You think? I said CPA not a CFO. Not the same. Well I'm married to one and he's the most organized and fically responsible person I know. Totally out of debt including two homes and retirement set by age 50 and that includes putting three kids thru college.

Not only that but has taken at least two multi millionaries and helping them totally turn around their huge messes so that they are singing his praises all over town. You ask them and they'd tell you a good CPA can make a huge difference in deficit spending. They were very deficit and now have more money than they can spend. Choices.

Besides that I personally know other CPA's that would do just as well...alot better than the politicians are doing. They haven't a clue how to handle our money.



ya, that would be good as well.

Cut spending makes more sense to me. Increasing our taxes means more money the government can abuse.

Ladies and gentlemen, the high tone of this debate seems to be sinking for some of you.

To "Kickin'" -  First, I didn't say that because you are a Christian you shouldn't talk about politics.  Is that a wilfull distortion on your part or just a careless mistake?  I said that your mixing of politics and religion disturbs me.  That is because we have this thing built into our Constitution that is popularly referred to as "separation of church and state".  Religious wars have always been the ugliest wars, and so far this one has been very ugly indeed.

Your reference to Jesus coming with a sword is somewhat controversial, and many biblical scholars of all persuasions think that the word "sword" was a metaphor.  That is in fact what I believe, and you are perfectly entitled to your own interpretation.  This argument can't be won by either of us.

As for your statement that, in the Bible, helping the poor was not about "free handouts", I think that sometimes it is.  I refer you to  Luke 3:11, Luke 12:33, Deuteronomy 15:10, Proverbs 19:17, and Isaiah 58:10.  I agree that other verses take a different view, but I think these sufficiently support my point.  Can you name three Republican government programs designed to help the poor in any direct way?

Dr. Guy - Sorry, but no official source in either the United States or British governments has denied the authenticity of the Downing Street memo.  The right wing press doesn't count, any more than the left wing press would as a refutation to one of your points.  So I will continue to assume that the Downing Street memo is real.  That, added to the 237 documented (and undisputed) administrations about the Iraq War, added to the Valerie Plame scandal, proves to me, and millions of other Americans, that this was a war of choice, which under international law is a crime, just as when Germany and Russia invaded Poland.  You are, apparently, immune to persuasion, so believe what you want.  But next time you make a statement like "the Downing Street Memo was proved to be a fraud", back it up.  With facts, if you can.

ParaTed2k -  First, regarding your contention about FDR's policies prolonging the Great Depression, I looked into it, and was surprised to learn that quite a few people agree with you.  Here's what I found out, though there may be a more recent reference for you to find.  In 1995, a survey was taken of economic historians (I think at the college level), around the statement: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression."  Of the economists, 27% agreed, while 22% agreed "with provisos" (doesn't tell what they were), and 51% disagreed.  Of the historians, 27% agreed, while 73% disagreed.  While I disagree with you, enough people share your opinion that I give it credence.  However, I am baffled by macroeconomics, so cheerfully admit I do not have the knowledge to competently argue the point.  I'll settle for the fact that in the above study, my position was supported by a slim majority among the economists and a large majority among the historians.  One last thing, Newt Gingrich gave FDR credit publicly for having ended the Great Depression, so at least one noteworthy person from your side of the aisle agrees with me.  Shall we call this one an unresolvable draw?

Back to "Kickin'" - Mrs. Obama did not call us "whiteys", and that has been satisfactoily debunked.  You're still an example of a wilfully misinformed person, which makes you the perfect Republican.  Good on ya!  Throw Farrakhan at Obama, take Hagee with McCain.  Throw Wright at Obama, take Parsley with McCain.  What about his lobbyist-campaign staff?

Back to Dr. Guy and your response to my several questions.  Sorry, dude, you metaphorically threw down your racquet and walked off the court on those.  And since you compared the Articles of Impeachment to "spitting on the sidewalk", I'm afraid it's obvious that in spite of what you say, you haven't really read them.  You may disagree with them, you might even make a case that some of them are minor compared to the others, but you can't simply dismiss them out of hand and have any credibility as a thoughtful person.  Your ignorance has betrayed you, and here is an example:  President Bush stated that he has the power to define anyone as an "illegal enemy combatant", which would enable him to immediately order the imprisonment of that person in, say, Guantanomo.  That person would not be allowed to see a lawyer or even to know the charges against him.  That's what the Supreme Court recently overturned, thank God.  For you not to know that is simply appalling.  By the way, Constitutional rights do not just apply to citizens, they apply to "persons".  Keep drinking that Republican Kool-aid.

