The Bobcat Nation

Granted, voting Democrat isn't exactly a winning path to glory either, but this guy does a very interesting explanation of why he has lost faith in his party. My feelings mirror his in most of his points:


http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/ ... .0626.html

OUCH!........but right on the button.

ALthough I don't agree, I can understand most of his points, but until the Dem's come up with viable plans of there own on these issues. I'll stay to the right of this arguement.

I know that I have said this before, but the problem is the career politician. Politicians use to be citizens that were successful that want to give back to their country. Now you see politicians that haven’t worked a day in their lives! How can a bunch of politicians that don’t work or live near the poverty line understand the needs of those not as fortunate? It is not that the Republican or Democratic Party is the problem, it is the politicians. Honestly how many people can run for a political seat (federal)? Can anyone here on Bobcatnation take off 8 months to go out and shake hands and kiss babies? Tax cuts for the rich, billion dollar construction deals in Iraq, pardons being sold (little nod at Clinton) and all kinds of other shady deals is what it takes to get the money to stay in office. Politics are not the problem, the political process is the problem. It wouldn’t matter if Kerry were in the White House, the same crap would be happening. Just explain to me how a person that is worth millions of dollars can relate to 99% of the country that is not worth 100K.

edit: I have a sneaking suspicion that Grizlaw is a major Hilary Clinton supporter! Grizlaw what are you plans for Hilary’s 2008 presidential election?

mquast53000 wrote:I know that I have said this before, but the problem is the career politician. Politicians use to be citizens that were successful that want to give back to their country.

Just like the GOV of Montana!! Or is that not the example you were thinking of???

for me I agree with some points about the party, but am not fully happy with Dems either. agree about the politicians not being able to relate to majority of our population. So, i guess I'll stay a Rep., so i can still vote in elections ,but as always keep my options open. I do like Hilary, go figure, I think she is strong and intelligent and the fact that she didn't castrate Bill tells me she can control herself enough to weigh options in foreign policy. I do not like the fact that we rushed into the middle east after 9/11, but think we should be there. However, there's so much here at home that needs attending to I can't justify the amount of money being spent on Iraq.

-rebecca

democrats: tax and spend
republicans: borrow and spend
we've had no fiscal responsibility from the right during the current administration. being republican used to stand for small government and spend only what you have. now they've become a party that bows to the christian right. i think his comments were right on.

actually it is kind of easy to be a republican the only question you have to ask yourself is what side are you on

1) responsible development of our forested land, mining development that is responsible, new jobs, a stronger montana economy

or

2) damnit, logging is bad and all companies are evil!

i mention this because there was an article in the independant record that illistrates my point. There is an exact science when it comes to "clearing" a tree, you just dont go and fall it without taking into account lots of things...however, the ecowackos have successfully held up a timber sale and, darnit, more goverment funds for the state not to mention more of those pesky jobs.

hokeyfine wrote:democrats: tax and spend
republicans: borrow and spend
we've had no fiscal responsibility from the right during the current administration. being republican used to stand for small government and spend only what you have. now they've become a party that bows to the christian right. i think his comments were right on.

Well, if the repubs weren't bowing to the Christian right, then the Dems would be (if you think about it). So, we gotta deal them no matter what.

hokeyfine wrote:democrats: tax and spend
.

Tax: Those who are working.
Spend: Support those who choose not to work.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Hell's Bells wrote:actually it is kind of easy to be a republican the only question you have to ask yourself is what side are you on

1) responsible development of our forested land, mining development that is responsible, new jobs, a stronger montana economy

or

2) damnit, logging is bad and all companies are evil!

i mention this because there was an article in the independant record that illistrates my point. There is an exact science when it comes to "clearing" a tree, you just dont go and fall it without taking into account lots of things...however, the ecowackos have successfully held up a timber sale and, darnit, more goverment funds for the state not to mention more of those pesky jobs.

You would be surprised how many people in the corporate world are Democrats (and to an even larger degree, not Republicans). That should tell you something about the myth of the Republican Party being the party of business. It used to be, but that isn't always the case anymore.

On your specific point, I'm not sure many people really think that cutting down trees and tearing down more mountains for sparkly metals is really the long term economic bonanza of the state of Montana. There certainly needs to be additional economic diversity, regardless of which party decides to promote it.

GOKATS wrote:

hokeyfine wrote:democrats: tax and spend
.

