<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MoveOn Movements</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/</link>
	<description>Live Free Or Die</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:22:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: civil truth</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69503</link>
		<dc:creator>civil truth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69503</guid>
		<description>Deb, I think Kim put in a nutshell what I&#039;ve meant when I talk about Republicans being more fiscally responsible. It&#039;s sort of like saying that on a hundred point test, the Republicans scored 20 compared to 15 for the Democrats. (And again, the Republican advantage is from their backbenchers, not from their leaders.) Neither score is anything to boast about, but one is higher than the other.

The Congressional shenanigans regarding budget projections has been a disgrace for decades. The spending cuts offsets of the Clinton era were just a different version of the same game when you remember the hand-waving that went on to generate the numbers. The one thing that remains constant is that spending keeps going up, whether Democrats or Republicans control Congress or the White House. The most restraint has occurred when one party controls Congress and the other the White House.

Thus most of the budget surplus/deficit has resulted from changes in the revenue side rather than spending (except for Iraq, of course, although there is some partial revenue offset). And in that context, I believe that you give Mr. Clinton too much credit and Mr. Bush too little. Recalling that Clinton reigned in the era of the &lt;em&gt;dot.&lt;strong&gt;com&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; bubble which artifically raised revenues, coupled with &quot;gridlock&quot; that did restrain spending somewhat by prevent major new spending initiatives.

The start of Mr. Bush&#039;s tenancy coincided with the &lt;em&gt;dot.&lt;strong&gt;bomb&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; era, which decreased revenue and led to an economic slowdown. The Bush/Republican tax cuts actually were effective in helping to avert a recession and did stimulate tax revenues as well, although the jury is still out on whether the net impact was to increase or decrease overall revenue. I personally was surprised that they worked as well as they did, which is one of the things that made me reexamine my political assumptions a few years ago, comparing rhetoric and theory with what actually works.

The people who I personally trust regarding financial matters seem to agree that our current deficit level is not alarming when compared with GNP. And at present the deficit seems to be stabilizing rather than theatening to spiral out of control.

However, I do greatly fault Mr. Bush for failing to rein in the Republican Congress and leadership on its pork and frivolous spending when the Republicans held the majority. That was an abdication of leadership and unnecessarily aggravated the deficit, while also severely damaging the Republican &quot;brand&quot; regarding fiscal responsiblity. But since taking back the Congress, the Democrats in Congress have perpetuated the porking behavior, just changing the beneficiaries. There&#039;s plenty of &lt;strike&gt;glory&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;strong&gt;manure&lt;/strong&gt; to go around for the leadership of both parties.

Interestingly, I&#039;m not hearing much about fiscal restraint from any of the leading Presidential candidates so far in this election - just arguing over where to spend money.