Facts, people, facts.  I know you're not used to them, but here's a website for you.  Factcheck.org.  Non-partisan.  It's where I found out that, contrary to Democratic propaganda, the number of abortions under Bush has gone down.

Correction, in the first paragraph to Dr. Guy - line 4 should read "237 documented (and undisputed) misleading administration statements . . ."

Sorry about that.

you may want to show me where this is in the constitution since I'm not as bright as your 7th graders.



It's not controversial at all. I admit some scripture is but not this one. Of course it's a metaphor. But that's not what we were talking about. You said Jesus was the Prince of Peace did you not? Referring to we should have peace on earth by following him and not engaging in wars? We were looking at the word "Peace" and I simply pointed out that he said "I did NOT COME TO BRING PEACE TO THE WORLD......"

So forget about the sword if it makes it easier (which is a metaphor for the word of God btw). It's pretty clear that Jesus did not say we would have Peace worldwide until he comes back the second time.



Luke 3:11...yes and no, mostly no tho. If you look at the whole context John the Baptist was dealing with Israel and not too kindly. Did you notice he just called them a brood of vipers? This whole message of John was one of repentence. They were relying on their ancestry (v8) and he's telling them (v9) that they would be cut down like a tree and used for firewood. When the people asked what could they do he answered with v11. He was telling them in plain speak that they were living for self and not attempting to share what they had with others. Think of somebody else for a change, share what you have. That's not what the Dems are proposing. They are saying......:let me take your money and give it away for you." Not the same thing.

Luke 12:33- not at all.....this whole section starting with v13 has to do with covetousness. This is a parable which is not a command but a story. The rich man (v17) stored up all his treasure even building more barns to hold it all. He died. So much for that. Then he goes on to say don't take a care of what you will wear or eat. Rely on God to meet your daily needs. The whole point is.... Don't get caught up in materialism, sell all you have in excess and give it away because your treasure is not here. Where your treasure is there is your heart.

Proverbs 19:17-well it's not telling us to give here "he that gives"...it's just saying that when we do have pity on the poor it's like giving it to God. God will repay. I agree with this and have seen it work up close and personal.

Isa 58:10- it starts off with "if you draw out your soul to the hungry" my husband just preached on this whole chapter so I know it well. Basically this is another condemnation of Israel. They were going thru the motions of fasting but it was not as important as concern for the poor. It was all about surface since they were exploiting others and satisfying self first. He says in v6-8 to change and to take care of the hungry first before you come to God and the result will be great (v11).

Basically a few of these verses are saying..you cannot outgive God and to be "other minded" instead of "self minded". The more you give to others in need you will receive and your needs will be met.

The problem is we need to do this as individuals. The Republicans have the right idea. Give the money back to the people and let them take care of the poor. When you give the money back to us we pour it into our church funds and soup kitchens and other charities. What the Liberals are saying is "we can't trust them to do right with their own money" and that's the problem. It was always the church's business to take care of the poor. It was NEVER supposed to be about the government. Never.



again it's NOT the government's job to do this, nor should it be. Their job should be to protect it's citizens whether it be to protect them from terrorists or bad bridges. Give the people back their money and let them do their own charity work. Believe me it would be so much better.

Ok, let me do some checking. If I can't find a source to back this up. I'll correct my statement.

McCain and Hagee were never that close, nothing like Obama and Wright or Obama and Farrakhan. But nice try. You've got spunk...gotta hand it to ya!

Hi,"Kickin'"

We have a difference in philosophy about the role of government in helping people. My grounding is not religious, but philosophical. I'm being civil here, and I'm really trying to explain myself, because some of your colleagues are, in my opinion, debasing the discussion. I will absolutely not be snide to you, and please take what I say at face-value.