Tax: Those who are working.
Spend: Support those who choose not to work.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

The alternative he provided was "borrow and spend." So to complete the thought, do we have:

Borrow: Those who haven't been born yet, but will eventually be working
Spend: Non-stimulative tax breaks and lots of pork for everybody

Neither alternative looks very good. But at least the tax and spend one is making us currently accountable for our spending.

With respect to mining - The industry is inherently exploitive. There is just no way to put mining in a warm fuzzy light. Heck, why do think all the sci-fi movies and books put mines on moons and planets that nobody wants to live on?

I don't know that you can have responsible mining in the sense that it will be pleasing to a significant majority. There's just no way to dig a hole and make it look good.

That's not meant as slam on the industry - I think it's just facts. I think it's the same, to a smaller degree, in all resource extraction industries. You just can't dress an elephant up in pink and make it look good.

I tip my hat to those who work in those industries because it takes a lot of energy to do good work while most people are against what you do.

I think you should tax those who work and limit (time frame) the amount of money that be can collect without working. i don't like this getting something for nothing attitude. if you collect assistance from the goverment you should be required to give back to the community in some fashion. In those cases which you are too disabled to work, if your brain functions you should contribute. you may not be able to go into a job, but may be tutor in your home, read to the elderly and sick in the hospitals or volunteer in some fashion. as long as you are doing and not sitting on your ass i think you earn your check.

have a problem with giving to those who don't contribute to improving society. Tax the wealthy more, most are happy to give to charities, and that should be taken into account before assessing taxes on the extremely wealthy. Besides, there IS a difference between liquid assests and paper wealth. You can't just break apart a company to get to your money, espacially if it is large and public. You may be worth over 400 million, but may be on 60 is liquid, of that you have given almost 20 to various charities like St. Jude Hospital, Cancer research, Alzheimer's research, Children's Hospitals and Shriners. Yes you are still extremely wealthy, but you DO with it, not hoard it. Bill Gates is a perfect example.
WHY overly tax a man who's worked hard to earn what he has, when in reality he gives more away than is given credit for. I bring up Gates, because here in WA there is a current of entitlement by people thinking "well if you just taxed bill gates our state economy would be perfect". Like the man is Satan or something.

I think there is no right or wrong, but politics does need to change, starting with putting people with great ideas, but not born with silver spoons in their mouths in more important positions. you may be able to privately finance a campaign but that doesn't make you the best person for the job. it seems to me that it is only those that can do this win, so that should be changed. fund raising is not difficult when you have the correct roladex.

not looking like a it's going to change soon, so I endorse voting for the best candidate (in your opinion) not party.

as for logging - i support logging in a way that doesn't ruin the land. support the families (Conifer Logging, Lincoln), because i know what it does to them when the industry takes a hit during fire season. they get squeezed by foreign countries and our own and they're just trying to support themselves.

sorry so long winded.

-rebecca

Nothing wrong with Government Assistance, but we've created Government Reliance. Big difference.

Ponycat wrote:Nothing wrong with Government Assistance, but we've created Government Reliance. Big difference.

Nothing wrong with Government Assistance, but we've created Government Reliance. Big difference.

fully agree with this. welfare has become a way of life, rather than the small help it was supposed to be. although off subject , neither party has been able to change this.
-rebecca