As the grassroots (or at least the netroots) I do hear differences between conservatives and the left: the conservatives advocate spending restraint (except for defense); the left advocates expansion of social programs in conjunction with unrealistic expectations of paying for them through reduced defense spending and the golden goose of business and &quot;the rich&quot;. Both are frustrated that the leadership doesn&#039;t listen to them. The difference for me is that the numbers on the left haven&#039;t added up so far.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deb, I think Kim put in a nutshell what I&#8217;ve meant when I talk about Republicans being more fiscally responsible. It&#8217;s sort of like saying that on a hundred point test, the Republicans scored 20 compared to 15 for the Democrats. (And again, the Republican advantage is from their backbenchers, not from their leaders.) Neither score is anything to boast about, but one is higher than the other.</p>
<p>The Congressional shenanigans regarding budget projections has been a disgrace for decades. The spending cuts offsets of the Clinton era were just a different version of the same game when you remember the hand-waving that went on to generate the numbers. The one thing that remains constant is that spending keeps going up, whether Democrats or Republicans control Congress or the White House. The most restraint has occurred when one party controls Congress and the other the White House.</p>
<p>Thus most of the budget surplus/deficit has resulted from changes in the revenue side rather than spending (except for Iraq, of course, although there is some partial revenue offset). And in that context, I believe that you give Mr. Clinton too much credit and Mr. Bush too little. Recalling that Clinton reigned in the era of the <em>dot.<strong>com</strong></em> bubble which artifically raised revenues, coupled with &#8220;gridlock&#8221; that did restrain spending somewhat by prevent major new spending initiatives.</p>
<p>The start of Mr. Bush&#8217;s tenancy coincided with the <em>dot.<strong>bomb</strong></em> era, which decreased revenue and led to an economic slowdown. The Bush/Republican tax cuts actually were effective in helping to avert a recession and did stimulate tax revenues as well, although the jury is still out on whether the net impact was to increase or decrease overall revenue. I personally was surprised that they worked as well as they did, which is one of the things that made me reexamine my political assumptions a few years ago, comparing rhetoric and theory with what actually works.</p>
<p>The people who I personally trust regarding financial matters seem to agree that our current deficit level is not alarming when compared with GNP. And at present the deficit seems to be stabilizing rather than theatening to spiral out of control.</p>
<p>However, I do greatly fault Mr. Bush for failing to rein in the Republican Congress and leadership on its pork and frivolous spending when the Republicans held the majority. That was an abdication of leadership and unnecessarily aggravated the deficit, while also severely damaging the Republican &#8220;brand&#8221; regarding fiscal responsiblity. But since taking back the Congress, the Democrats in Congress have perpetuated the porking behavior, just changing the beneficiaries. There&#8217;s plenty of <strike>glory</strike> <strong>manure</strong> to go around for the leadership of both parties.</p>
<p>Interestingly, I&#8217;m not hearing much about fiscal restraint from any of the leading Presidential candidates so far in this election &#8211; just arguing over where to spend money.</p>
<p>As the grassroots (or at least the netroots) I do hear differences between conservatives and the left: the conservatives advocate spending restraint (except for defense); the left advocates expansion of social programs in conjunction with unrealistic expectations of paying for them through reduced defense spending and the golden goose of business and &#8220;the rich&#8221;. Both are frustrated that the leadership doesn&#8217;t listen to them. The difference for me is that the numbers on the left haven&#8217;t added up so far.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deb</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69496</link>
		<dc:creator>Deb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69496</guid>
		<description>Please don&#039;t forget that President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. Discretionary spending under Bush rose from $649.3 billion in 2001 to $895 billion in 2004.  At the same time, the administration opposed renewing rules for government spending that required all tax cuts or spending increases to be offset elsewhere in the budget. Bush wanted such rules to apply only to spending measures and not to tax-cutting proposals. Those rules imposed a discipline on the Clinton administration that forced it to keep deficits in check. That restraint has disappeared. On top of this, Bush has spent over 500 billion of your childrens money on a war in Iraq that has gotten us nowhere. In my house, if we can&#039;t afford it, we don&#039;t buy it. Not so with Bush. He and the Republicans congress took out a credit card with your children&#039;s names on it and went to town. How can you argue that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible? They just have not been.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please don&#8217;t forget that President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. Discretionary spending under Bush rose from $649.3 billion in 2001 to $895 billion in 2004.  At the same time, the administration opposed renewing rules for government spending that required all tax cuts or spending increases to be offset elsewhere in the budget. Bush wanted such rules to apply only to spending measures and not to tax-cutting proposals. Those rules imposed a discipline on the Clinton administration that forced it to keep deficits in check. That restraint has disappeared. On top of this, Bush has spent over 500 billion of your childrens money on a war in Iraq that has gotten us nowhere. In my house, if we can&#8217;t afford it, we don&#8217;t buy it. Not so with Bush. He and the Republicans congress took out a credit card with your children&#8217;s names on it and went to town. How can you argue that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible? They just have not been.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KimD</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69489</link>
		<dc:creator>KimD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69489</guid>
		<description>Deb CT is right about the less of two evils when it comes to fiscal responsibility within Congress. Both parties were totally selfish in much of what they did, but it was mostly GOP Senators and Representatives who spoke up of the waste. Many of them were simply brushed off like pieces of dust. The Democrats have been extremely irresponsible since taking &quot;control&quot; and hence, the poor ratings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deb CT is right about the less of two evils when it comes to fiscal responsibility within Congress. Both parties were totally selfish in much of what they did, but it was mostly GOP Senators and Representatives who spoke up of the waste. Many of them were simply brushed off like pieces of dust. The Democrats have been extremely irresponsible since taking &#8220;control&#8221; and hence, the poor ratings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KimD</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69488</link>
		<dc:creator>KimD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:24:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69488</guid>
		<description>Actually Raven, according to the news article out this morning, Greenspan calls himself a Libertarian/Republican. I have to wonder about that though, if he so adamantly supports Clinton. He&#039;s also claiming that the overriding concern about Iraq was not WMD but, the threat Saddam was to the oil. I&#039;m buying his book to read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually Raven, according to the news article out this morning, Greenspan calls himself a Libertarian/Republican. I have to wonder about that though, if he so adamantly supports Clinton. He&#8217;s also claiming that the overriding concern about Iraq was not WMD but, the threat Saddam was to the oil. I&#8217;m buying his book to read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raven</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69483</link>
		<dc:creator>Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69483</guid>
		<description>There are MILLIONS of women right here in America who cannot have their own children. Millions who would adopt an unwanted baby- who would make those aborted fetuses, WANTED children. Are there other reasons why so many abortions happen? yes...the biggest being pressure placed upon the girls and women to get the abortion vs. so called ruining their own, and the lives of their parents or BF&#039;s who don&#039;t want the responsibility. 

