that are now saying it's ok for "The Gov't" to live beyond its means and pass the bill to future generations, I don't get it?

[MedicMudder]

Hey fish,the list of things that Pres Bush has done to make me unhappy is long,spending money like a drunken sailor ,signing campain finance reform,
weak on illegal immigration.But on the war,tax cuts,he is on the ball.

[FishaHallic]

Your against campaign reform?

[digginfool]

There was a thread a several months ago about the gov't considering bailing out home owners in trouble because of rising interest rates.   The same people that jumped all over any thought of the gov't bailing out homeowners spending beyond their means are the same ones that are now saying it's ok for "The Gov't" to live beyond its means and pass the bill to future generations, I don't get it?

And now I quote (this being fact, not Democratic hopeful recollection)...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats and the White House are on a collision course over an ambitious proposal drafted to address the spreading mortgage crisis.

House Democrats and the Bush administration are at odds over a bill designed to help struggling homeowners.  The Bush administration calls the bill a "bailout," saying it "strongly opposes" the legislation sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat....


Need I say more?

[FishaHallic]

Diggin, this is the point I am trying to make.  I am not sure how to be more clear on this issue.  What I said was that many of you are up in arms over a possible bail out for homeowners who over step their bounds and can't afford their mortgage but you seem to think it is perfectly fine for the gov't to go into heavy debt and pass the burden of that debt to future generations.

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

[digginfool]

Diggin, this is the point I am trying to make.  I am not sure how to be more clear on this issue.  What I said was that many of you are up in arms over a possible bail out for homeowners who over step their bounds and can't afford their mortgage but you seem to think it is perfectly fine for the gov't to go into heavy debt and pass the burden of that debt to future generations.

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

As far as the government goes, I don't know how you can possibly believe Republicans create bigger government.  It's the Democrat's mantra to tax and spend.  Unfortunately, they don't spend money to secure the future of the country; they spend it on the least productive individuals living in the country.  It doesn't make sense.  Sure, it's so romantic to think of Robin Hood; stealing from the rich, giving to the poor.  But as MedicMudder stated above, when was the last time a poor man gave you a job?  You must pass laws that are favorable to industry in order to create an environment of growth.  History has proven time and again that a tax rebate to the poor will result in that money being spent frivolously.  A tax rebate to industry results in the building of new factories and the creation of jobs.  That's just the way it is.  If you really want to see this country go to hell, go ahead and vote for the tax and spend mentality.  Sure, we'll go to hell with free health insurance but I personally would rather have an environment that creates wealth, where those who are willing to go to work can afford their own health insurance (and mortgages and retirement funds, etc., etc., etc.).

[trx#9]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

You crack me up!






Oh' by the way who financed 9/11?

And keep up your insults, thats about all you got. Don't treat me like your wife, I don't play that game.

If I'm Beavis, then you must be Butthead!!     Show me where the Saudis financed 9/11.  There were Saudis involved with Al Qaeda, but then again, there's at least one American as well.  Does that mean we financed our own attack?

If you didn't think the Saudis financed 9/11 then your a lost cause. Thats like old news man get with the program. I can't debate someone with no recollection of true facts. 

[FishaHallic]

Diggin, this is the point I am trying to make.  I am not sure how to be more clear on this issue.  What I said was that many of you are up in arms over a possible bail out for homeowners who over step their bounds and can't afford their mortgage but you seem to think it is perfectly fine for the gov't to go into heavy debt and pass the burden of that debt to future generations.

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

As far as the government goes, I don't know how you can possibly believe Republicans create bigger government.  It's the Democrat's mantra to tax and spend.  Unfortunately, they don't spend money to secure the future of the country; they spend it on the least productive individuals living in the country.  It doesn't make sense.  Sure, it's so romantic to think of Robin Hood; stealing from the rich, giving to the poor.  But as MedicMudder stated above, when was the last time a poor man gave you a job?  You must pass laws that are favorable to industry in order to create an environment of growth.  History has proven time and again that a tax rebate to the poor will result in that money being spent frivolously.  A tax rebate to industry results in the building of new factories and the creation of jobs.  That's just the way it is.  If you really want to see this country go to hell, go ahead and vote for the tax and spend mentality.  Sure, we'll go to hell with free health insurance but I personally would rather have an environment that creates wealth, where those who are willing to go to work can afford their own health insurance (and mortgages and retirement funds, etc., etc., etc.).

