For Dems only.

[Texsox]

They do represent their district, else they will lose the next election. Almost no one respects these windsock politicians that change their mind 2 twice a week based on which poll just came out. But hey, if their constituents like that kind of politician they will re-elect and thats fine.

 

However, I agree, the only true way to have the will of he people is to go 100% off polls

 

"In the news today, the GOP 'tax cuts for everyone' bill has been passed and been implemented. Only to be revoked 2 days later. And then passed again"

 

fixed

[mr_genius]

fixed

 

 

see, now you agree with me

Edited October 23, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem is Cook county is extremely wasteful. These massive tax increases will continue until people have had enough and demand a more efficient local government.

Don't blame me, I voted for Peraica. And I would have liked Claypool even better, but since he's not machine, he wasn't going to get the Dem nod.

 

I think Stroger will be out the next election. This is just too far. The suburban Cook voters will come out in droves after this stunt, after skipping the last election.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Just a little reminder, in case any of you out there were under the false impression that the mainline Republican party or the administration have any interest at all in smaller or more efficient government.

 

At this point, neither major party can lay claim to being fiscal conservatives, and haven't been able to during this decade. Your choices are now tax-and-spend (costing you money now), or spend-and-spend (costing you lots more money later).

 

[StrangeSox]

The problem is Cook county is extremely wasteful. These massive tax increases will continue until people have had enough and demand a more efficient local government.

 

Those in government don't seem to grasp that. Not enough money? Don't bother cutting costs or increasing efficiency, just raise taxes! That's the solution to all of the county's/state's/country's problems!

[kapkomet]

Those in government don't seem to grasp that. Not enough money? Don't bother cutting costs or increasing efficiency, just raise taxes! That's the solution to all of the county's/state's/country's problems!

Hey, now we're getting somewhere.

[Texsox]

Those in government don't seem to grasp that. Not enough money? Don't bother cutting costs or increasing efficiency, just raise taxes! That's the solution to all of the county's/state's/country's problems!

 

Except on the Federal level, you cut taxes when you can't pay for everything!!

[longshot7]

Why can Urkel get a pension from the City of Chicago, Cook CO. and the State of Illinois? UNIONS YES I LOVE MY HONDA....

 

DID I DO THAT??????????????

[StrangeSox]

Except on the Federal level, you cut taxes when you can't pay for everything!!

 

You're right, my point needs to be amended:

 

Problem: Budget Shortfalls

 

Democrat Solution: Raise taxes to record levels. Don't worry about how it will take money out of people's pockets and slow down the economy. Don't worry about it driving away business and investment. If we can add just a few more social programs, all we be well.

 

Republican Solution: Cut taxes. Everyone knows that cutting taxes = more tax revenue* always no matter what. In the mean time, we'll spend billions fighting overseas and borrow money from China to pay for it all. The only programs that should be cut are stupid liberal hippy programs, like education and children's health care. How can it possibly go wrong?

 

*edited for clarity

Edited October 24, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

You're right, my point needs to be amended:

 

Problem: Budget Shortfalls

 

Democrat Solution: Raise taxes to record levels. Don't worry about how it will take money out of people's pockets and slow down the economy. Don't worry about it driving away business and investment. If we can add just a few more social programs, all we be well.

 

Republican Solution: Cut taxes. Everyone knows that cutting taxes = more taxes always no matter what. In the mean time, we'll spend billions fighting overseas and borrow money from China to pay for it all. The only programs that should be cut are stupid liberal hippy programs, like education and children's health care. How can it possibly go wrong?

 

That's pretty much it. And since our government favors compromise we get all the Dem spending and cutting taxes.

[Balta1701]

That's pretty much it. And since our government favors compromise we get all the Dem spending and cutting taxes.

Oh come on man, you're calling the $600 billion a year defense industry, the Medicare Insurance company bailout bill, and everything else from the record number of earmarks over the past few years to the creation of this whole new "homeland security" apparatus "Dem spending"?

 

Yes, the Dems do their share of spending. But you're totally ignoring the last 15 years if all you're caring about is "Dem spending". Heck, on this one I can even cite the incredibly conservative Heritage foundation, and no one will be able to complain about my source.

 

Edited October 24, 2007 by Balta1701

[YASNY]

Oh come on man, you're calling the $600 billion a year defense industry, the Medicare Insurance company bailout bill, and everything else from the record number of earmarks over the past few years to the creation of this whole new "homeland security" apparatus "Dem spending"?

 

Yes, the Dems do their share of spending. But you're totally ignoring the last 15 years if all you're caring about is "Dem spending". Heck, on this one I can even cite the incredibly conservative Heritage foundation, and no one will be able to complain about my source.

 

 

There isn't a legitimate conservative in the country who isn't sickened by Bush's spending. This guy is pushing the NWO and that's all there is to it.

[BigSqwert]

This story made me chuckle.

