OT: The Senate, what is it good for?

Nov 02, 2005 17 Replies

First reply

Sharx35

Agreed (trying to remember exactly where I heard that same definition of insanity). Some kind of meeting, I do believe!!

Read the full reply

Absolutely nothing.



Did you hear about the 'closed session' the DemonRats demanded to investigate the war in Iraq? They are reading out of the Vietnam playbook again.



I'd be scared if the Left ever had an original thought. They just keep replaying the same old plays over and over.



What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?



Charles of Kankakee


Agreed (trying to remember exactly where I heard that same definition of insanity). Some kind of meeting, I do believe!!

Reed, that doddering old fool should retire along with kennedy and several more long in the tooth democrats. They offer nothing new, no ideas to help, rather (LOL) just hinder and repeat what moveon.org whispers in their ears.

Kind of like the news reruns where the suicide jumper jumped for the

5th time - still hit the ground, never got a parachute.

we need term limits in the congress. some of these old goats in there need to get a pitchfork in the ass and get em out. they've been around too long, both republicans and democrats are guilty.

I've never heard of the Toyota Senate. Is it a new model? Is it American only?

Huw

Yes it is. You must learn to keep up.

Considering it's being run by Frist, et al, at present I'd say you're right.

The intel was bad. Criminally bad. Rather than find out what went wrong and fix it, the NeoCons are stonewalling. I'd have to assume they all have guilty consciences.

What's the big deal about the closed session, anyway? The NeoConned are often complaining that the Dems are airing our dirty laundry in public. Don't even want to discuss national security problems in private? You've got a problem. Denial is not just a river in Africa.

I'd be surprised if you had one. If things are going so swimmingly, why should you care whether or not the Liberals are being critical?

This would apply to the Administration policy of "tax cuts" to "reduce budget deficit."

Don't they teach history and math in Kankakee?

I must read more magazines which have less naked bodies and more metal bodies. But not just yet. Perhaps I shall make it a New Year resolution? Perhaps not.

Huw

Seems like then we should arrest Hillary Clinton, Kennedy and a bunch of their Democrat colleagues in congress. This is all very well documented.

Surely you must read or watch the news "dh"?

Arrest them for what? Trusting the Administration to tell the truth? A charge of "naive" might stick but I would have expected after all the noise the Republicans raised about Clinton failing to confess to a little dalliance with an intern that the Republican Administration would set high standards for themselves in truth telling, especially when the lives of

2000+ US troops and 26,000 Iraqis were involved.

Yeah, I do. I just don't get it filtered through Rush Limbaugh's ass, as some seem to prefer to receive it.

You listen to rush limbaugh? I don't ever have a chance so I don't know what he's telling you.

The democrats all got the same intell information. BTW, the CIA chief was a clintoon holdover. Blame him.

Yea, they thought they ought to make a model more like an American car. The Toyota Senate, it just sits there and belches hot air all day, and gets 0 mpg. . . .

Charles of Kankakee

Historically in the US every time tax RATES are reduced, the income to the federal treasure increases.. It did so for Jack Kennedy, Reagan and it has under Bush. The current income to the US treasury is higher than at any time in our history. Simple function of a capitalists economy and federal taxing policy. Every time a dollar changes hands in the US it is taxed. The more dollars in circulation and the more times it changes hands the more tax revenue the federal treasury takes in.

mike

Who filters your news?

mike

Are you saying that the deficit would have been even bigger than it actually was without the tax cuts? If so, please quantify how much larger the deficit would have been - compared to the actuals - without the tax cuts.

Josh Rosenbluth

No, it would be smaller if they government had not decided to spend more money, as they have EVERY time the income to the treasury has grown with every cut in the tax RATES, historically. As to the amount you can find that by going to the IRS site and look at the historical average quarterly income to the treasury before and after the RATE cut, and figure the difference ;)

mike hunt

Increased spending may be a cause. But, that does not preclude that the tax cuts also played a part.

It's your claim, you need to provide the supporting data.

Josh Rosenbluth

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required