Jump to content

These Conventions are a waste of time...


Recommended Posts

Watching the Republican Convention, and I just want to say, "Where

all the white people at?!?"

Jesus, outside of a Wall-Mart, have you seen a bigger congregation of

Celine Dion-listening, American Idol-watching, Applebee's-eating, white

bread zombies who think "Leave It to Beaver" is a documentary?

And can't the republicans find some white people that can clap and dance in

rhythm?

But both the Democratic and Republican Conventions are a joke...none of

the big networks cover them with any authority, and the cable networks

devote most of their airtime to gossip and stroking the egos of their talking heads;

can we just shoot Wolf Blitzer, Sean Hannity, Chris Mathews et al. right now!

Nobody pays any attention to the nuts and bolts of each convention; only at C-Span

will you get to see the speeches uninterrupted and learn what each party's platform

entails.

And the cost of putting on these extravaganzas is astronomical...why it costs

$50 million for each city to provide security alone. Think of the good use that

money could be put to instead of providing another excuse for politians to party

on our dime.

Just another example of how everything is more bloated and wasteful these days;

conventions, olympics, award shows, military, government.

Edited by Strider
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Watching the Republican Convention, and I just want to say, "Where

all the white people at?!?"

Jesus, outside of a Wall-Mart, have you seen a bigger congregation of

Celine Dion-listening, American Idol-watching, Applebee's-eating, white

bread zombies who think "Leave It to Beaver" is a documentary?

And can't the republicans find some white people that can clap and dance in

rhythm?

:hysterical:

At least they have the good sense to put the 3 black people in the front at every one of their conventions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, don't worry...I am plenty worried about our mega-deficit; 75% of which was

incurred under the Reagan/Bush 1 & 2 administrations...and yet, people still believe

the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility.

But part of the way a debt grows so large, is that people laugh off $50 million.

Next thing you know, $50 mil becomes $100 mil which becomes $100 billion

which becomes the mess we're in right now.

If you're going to shrink spending, you gotta start somewhere...and I'd rather cut

out the spending for these "white elephant" conventions instead of cutting education.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're worried about $50 Million when the government is trillions of dollars in debt? :huh:

Bush came into this eight years ago with a balanced budget. Hmmm....where did he hide that?

Trends in Federal Spending and the Deficit

Since all spending must be covered through taxes, any increase in spending is an increase in taxes. Thus, we can understand the tax burden the people must suffer by analyzing the government's spending.

Spending Trends since W.W.II.

To look at spending, we asked, "How much does the Federal Government spend per citizen each year?" To do this, we adjusted the data for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calibrate our numbers. The data revealed surprising results. From Truman through Bush Sr. federal spending rose about $115 per year per citizen. The annual change in spending never deviated very far from this linear trend. The person, or party, in office made little difference in spending.

After more than 40 years of nearly linear increase the pattern changed at the start of the Clinton administration. During this time, spending per person actually decreased! Under Clinton, Federal spending decreased roughly $18 per year per citizen. Tax payers were saving $166 per (man, woman, and child) over the spending before he started.

Under GW Bush that pattern reversed, leading to the fastest increase in spending since the beginning of W.W.II. Now federal spending is increasing by over $250 per year per citizen. Recall that the typical American family is 3 people. That means, under GW Bush, the average family's taxes are increasing by over $750 per year. In the first four years of GW Bush's administration, Bush, himself, projects spending to increase by more than $1000 per citizen, or more than $3000 for a family of three. As we will see below, this spending is being relegated to the next generation, at an alarming rate. Notes:

Throughout this document "Y2K $" means the value of the dollar in the year 2000 as determined by the CPI.

Data Sources

CPI

population

spending

Related Data

Debt Outsatnding

Budget Tables

Taxes & Spending

Tax Tables

The Federal Deficit per Person

Here we look at the deficit per person. The deficit can be thought of as the taxes we should be paying to cover our own spending. The deficit can be though of as the taxes we dump on our children for benefits they will never receive.

Overall, the federal budget has been going deeper into the red since W.W.II. The only significant transition to a balanced budget occurred during the Clinton years. When Clinton left office the budget was balanced. Future generations were saving $400 per person on the cost of past debts. That amounts to a savings of more than $2000 per person over the deficits that existed when Clinton took office.

