If Obama is such a bad president why is he going to get relected?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

This is genius

Enough reasons for you?

Yes, enough reasons to know why you are uninformed.

[zimmy]

Jimmy, you want the epa ransacked? Department of Energy? End social security? Disagreeing with your gangs lame ideas does not make me uninformed.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jimmy, you want the epa ransacked? Department of Energy? End social security? Disagreeing with your gangs lame ideas does not make me uninformed.

There not "my gangs" ideas, that is where you are misinformed. I could say Code Pink's ideas are shared by all liberals, but I know better than highlighting the extreme as representative of the movement.

Why dont you ask these questions instead -

Is the EPA and DOE effective for the BILLIONS we pump into into them? Is there a better way?

Is Social Security working or would an average person have more money if the money was invested in another fashion instead of being borrowed by the govt and potentially never paid back?

I rather do this that raise taxes. In order to run an effective business you try to lower expenses before raising fees. Is that so bad?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

There not "my gangs" ideas, that is where you are misinformed. I could say Code Pink's ideas are shared by all liberals, but I know better than highlighting the extreme as representative of the movement.

Why dont you ask these questions instead -

Is the EPA and DOE effective for the BILLIONS we pump into into them? Is there a better way?

Is Social Security working or would an average person have more money if the money was invested in another fashion instead of being borrowed by the govt and potentially never paid back?

I rather do this that raise taxes. In order to run an effective business you try to lower expenses before raising fees. Is that so bad?

Nope, not so bad. I think we can make serious improvements in the efficiency of alot of program. The tea party seems to want to abolish programs they don't like because of ideology more than budget reasons I also believe if the one side will not budge on the tax issue for the top percent, then they aren't serious about reducing the deficit.

On the epa: Obama wanted to lower the epa budget by 3 million. Republicans by 3 billion. The tea party seems to want to disband it. Same with department of ed.

The department of energy budget is lower now than in 1984, when adjusted for inflation.

[zimmy]

also Jimmy, those ideas that I referenced came from the tea party affiliates in Congress. I guess I was misinformed about your thoughts on the tea party.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Nope, not so bad. I think we can make serious improvements in the efficiency of alot of program. The tea party seems to want to abolish programs they don't like because of ideology more than budget reasons I also believe if the one side will not budge on the tax issue for the top percent, then they aren't serious about reducing the deficit.

On the epa: Obama wanted to lower the epa budget by 3 million. Republicans by 3 billion. The tea party seems to want to disband it. Same with department of ed.

The department of energy budget is lower now than in 1984, when adjusted for inflation.

"The tea party seems to want to abolish programs they don't like because of ideology more than budget reasons "

You can believe that, and you probably do believe that. But you would be absolutely 100% wrong. We want to eliminate superfluous, inefficient waste BEFORE we raise taxes on anybody.

"if the one side will not budge on the tax issue for the top percent, then they aren't serious about reducing the deficit. "

I'll budge on tax increases, AFTER (read: not before) every single cent of waste has been eliminated. If we eliminate all reasonable waste, and we still have a deficit, then let's talk about tax hikes.

Obama doesn't see the need to reduce spending by any significant amount. He only concedes to that out of political necessity, but his instinct is to increase spending. You have to really be out to lunch to see no danger in increasing the deficits at this point, don't you?