The proof is in the pudding  http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/0905politics_light.aspx

[GrizzlyGator]

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

Isn't is awesome....Now we have several senators who got "special attention" VIP loans when they went to borrow money for themselves from Countrywide Mortage Co....They unlike us regular folk got not only much lower rates but also got points taken off resulting in 10's of thousands of dollars in savings...the kicker here is that some of these senators are on the very committee that is investigating this whole mortage debacle and the lending practices of said Mortage Co. (Countrywide) ha ha ha!!!  makes me want to laugh and puke at the same time....these as*es must think we voters are ignorant...but then again we keep putting them back in office with or votes and apathy...I have lost all faith in our government's ability to lead and direct us in path that the forerunners of this great country laid out over two centuries ago...this lack of control, greed, self gratification...pandering (someone who caters to or exploits others desires or weaknesses)...is leading us down one slippery slope in my opinion...we can complain all day long about Bush and in a few months McCain Or Obama but that will do little good until us voters do something about the real people that run this country "Congress"..........REVOLUTION NOW!!

[digginfool]

And once you add in all the professional couch potatoes the Democrats have perpetuated, the federal work force (yeah, that's right... it takes effort to yell "Yo, beeatch.  Grab me another 4-0.  I'm going for a ride in my Escalade) becomes 10s of millions strong.    So much for that theory!  

C'mon trx, show me the proof where the Saudi government financed 9/11.  If it's old news, it should be easy to do.

[digginfool]

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

Isn't is awesome....Now we have several senators who got "special attention" VIP loans when they went to borrow money for themselves from Countrywide Mortage Co....They unlike us regular folk got not only much lower rates but also got points taken off resulting in 10's of thousands of dollars in savings...the kicker here is that some of these senators are on the very committee that is investigating this whole mortage debacle and the lending practices of said Mortage Co. (Countrywide) ha ha ha!!!  makes me want to laugh and puke at the same time....these as*es must think we voters are ignorant...but then again we keep putting them back in office with or votes and apathy...I have lost all faith in our government's ability to lead and direct us in path that the forerunners of this great country laid out over two centuries ago...this lack of control, greed, self gratification...pandering (someone who caters to or exploits others desires or weaknesses)...is leading us down one slippery slope in my opinion...we can complain all day long about Bush and in a few months McCain Or Obama but that will do little good until us voters do something about the real people that run this country "Congress"..........REVOLUTION NOW!!

There is strong truth in your words, Kimosabe.  However, the banks tend to treat you favorably when you're borrowing money you don't need.  On top of that, there is almost always discounts available for friends, families and influential people and these discounts, while not offered to all people, are used all the time.  I speak from experience.  A very good friend of mine is a mortgage broker and my re-fi had no points and was 1/4% lower than the best rate advertised.  She literally saved me tens of thousands of dollars.

[JackL]

What you all are forgetting is it costs $2 to produce a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia. Drilling here at home to tap the estimated 3% of the entire worlds supply isn't going to do anything to help us out NOW.

Great, so I might just see a $0.13 drop in gas prices in eight years if we start exploring and drilling right now, woohoo, sign me up. If I am lucky we actually will destroy the shoreline and all of the tax money it brings in and I won't have to deal with the annoying tourists or lack of state income tax.


Hmmm, I wonder how much fuel the military consuming right now? I know those hybrid tanks, jets and ships are rather fuel efficient so they can't even possibly be contributing to the rising fuel prices. It must be Slick Willy and the Democratic Congress bending us over at the pump, eh? You want to be free, or you want cheap gas?

This is political BS. We don't need anymore of that. We got our fill of that when they decided to stimulate the potion of your brain that forgets being screwed over with a few paltry dollars instead of using the SPR to avoid the tipping point we finally reached. Enjoy $4 gas, because now they know that is what you will pay before crying.

[Anoriginal]

He said you have green teeth.

I've never seen your teeth, but I doubt they're green.










Yeah, I'm staying out of this one.