this table shows how many millions of dollars each state spends on "welfare" to non-working and non-disabled families:
[/quote]AFDC/TANF Benefits by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2002
[Millions of dollars] 1978 1984 1986 1988 1990 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Alabama $78 $74 $68 $62 $62 $92 $75 $44 $36 $33
Alaska 17 37 46 54 60 113 107 77 55 55
Arizona 30 67 79 103 138 266 228 145 107 130
Arkansas 51 39 48 53 57 57 52 26 34 26
California 1,813 3,207 3,574 4,091 4,955 6,088 5,908 4,128 3,643 2,608
Colorado 74 107 107 125 137 158 129 80 48 53
Connecticut 168 226 223 218 295 397 323 305 166 128
Delaware 28 28 25 24 29 40 35 24 20 19
Dist. of Columbia 91 75 77 76 84 126 121 97 72 67
Florida 145 251 261 318 418 806 680 357 234 256
Georgia 103 149 223 266 321 428 385 313 180 109
Guam 3 5 4 3 5 12 14 NA NA NA
Hawaii 83 83 73 77 99 163 173 153 141 85
Idaho 21 21 19 19 20 30 30 6 3 5
Illinois 699 845 886 815 839 914 833 771 269 146
Indiana 118 153 148 167 170 228 153 104 87 146
Iowa 107 159 170 155 152 169 131 104 79 76
Kansas 73 87 91 97 105 123 98 41 43 50
Kentucky 122 135 104 143 179 198 191 147 104 101
Louisiana 97 145 162 182 188 168 130 103 58 67
Maine 51 69 84 80 101 108 99 80 73 66
Maryland 166 229 250 250 296 314 285 192 196 227
Massachusetts 476 406 471 558 630 730 560 442 336 279
Michigan 780 1,214 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,132 779 589 386 326
Minnesota 164 287 322 338 355 379 333 276 193 184
Mississippi 33 58 74 85 86 82 68 60 18 37
Missouri 152 196 209 215 228 287 254 180 139 148
Montana 15 27 37 41 40 49 45 30 21 31
Nebraska 38 56 62 56 59 62 54 41 41 52
Nevada 8 10 16 20 27 48 48 39 28 48
New Hampshire 21 16 20 21 32 62 50 39 32 29
New Jersey 489 485 509 459 451 531 462 372 222 194
New Mexico 32 49 51 56 61 144 153 104 113 82
New York 1,689 1,916 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,913 2,929 2,149 1,554 1,465
North Carolina 138 149 138 206 247 353 300 211 140 139
North Dakota 14 16 20 22 24 26 21 22 12 10
Ohio 441 725 804 805 877 1,016 763 546 368 336
Oklahoma 74 85 100 119 132 165 122 72 78 45
Oregon 148 101 120 128 145 197 155 141 34 69
Pennsylvania 726 724 389 747 798 935 822 523 573 338
Puerto Rico 25 38 33 67 72 74 63 NA NA NA
Rhode Island 59 71 79 82 99 136 125 117 105 89
South Carolina 52 75 103 91 96 115 101 52 91 35
South Dakota 18 17 15 21 22 25 22 14 10 11
Tennessee 77 83 100 125 168 215 190 108 146 132
Texas 122 229 281 344 416 544 496 315 248 203
Utah 41 52 55 61 64 77 64 50 40 41
Vermont 21 40 40 40 48 65 56 47 39 38
Virgin Islands 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 NA NA NA
Virginia 136 165 179 169 177 253 199 123 186 101
Washington 175 294 375 401 438 610 585 450 312 295
West Virginia 53 75 109 107 110 126 101 52 49 71
Wisconsin 260 519 444 506 440 425 291 145 7 126
Wyoming 6 13 16 19 19 21 17 7 9 2
United States $10,621 $14,371 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,798 $20,411 $14,614 $11,180 $9,408
Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance payments. NA denotes data not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Program Support, Office of Management Services, data

both parties need to work on changing this it is embaressing for a country that has so much to have this many families recieving aide.

interesting article today said amtrack asked for 1.8 billion and got 0. israel got 2.2 billion plus 300 million. i'm not saying amtrack deserves 1.8 billion, but some of that israel money would be nice to use in domestic programs, like paying down our national debt that the current administration has doubled.

What's Israel got to do with Amtrak? That was about the stupidist article I've ever read...

basically, that article was anti-Semitic. How much money is wasted on subsidizing airlines? At least that comparison would be apples to apples.

hokeyfine wrote:interesting article today said amtrack asked for 1.8 billion and got 0. israel got 2.2 billion plus 300 million. i'm not saying amtrack deserves 1.8 billion, but some of that israel money would be nice to use in domestic programs, like paying down our national debt that the current administration has doubled.

Regarding Amtrak -- I think we need to make a decision about the future of railroad travel in this country. Here in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is a fairly common mode of transportation (I take Amtrak instead of flying whenever I go to DC, Boston or upstate NY), and trains are basically always full; however, in most of the rest of the country, that is not the case. Because of this, we need to recognize that, as long as it is providing service to parts of the country where railroad travel is not used, Amtrak will never be able to operate profitably without government subsidies.

We need to ask ourselves whether having nationwide rail service is a priority. If it is, then we need to fund Amtrak and quit b!tching about the cost. If it is not a priority, then we should cut Amtrak loose (as the Bush administration has apparently done), but if we go that route, then we need to accept the fact that railroad service will probably not be available in most of the country in a few years. If we want Amtrak to be a self-sufficient private entity, then we have to expect it to act like one in every respect, including choosing not to provide its service in markets where demand is insufficient.

Just my .02 worth...