The worst plunge into deeper deficits occurred under GW. Bush. In just four years after GW Bush took office the deficit jumped to over $1600 per person, or about $4800 per year for each family of three. So, some future families will have to have their taxes raised this much to pay for benefits that they will not receive. That's an increase of more than $2300 per taxpayer, nearly $7000 for a family of three. Related pages:

20th Century Budget History

spending since JFK

1999 Tax Rates & Alternatives

Tax Rates since 1968 by Income

Non-defense spending

Federal Spending

Cost of Tax Cuts

Debt Clock

Observations:

It has been claimed by GW Bush and Reagan that tax cuts improve the economy. It has been claimed by GW Bush and FDR that increased spending will improve the economy. But during the Clinton years spending fell and taxes rose slightly while most economic indicators improved consistently for eight years. During the first three years of the GW Bush administration, spending increased at the fastest pace since 1942 and taxes dropped, while most economic indicators languished. The last 11 years of data clearly run counter to the theory.

By contrast, the largest spending increase during the Great Depression, America's worst economic crisis, was $222 per person in 1939. The average spending increase during the Great Depression was $85 per person. That's much less than the $250 increase per citizen per year under GW Bush.

Some Economic Indicators

Employment

Exports

Private Investment

Savings

Taxes vs Revenue & Outlays

click on link for graphs

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/lau...ilo/fedbgt4.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that the Conventions are over-the-top and a waste of time. Imagine how it looks from an international perspective.

The fact that this race has been going on for 18 months now already is astonishing. The official campaigns don't get launched until only 8 weeks or so before the election here, in Australia. And I guarantee you there are no fireworks to be seen anywhere near a political speech.

You guys are the world-leaders in pointless spectacle, that is for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was about led zeppelin, ny meet ups/conventions. well, i want to stay positive and not think they are a waste of time...but i already tried participating and now this is years.

Alright, somebody else try to start a meet up/ny thread already.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Watching the Republican Convention, and I just want to say, "Where

all the white people at?!?"

Jesus, outside of a Wall-Mart, have you seen a bigger congregation of

Celine Dion-listening, American Idol-watching, Applebee's-eating, white

bread zombies who think "Leave It to Beaver" is a documentary?

And can't the republicans find some white people that can clap and dance in

rhythm?

But both the Democratic and Republican Conventions are a joke...none of

the big networks cover them with any authority, and the cable networks

devote most of their airtime to gossip and stroking the egos of their talking heads;

can we just shoot Wolf Blitzer, Sean Hannity, Chris Mathews et al. right now!

Nobody pays any attention to the nuts and bolts of each convention; only at C-Span

will you get to see the speeches uninterrupted and learn what each party's platform

entails.

And the cost of putting on these extravaganzas is astronomical...why it costs

$50 million for each city to provide security alone. Think of the good use that

money could be put to instead of providing another excuse for politians to party

on our dime.

Just another example of how everything is more bloated and wasteful these days;

conventions, olympics, award shows, military, government.

OMG, this is too funny! How right you are.

And I don't think McCain's milf of a running mate is gonna save him, either.

I tuned into her speech the other night and listened for about 5 minutes before I couldn't stand it anymore. Tuned back an hour later and she was still yapping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You think that the Conventions are over-the-top and a waste of time. Imagine how it looks from an international perspective.

The fact that this race has been going on for 18 months now already is astonishing. The official campaigns don't get launched until only 8 weeks or so before the election here, in Australia. And I guarantee you there are no fireworks to be seen anywhere near a political speech.

You guys are the world-leaders in pointless spectacle, that is for sure.

:P You know it, Biyatch! I liked Monty Python's take on our pointless spectacle. "Christmas in Heaven" from The Meaning of Life :lol:

On the local convention coverage they interviewed an enormous old fat man from Texas, wearing a huge white cowboy hat and a star spangled shirt. He said he thought the police and military did a great job keeping the "crazies" away from the convention- goers. Meanwhile downtown St. Paul businesses didn't get nearly as much business they were told they would. Minneapolis had "Civic Fest," thinking a lot of delegates would come. There were more volunteers than customers.

Edited by Suz
Link to post
Share on other sites
OMG, this is too funny! How right you are.

And I don't think McCain's milf of a running mate is gonna save him, either.

I tuned into her speech the other night and listened for about 5 minutes before I couldn't stand it anymore. Tuned back an hour later and she was still yapping.

:rolleyes:

Maybe you're not clear on the subject, but this is usually how things work at conventions...long speeches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Watching the Republican Convention, and I just want to say, "Where

all the white people at?!?"

Jesus, outside of a Wall-Mart, have you seen a bigger congregation of

Celine Dion-listening, American Idol-watching, Applebee's-eating, white

bread zombies who think "Leave It to Beaver" is a documentary?