 

Ecuador wants military base in Miami

Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:38pm BST

 

By Phil Stewart

 

NAPLES (Reuters) - Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast.

 

Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes.

 

"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.

 

"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

 

The U.S. embassy to Ecuador says on its Web site that anti-narcotics flights from Manta gathered information behind more than 60 percent of illegal drug seizures on the high seas of the Eastern Pacific last year.

 

It offers a fact-sheet on the base at: http://ecuador.usembassy.gov/topics_of_int.../manta-fol.html

 

Correa, a popular leftist economist, had promised to cut off his arm before extending the lease that ends in 2009 and has called U.S. President George W. Bush a "dimwit".

 

But Correa, an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, told Reuters he believed relations with the United States were "excellent" despite the base closing.

 

He rejected the idea that the episode reflected on U.S. ties at all.

 

"This is the only North American military base in South America," he said.

 

"So, then the other South American countries don't have good relations with the United States because they don't have military bases? That doesn't make any sense."

 

LINK

[kapkomet]

There isn't a legitimate conservative in the country who isn't sickened by Bush's spending. This guy is pushing the NWO and that's all there is to it.

I 10000000% agree.

 

[EvilMonkey]

This story made me chuckle.

LINK

Then we close the base, remove every last building, cable, nail and scrap of paper, and don't look back. Make an offer to a neighborring country. I am sure one that could use the $$$ would accept. We should also pull our bases out of Germany. I would also say Korea, but I think that would really give the little dictator over there an orgasm or something as he plotted his inevitable reunification of the Koreas. That one can wait a bit.

[Rex Kickass]

We have moved most of our presence out of Germany. But if we relocate, where can we go? We can't go further east due to agreements with Russia about NATO from 1989. In fact US troops aren't allowed bases in the Eastern part of Germany. France kicked the US out in the 1950's, and there is no real geographic benefit of being anywhere other than Germany these days.

[Texsox]

I 10000000% agree.

More conservative spending math at work

[NorthSideSox72]

We have moved most of our presence out of Germany. But if we relocate, where can we go? We can't go further east due to agreements with Russia about NATO from 1989. In fact US troops aren't allowed bases in the Eastern part of Germany. France kicked the US out in the 1950's, and there is no real geographic benefit of being anywhere other than Germany these days.

We still have a heavy presence in Italy, and the UK. Those are pretty much the only western European options left for countries that seem willing to accept a US military presence.

 

[Balta1701]

An interesting topic to touch upon today. The USA Today notes that basically since the beginning of June, there has been more than a 4 fold increase in the number of airstrikes taking place in Iraq. The article pens that the reasoning for this is an increase in the precision of U.S. bombs, but I for one don't really buy that. While there naturally has been some development, even with a smaller bomb, it's only as effective as the people deciding which target to hit.

 

This article is worth pointing out then, for the quote from one of the generals, who probably let part of the secret out:

"We are using air power in lieu of putting extensive forces on the ground," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Allen Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center.

 

However, increased use of air power raises the chances of killing innocent civilians, said Mark Clodfelter, a professor at the National War College. Winning over the population is key to defeating insurgents.

 

"You don't want bombing to be a recruiting method for the insurgents," Clodfelter said.

 

Airstrikes in Afghanistan this year allegedly killed dozens of civilians, angering the population and drawing criticism from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

As we've known since before Vietnam, one way to keep fighting a war but to cut down our own casualties is to use more airpower and cutback on ground forces. The problem of course is that no matter how smart your bomb is, if you're going after a group of people or a building with an insurgent, you still hit the people in that building or in that group. So if your goal was to say, produce numbers showing a drop in U.S. casualties, this certainly would be one way to do it. But it wouldn't necessarily be a positive sign for the endgame of the war.

[southsider2k5]

An interesting topic to touch upon today. The USA Today notes that basically since the beginning of June, there has been more than a 4 fold increase in the number of airstrikes taking place in Iraq. The article pens that the reasoning for this is an increase in the precision of U.S. bombs, but I for one don't really buy that. While there naturally has been some development, even with a smaller bomb, it's only as effective as the people deciding which target to hit.

 

This article is worth pointing out then, for the quote from one of the generals, who probably let part of the secret out:

As we've known since before Vietnam, one way to keep fighting a war but to cut down our own casualties is to use more airpower and cutback on ground forces. The problem of course is that no matter how smart your bomb is, if you're going after a group of people or a building with an insurgent, you still hit the people in that building or in that group. So if your goal was to say, produce numbers showing a drop in U.S. casualties, this certainly would be one way to do it. But it wouldn't necessarily be a positive sign for the endgame of the war.

 

So how does this account for the drop in civilian casualties and the drop in violent attacks?

[NorthSideSox72]

So how does this account for the drop in civilian casualties and the drop in violent attacks?