I think that government should look at the country as one vast organism, as a whole, if you will. Government is, according to our Constitution, to provide for the general welfare and the common defense. So I see part of its purpose being to provide a "safety net" for everyone. I approve of Social Security for that reason. I understand that it is not an investment vehicle, but rather an insurance policy against poverty in old age, which by the way was rampant before FDR. I like Medicare for the same reason, and would absolutely be in favor of a single-payer health insurance plan for all Americans. No, I'm not a "socialist", but I find it somehow immoral for a company to seek to profit from people's misfortunes and illnesses. If you are statistics-minded, and you might well be, being married to a CPA, you can check the percentage of every Medicare dollar that goes into administration as opposed to the average administration costs of private health-insurers, not to mention their profit-margins.

I love my country, as I'm sure you do, and it bothers me that we have one of the highest infant-mortality rates in the developed world. If you doubt me, you can google it; I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to explain and discuss. I've traveled abroad, and I am embarrassed that if I become ill in France I can immediately go to a doctor, while a foreign tourist here would have to go to an emergency room.

I'm also bothered that we have the most productive work-force in the world and that their median wage has gone down in the last eight years while corporate profits have skyrocketed. I don't want to tax corporations to death, but I am offended mightily that companies like Halliburton (which is making billions every year) can incorporate offshore and avoid paying taxes. I don't think it's fair.

I don't like that American soldiers are dying for corporate profits. I know that sounds inflammatory, but keep reading and check it out yourself. One of the most deadly weapons in Iraq is the RPG, or rocket-propelled grenade. It's similar to a bazooka, and is a shoulder-fired antitank weapon. It has killed a lot of Americans by striking the vehicles in which they are riding. So, obviously, what is needed is an "anti-RPG" system, right? The sooner the better, right? Well, there is one. It's called, I believe, "Trophy", and is designed and built by an Israeli company. It's battle-tested and ready to go. But guess what? The American military will not use it. Why not? Because our defense contractor, Raytheon, is responsible for implementing its own anti-RPG system, which will not be ready for at least another year, maybe two. It's a many-hundreds-of-millions of dollars contract, and Raytheon would lose it if the Israeli model were deployed. So, the way I see it, more Americans will be killed and maimed for Raytheon's bottom line.

I'm a close follower of politics, and I'm also a skeptic. I read at least parts of four newspapers a day, one from each corner of the country, and I seldom believe anything unless I fact-check it. Hence my reference in my last post to Democratic propaganda about abortions under Bush. I don't like being fooled or lied to by any politician, and I think my own personal Congressman, Democrat Xavier Becerra, of Los Angeles, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. I also mentioned to you that I thought, and still think, that Bill Clinton is a loathesome human being. But I honestly don't see this administration doing its sworn Constitutional duty to "promote the general welfare", because to me that means everyone, and I think too many have been excluded, or "provide for the common defense", because of what I perceive to be the launching of an illegal war, fighting it on borrowed money (digging us into an awful financial hole), and doing it without a draft (which is not fair, as it places the entire burden of the actual war on less than 1% of the country, while enabling anyone who cares to to ignore it), and doing all this in such a way that alienates us from the rest of the world.

You may feel free to disagree with anything or everything in this post, but I have attempted to write it in a way that acknowledges your love of this country as well as my own. If I have failed, I am sorry.

CFOs are just over ego-ixed CPAs. And you will note I sang their praise about managing the bottom line (as you also point out). That being said, running a company - or by extension a country, is a lot more than the bottom line. My doctor is one of the best in the world, but I would hardly want him to work on my car. CPAs (the good ones) are excellent at what they do. Running a going concern is not one of them.

Catguy - Hmmm - I never new the BBC was a right wing press. But more to the point, the memos have been shown (your "proof") to be typed on a machine (typewriter for all you antiquarians) that was not in use in the agency of question at the time, and artificially aged. (why if they are real?). And we are supposed to accept as proof the rantings of a radical anti-american leftist? In cases like this, it is always better to get proof before accepting a new gospel according to a person with an agenda. Care to refute these facts?



You use a lie as proof? That one actually has been outed by the source - which first of all has nothing to do with your original claim, and second of all has nothing to do with the American administration - it was a career state department diplomat. Strange proof you offer.