It&#039;s really a sad thing. Abortions for the convenience of others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are MILLIONS of women right here in America who cannot have their own children. Millions who would adopt an unwanted baby- who would make those aborted fetuses, WANTED children. Are there other reasons why so many abortions happen? yes&#8230;the biggest being pressure placed upon the girls and women to get the abortion vs. so called ruining their own, and the lives of their parents or BF&#8217;s who don&#8217;t want the responsibility. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s really a sad thing. Abortions for the convenience of others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raven</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69482</link>
		<dc:creator>Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69482</guid>
		<description>Deb, thank you for being someone worthy of some debate here...people like you don&#039;t come here too often so it gives me hope for human kind!

About Bush&#039;s honesty re. the war- I believe he was mislead- as was a great deal many people...the intel was faulty but much of the world had the same intel...just not the balls to do something about it. 

I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but they didn&#039;t do it right. Colin Powell was correct- we should have had MUCH more boots on the ground. I think we wouldn&#039;t be where we are had we done it right..I don&#039;t think leaving is the best thing either. We have an obligation to clean up the mess we, and our enemies, have created over there. I fully believe too, that our enemies have exploited our presence there to their own ends.

As for how we are viewed in the world: Before Bush we were seen as sheeps. Total wuss of a nation and one that would sell it&#039;s soul before standing up for itself. Is that bad or good? history will tell.
And let&#039;s let history judge Bush, not us. 

About abortion: I would adopt. In fact I have looked into it several times. I also would like to see more education and birth control options be given out- not as a hand out, but as a viable option. When we play we must expect to PAY or, prevent the game from being created, so to speak...

I wouldn&#039;t put it past Lemoncrats to enact something like you mentioned...and you know it wasn&#039;t too far back in our history that men who had sex with girls, women, WOULD do the caring and diapering and all that. Back when honor was an honorable thing. That&#039;s been lost.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deb, thank you for being someone worthy of some debate here&#8230;people like you don&#8217;t come here too often so it gives me hope for human kind!</p>
<p>About Bush&#8217;s honesty re. the war- I believe he was mislead- as was a great deal many people&#8230;the intel was faulty but much of the world had the same intel&#8230;just not the balls to do something about it. </p>
<p>I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but they didn&#8217;t do it right. Colin Powell was correct- we should have had MUCH more boots on the ground. I think we wouldn&#8217;t be where we are had we done it right..I don&#8217;t think leaving is the best thing either. We have an obligation to clean up the mess we, and our enemies, have created over there. I fully believe too, that our enemies have exploited our presence there to their own ends.</p>
<p>As for how we are viewed in the world: Before Bush we were seen as sheeps. Total wuss of a nation and one that would sell it&#8217;s soul before standing up for itself. Is that bad or good? history will tell.<br />
And let&#8217;s let history judge Bush, not us. </p>
<p>About abortion: I would adopt. In fact I have looked into it several times. I also would like to see more education and birth control options be given out- not as a hand out, but as a viable option. When we play we must expect to PAY or, prevent the game from being created, so to speak&#8230;</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t put it past Lemoncrats to enact something like you mentioned&#8230;and you know it wasn&#8217;t too far back in our history that men who had sex with girls, women, WOULD do the caring and diapering and all that. Back when honor was an honorable thing. That&#8217;s been lost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deb</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69479</link>
		<dc:creator>Deb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69479</guid>
		<description>Duncan-
I just had an epiphany! I think that we should pass a law that no man will have sex with a woman without signing an affidavit that he will share the financial and emotional and care for any ensuing child. That includes diapering, tutoring and taking to ballet lessons. What do you think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Duncan-<br />
I just had an epiphany! I think that we should pass a law that no man will have sex with a woman without signing an affidavit that he will share the financial and emotional and care for any ensuing child. That includes diapering, tutoring and taking to ballet lessons. What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duncan Avatar</title>
		<link>http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-69478</link>
		<dc:creator>Duncan Avatar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andrightlyso.com/2007/09/15/moveon-movements/#comment-69478</guid>
		<description>Yeah, it looks like Slick Willy is being added to the entire Hillary Clinton campaign as another 2-for-1 deal.... yay.... :roll:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, it looks like Slick Willy is being added to the entire Hillary Clinton campaign as another 2-for-1 deal&#8230;. yay&#8230;. :roll:</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