It doesn't, or only partially does. This is a product of a semi-organized waiting tactic of the mid-level militant leaders, as has been reported in a few media outlets (though not a peep from the major networks), and that I have highlighted here a few times. In a month or two, one of two things will happen. Either we'll see some positive movement in the political arena, giving more control and involvement to regional leaders, or... the violence will go right back to levels from the summer. Let's hope its not the latter.

 

[Balta1701]

And on a different topic...this one is one I really like. One of the things that really annoys me about our healthcare system is that the priorities of the drug companies are completely screwed up. The biggest profit for them can be had in making a drug which doesn't cure people, but which people take to treat a symptom. In other words, if you actually were to produce a vaccine that killed the AIDS virus, it would eat into your profits significantly compared with having people need to take drugs for the rest of their life to manage the disease, and therefore, the for-profit structure drives research dollars away from many of the drugs that would be most useful to society, and on top of that, companies spend billions of other research dollars trying to develop slightly newer versions of older drugs that do nothing except allow the company to get around the generic drug competition. And then beyond that, companies spend tens of billions more on advertising trying to get you to take a drug that is to some extent optional (like Viagra), because if you don't take the drug the profit margin goes down.

 

This bill, if it's structured right, could go a long way towards fixing that problem. Bernie Sanders of VT has put forward a bill that would establish basically a government sponsored, $80 billion/year fund through which companies that develop drugs would be reimbursed if they produce a drug useful to society. So, if you wanted to get the biggest profit in the drug industry, you wouldn't waste tens of billions on advertising and on sneaking around the generic drug laws, you'd get the biggest profit by developing actual new drugs that cure things. A system like this has the potential to dramatically improve the way the drug industry behaves, by putting all of the profit in the drug industry exactly where it should be; developing new drugs that help people.

[BigSqwert]

And on a different topic...this one is one I really like. One of the things that really annoys me about our healthcare system is that the priorities of the drug companies are completely screwed up. The biggest profit for them can be had in making a drug which doesn't cure people, but which people take to treat a symptom. In other words, if you actually were to produce a vaccine that killed the AIDS virus, it would eat into your profits significantly compared with having people need to take drugs for the rest of their life to manage the disease, and therefore, the for-profit structure drives research dollars away from many of the drugs that would be most useful to society, and on top of that, companies spend billions of other research dollars trying to develop slightly newer versions of older drugs that do nothing except allow the company to get around the generic drug competition. And then beyond that, companies spend tens of billions more on advertising trying to get you to take a drug that is to some extent optional (like Viagra), because if you don't take the drug the profit margin goes down.

 

This bill, if it's structured right, could go a long way towards fixing that problem. Bernie Sanders of VT has put forward a bill that would establish basically a government sponsored, $80 billion/year fund through which companies that develop drugs would be reimbursed if they produce a drug useful to society. So, if you wanted to get the biggest profit in the drug industry, you wouldn't waste tens of billions on advertising and on sneaking around the generic drug laws, you'd get the biggest profit by developing actual new drugs that cure things. A system like this has the potential to dramatically improve the way the drug industry behaves, by putting all of the profit in the drug industry exactly where it should be; developing new drugs that help people.

Bravo to Mr Sanders! Any chance this gets passed?

[NorthSideSox72]

And on a different topic...this one is one I really like. One of the things that really annoys me about our healthcare system is that the priorities of the drug companies are completely screwed up. The biggest profit for them can be had in making a drug which doesn't cure people, but which people take to treat a symptom. In other words, if you actually were to produce a vaccine that killed the AIDS virus, it would eat into your profits significantly compared with having people need to take drugs for the rest of their life to manage the disease, and therefore, the for-profit structure drives research dollars away from many of the drugs that would be most useful to society, and on top of that, companies spend billions of other research dollars trying to develop slightly newer versions of older drugs that do nothing except allow the company to get around the generic drug competition. And then beyond that, companies spend tens of billions more on advertising trying to get you to take a drug that is to some extent optional (like Viagra), because if you don't take the drug the profit margin goes down.

 

This bill, if it's structured right, could go a long way towards fixing that problem. Bernie Sanders of VT has put forward a bill that would establish basically a government sponsored, $80 billion/year fund through which companies that develop drugs would be reimbursed if they produce a drug useful to society. So, if you wanted to get the biggest profit in the drug industry, you wouldn't waste tens of billions on advertising and on sneaking around the generic drug laws, you'd get the biggest profit by developing actual new drugs that cure things. A system like this has the potential to dramatically improve the way the drug industry behaves, by putting all of the profit in the drug industry exactly where it should be; developing new drugs that help people.

Bravo indeed. And it took the 1 independant in Congress to get it moving. I hope it passes.

 

[BigSqwert]

Bravo indeed. And it took the 1 independant in Congress to get it moving. I hope it passes.

You just have to wonder how many pockets are lined in Congress with health care money from lobbyists.