So because I ask (if not before, I will now) for substantiation, I am throwing down my racket? Please - show the substantiation? For the sake of argument, I will now accuse you of pedophelia. So that I accused you makes it so? Please, be a better debater than that. Show us the substantion of the articles? Lots of hot air, and no beef. The fact that you summarily dismiss the answers is indicative that they were rhetorical and not an opening for discussion or debate. None of your questions get to a debate on facts, just on your opinion, and thus I offered mine in rebuttal. now when you can present facts as simple facts, and then back them up with reasoned analysis, data and issues, we can debate. Otherwise, why should I debate the issue of "when did you stop beating your wife" when it is clear the question is not debatable to begin with?



opinions can always be dismissed out of hand because that is all they are. Best to learn the difference.



yes, and you should also know about that pesky amendment pertaining to retroactive prosecution. You have read the constitution, have you not?

Facts? I await them. YOu stated a fact - there are articles of Impeachment. That appears to be your only fact. The rest is merely your opinion. I would suggest you learn the difference between facts, and opinions. OPinions based on facts are always good for you to hold, but do not hold up in a debate and are lousy in a discussion, as that will only lead to an argument, not a debate.

Documented? So you have proof they are a lie? now remember, to prove a lie, you must not only prove that there was knowledge of the owner of the falseness beforehand (not that the stated facts were not true), but also intent to deceive. i am sure you can opine on the latter. But I will point out to you that the reason only the lunatic fringe has even bothered to urge impeachment is that the former is either impossible, or already proven to not be true. Facts - you know those things that you have to prove, not just opine - are true?

What use are "articles of impeachment" when they are read to an empty chamber, after hours when Kucinich knew they wouldn't be acted upon? It was a meaningless political ploy by an unethical hack. If he was serious about bringing charges against Bush, he would have read the articles of impeachment during business hours instead of in the dark of night.

Hi, Parated2k -

I would rather the whole House had taken up the issue of impeachment, but the Democratic Party as a whole has made the politically cynical, and in my view, cowardly, decision to leave Bush alone.  Whether fear plays a part in this or not, I cannot say.  I've argued with my Congressman about it at his less and less frequent open-houses.  To my way of thinking, NOT impeaching Bush (and Cheney) at this point is like letting the drunk continue to drive the car because he's almost out of gas.  The use of reading them at any time is to place them on the Congressional Record.  Whether any more will come of it, I can't say.

Oh, with reference to an earlier post, I said the federal response "after" Hurricane Katrina, which was, and is, a complete disgrace and SNAFU (an applicable word for virtually everything the Bush administration has done).  Most notorious is the case of the FEMA trailers that over time poison those who live in them.  I have nothing but contempt for Nagin and Blanco, and agree that at the time of approach and landfall there was lots of blame to go around at all levels of government.  Of course, if the bulk of the Louisiana National Guard was not posted in Iraq fighting for Halliburton's bottom line, things might have been a little better.

Dr. Guy, you are a twit and a nudnik, both of which mean approximately the same thing: a silly, foolish, and annoying person.  Don't you have a medical practice to attend to?  I teach the difference between facts and opinions, and most of what you have had to say could have been taught in a class called "Obfuscation 101".  Here's an example you quoted back to me.  I referred to 237 documented and disputed misleading statements about Iraq.  You stated that I had called them "lies", which I clearly did not.  I'm aware that a deliberate lie involves intent to deceive, and the reason they were called "misleading statements" is that intent has not yet been proven.  Many of these statement fall under the category of what Bush either knew or should have known.  As I said, I teach for a living, and having to make everything you say over and over again is like trying to teach my students that there are better ways to start an argument than saying "Your momma!".  Until you earn your way back into this conversation by saying something either thoughtful or funny, I'm having it with ParaTed2k and "Kickin'", and anyone else who enters it with the intent to be serious.  There are lots of other discussion sandboxes you can play in, so until you learn to play nicely with others, why don't you go play in one or more of them.  There's a good fellow.

Oh, "Kickin'" - I differ with you on a number of things, but your Biblical background is much more thorough than mine.  I would like to point out that a number of people throughout history took the Bible's direction to sell all they had and give it to the poor literally.  Two that I teach about are Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury under King Henry II, and Saint Francis of Assissi.  Beyond pointing that out, I can't do much more.  My point was never to change your mind or attack your point of view, but rather to defend my own position.