And can't the republicans find some white people that can clap and dance in

rhythm?

All of the good dancers were at the Democratic convention eating watermelon and fried chicken.

Isn't nice when you can diminish the value of people down to an absurd racial stereotype?

:angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't nice when you can diminish the value of people down to an absurd racial stereotype?

Yeah, it's great! But then I learned from the best at reducing people to absurd

stereotypes...you right-wing conservatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's great! But then I learned from the best at reducing people to absurd

stereotypes...you right-wing conservatives.

You mean the right-wingers that put minorities in places of actual important and power?

You mean the right-wingers who give more money to charities than left-wingers every year?

You mean the right-winged churches that provide relief and support to the poor and homless?

Damn those nasty conservatives :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
To look at spending, we asked, "How much does the Federal Government spend per citizen each year?" To do this, we adjusted the data for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calibrate our numbers. The data revealed surprising results. From Truman through Bush Sr. federal spending rose about $115 per year per citizen. The annual change in spending never deviated very far from this linear trend. The person, or party, in office made little difference in spending.

After more than 40 years of nearly linear increase the pattern changed at the start of the Clinton administration. During this time, spending per person actually decreased! Under Clinton, Federal spending decreased roughly $18 per year per citizen. Tax payers were saving $166 per (man, woman, and child) over the spending before he started.

Under GW Bush that pattern reversed, leading to the fastest increase in spending since the beginning of W.W.II. Now federal spending is increasing by over $250 per year per citizen. Recall that the typical American family is 3 people. That means, under GW Bush, the average family's taxes are increasing by over $750 per year. In the first four years of GW Bush's administration, Bush, himself, projects spending to increase by more than $1000 per citizen, or more than $3000 for a family of three. As we will see below, this spending is being relegated to the next generation, at an alarming rate. Notes:

Very interesting post...

So do you mean to tell me that Clinton, the most awful, most hated President of all time according to the Republicans, actually left the country in a much better balanced financial position due to his fiscal policies, than George W Bush, who most Republicans consider to be the hero of our Generation? Shock horror.

Nice to see that Republicans don't care if their President drives the country's economy into the ground, as long as he's jingoistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the right-wingers that put minorities in places of actual important and power?

You mean the right-wingers who give more money to charities than left-wingers every year?

You mean the right-winged churches that provide relief and support to the poor and homless?

Damn those nasty conservatives :rolleyes:

Ah yes...

African-American Republican Senators since 1881: 1

African American Democrat Senators since 1881: 2

African-American Republican Representatives since 1901: 3

African American Democrat Representatives since 1901: 90

Female Republican Senators: 13

Female Democrat Senators: 22

Hispanic Republican Senators: 2

Hispanic Democrat Senators: 4

Hispanic Republican Representatives: 11

Hispanic Democrat Representatives: 36

Female Republican Governors: 10

Female Democrat Governors: 19

African-American Republican Governors: 1

African-American Democrat Governors: 3

Wannabe, I think we know which party really represents Minorities...

And are you talking about Conservatives who classify as their vast charitable donations the large sums of money they give to their church? You know, the Churches that can't actually afford to help the poor and the needy because they've spent the majority of their donations on multi-million dollar building extensions and state-of-the-art sound equipment?

Edited by I have got a horsey
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes...

African-American Republican Senators since 1881: 1

African American Democrat Senators since 1881: 2

African-American Republican Representatives since 1901: 3

African American Democrat Representatives since 1901: 90

Female Republican Senators: 13

Female Democrat Senators: 22

Hispanic Republican Senators: 2

Hispanic Democrat Senators: 4

Hispanic Republican Representatives: 11

Hispanic Democrat Representatives: 36

Female Republican Governors: 10

Female Democrat Governors: 19

African-American Republican Governors: 1

African-American Democrat Governors: 3

Wannabe, I think we know which party really represents Minorities...

I'm just saying that Republicans aren't just rich white dudes who hate minorities. It was an exaggeration, I'll give ya that

Also, I was talking about cabinets, just so we're clear

And are you talking about Conservatives who classify as their vast charitable donations the large sums of money they give to their church? You know, the Churches that can't actually afford to help the poor and the needy because they've spent the majority of their donations on multi-million dollar building extensions and state-of-the-art sound equipment?
No to the first one.

As far as churches go, I was referring to the world's largest charity: The Catholic Church ;)

Edited by wanna be drummer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...