Posted on 07/11/2004 9:26:00 PM PDT by goldstategop
An important and serious argument is going on in Washington about whether taxes on Americans' incomes should stay where they are or dramatically rise, and whether government spending should continue its accelerating growth. We know what Democrats think. They despise tax cuts and believe government spending should be higher. Washington Republicans, on the other hand, are unsure of themselves. They used to be for lower taxes and smaller government; now they seem to want bigger spending even if it means higher taxes, abandoning Reagan conservatism for '60s liberalism. In other words, this is a battle for the heart of the Republican Party; the outcome matters, and it seems to be in doubt. With the help of three liberal Republicans (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island), and one who should know better (John McCain of Arizona), the Senate, with 51 votes, adopted a rule that if passed in the House will end all the Bush tax cuts and ensure that no new ones are enacted.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Whatever your point, I don't have energy/time/whatever to track you. Enjoy your life.
The currency in circulation could not grow exponentially, as it does now, and be backed by gold at the same time.
Good. :-)
I surf most of the conservative websites and I can tell you that you are wrong about Robert Sentry. I know him well from military.com and from his own website and others.
He produces some of the best data and charts available as they relate to politics.
Have you checked out Ether Zone? He runs the "Daily Briefing" over there, according to Bob Momenteller, the editor. Check out his slamming of Kerry there, or checkout his home page at his site. He is as conservative as anybody.
I have sent many of his charts to my contacts in my address book. The data is always based on official data. Look at the election chart he has and you would not say that about him.
At some point, all of us need to stop making excuses for anything that we see that shows a weakness from a conservative angle. Sometimes, the publishers or writers are trying to stir passion to fight harder, even though some "take it personally" when they point out weaknesses by the Republicans.
The site apparently disparages Jim Robinson and Free Republic. It was not my intention to post information like that here.
Jim didn't like it and neither did I.
What you posted was good information. I was familiar with those charts as many websites have posted them before. I have seen great discussions at other sites over those charts. I wish the Congress would look at them! They need to give us answers!
I agree they are useful charts. But if Jom Robinson doesn't want information from that site posted here (and he has told me so, more or less) than I'll respect his wishes.
Oh I don't disagree with you on the border issue...Kerry and the rats are only going to make it worse. WE need to elect people to the congress and our state legislatures to get the attention of those who think Mexico is a fine place . Bush is blind on this issue but I won't throw my vote away for it
"I agree they are useful charts."
I understand how you saw it that way, as I did, at first. But then a more critical look for only a few minutes showed me something different. Take a look at this.
In the first chart, behind the following URL address, what is "human resources?" "Human resources" in business and in our common language applies to employee costs (pay, benefits, etc.). I want to see a total of funding for all social programs. What about funds that went to the states? And where are the dollar amounts? We don't want to see a percentage of military spending as compared to what was spent on employee pay packages. We want to see how much funding the government in one term spent on social programs as compared to the term before it. And we'll compensate for inflation, thank you. What if a given president spent more on both social programs and the military in his term, but raised the rate of military spending as compared to all federal employee pay packages?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169547/posts?page=30#30
The next chart posted,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169547/posts?page=45#45
is an even more obvious piece of propaganda trash. Notice that the scale for the military spending side of the chart is in half percentage points while the "HR" [human resources] side is in whole points. And that's not the ugliest part. See that the military percentage side of the chart is in the teens and twenties, while the "HR" side is in the 50s and 60s. That way, the graph lines cross each other. Using proportions in charts that way is one of the most simple and old propaganda tricks with charts.
And the second chart is also a pictorial of the oddball percentage comparison of military spending versus "human resources" spending.
Look, just take a big breath, stop insulting people and go back to what you were doing.
You are making great errors in your analysis.
"Human Resources" is a category in the US Budget that is made up of SS, Medicare, training, social programs, etc. Take a trip through the US budget so you understand that.
It does not matter what "human resource is in the business world" as you say. What matters is how the US Budget defines "Human Resources" since that is what the chart shows. Think "socialism"--that is the US Budget definition. You might find looking through the US Budget helpful. In addition, these categoroes are "normalized" so year-to-year comparisons are "apples to apples".
Second, you have seen charts of the NASDAQ and Dow Jones 30, correct? How do you think the scales look on each side of the graph when the NASDAQ is at 2000 and the Dow is at 10000?
Are you saying that the only things that can be compared are two items of exactly the same size? Every single chart ever produced in the history of the world that has two items to compare with different indexes simply are scaled to show the trend. It is the TREND that is important, not the index value they are based on.
The chart is just a pretty picture of showing hard data. What is important is the data. Take away the pretty picture and you still have the data showing about 68% being spent on social welfare and less than 20% being spent on the DOD. If you didn't notice, the source of the chart data is the Office of Management and Budget.
Back to basics, Kerry is a socialist and Edwards is a frivolous lawsuit lawyer. Robert Sentry has said such. I like it here and I like the stuff he writes (I am a registered member over there) also as it is always factual. I ignore his sour feelings about FR but I have not seen one bit of any anti-FR stuff on his home page ever. I was a reader of Ether Zone where he also writes before I became a member of FR and I can tell you Robert Sentry is the only one there steadily exposing Kerry-Edwards.
Anything I can do to help expose Kerry-Edwards for what they are I will send to my friends, and I have seen some of the best stuff from him. I wish Jim would invite him back and make a settlement with him over past hard feelings. We are all in this together, and he is one of the best anti-Democrat writers.
Thanks so much!
I have an older version of this and someone mentioned recently that an updated version was available. I've been looking and but threads are hard to find if you don't know the title.
THANK YOU!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.