Catguy: The Dems would just love to bring charges against Bush and Cheney, it isn't cowardice that stays their hand, it's the facts. Bush and Cheney simply never broke any laws. I know you hate them, but hate does not make a case for prosecution.

What I find telling is how the Bash Bush Bus called for Bush and Cheney's head over the whole "valarie plame" scam, but when the "guilty" party turned out to be Armitage, they dropped the whole thing. In other words, it ceased to be a crime once it couldn't be used against Bush and Cheney. Mindless hatemongers only care if the object of their hatred is involved.

btw, the government response in the last few years in New Orleans has been pathetic... but contrary to your mindlessness, the sun doesn't rise and fall on the White House. There has been enough money and resources to rebuild New Orleans several times over, but the PEOPLE of New Orleans chose not to rebuild. They chose to blow the money on frivolous things, then expected the government to keep supporting them. They re-elected Nagin even after he killed people.

Furthermore, Congress has said many times that they would audit the funds spent on the Hurricane Katrina recovery, and have yet to lift a finger in that direction.

Why is it that you hold Bush responsible, and you're willing to play judge, jury and executioner on things that aren't even his job.. yet you let Congress slide when they shirk their Constitutionally mandated responsibilities?

Lastly, what is it about the Bash Bush Bus that refuses to acknowledge any of Bush's accomplishments. It just makes you look like fools at best and liars at worst.

No wonder our education system is in such a sorry state.



But thank you for allowing me to win this debate.



I love that. Misleading is not grounds for impeachment. The grounds are spelled out in the constitution (Are you aware of that document?). Lying before Congress is since it is a crime. Now, go through the articles (betweeen classes please, we would not want to deprive the children of their time), and list the ones that claim a law was broken. Not just as Parated states, a pontification for publication. Then show us how really smart you are, and provide us with what Kucinich et. al. have not been able to do, and show us the evidence.

Then come back and insult me some more when you cannot. I'll be here.

everybody has their strengths and mine is the study of scripture and anything to do with it.  That's my heart and something I've put many many years into. 

Just let me tell you this.  There is only one interpretation of scripture but many applications.

The men you quoted here applied the scriptures as they thought was right in their own heart.  They were motivated to give.  Keep in mind that Abraham, David, Solomon etc did NOT sell all they had to give to the poor.  They were very wealthy and blessed men of God.  God blessed them with wealth.  Do you know the story of Job and how he was blessed in the end?  Double everything.   It basically comes down to...... don't let materialism be your God.  If it's a stumbling block, give it all away....literally.  But he's not really saying for us to do this as a normative. 

 I understand where you are coming from but from a biblical position the Dems have it wrong.  There's nothing wrong with giving to the poor.  There is something wrong in taking from the rich to give to the poor tho.   It's clear in scripture we should help the less fortunate but in all of the NT the only advice we really get as far as giving is "the lord loves a cheerful giver."  In other words we should ONLY give because it comes from our heart and we wish to do so.  God would rather have us keep our money than to give it with wrong motives. 

 

I think so too.  We have two diff worldviews going on here.  My worldview is biblical so I do look at the world thru the lens of scripture.  Believe me, it's like comparing to the newspapers of today when I do.  It's very eerie. 

I actually didn't know this.  I will google it later.  I'd like to know why myself. 

The only problem with the newspapers, and I read them as well....is they all seem to have a very liberal slant to them. 

No you haven't failed.  We may have to agree to disagree here and there because we do have diff worldviews as well as political leanings but you did say a few things I'd like to check into....like the "trophy" for one. 

At least we both agree on Clinton and have already discussed the same opinion of McCain's unfaithfulness to his first wife.  My plumbline is the bible so it doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Dems they will get measured by the same source.  But to be honest, the Republicans are at least somewhat closer to the biblical mandates than the Dems are.  Socially it seems as tho the Dems would be, but like I said earlier they have it wrong even in their giving.  Hearts are in the right place corporately, but I betcha dollars to donuts....the Conservatives give more than the Dems do as individuals.  (hint:  I worked in a CPA office for 17 years).