« Race matters |
| The list »
Air it out...
11:07 AM in Open threads | Permalink
Thank god we have so many brave firefighters to stand around and watch a chemical plant burn. I for one can't get enough thick black soot in the air and sticky crap raining down on me. The Star writes that 1,500 "fought" the fire. Does that mean the crowd at a boxing match is also "fighting" the match by watching?
February 08, 2007 at 11:10 AM
So, rp, you know better how to make strategic fire fighting decisons in the field? You'd prefer that any toxic residue was washed into our sewers and waterways? YOu'd gladly risk the lives of your men, were you in charge?
I prefer to not make personal attacks, but you sure made it tempting!
February 08, 2007 at 11:14 AM
John Fairfield for Mayor!
February 08, 2007 at 11:20 AM
A friend of mine got an invitation to a fundraiser for Becky Nace being held at the Cigar Box by Dominic Brancato, John Conforti, and Anthony Simone. So Becky's being supported on one side by the radical right and on the other by strip-club owning mafioso. Interesting. Wonder if each side knows about the other. Certainly not who we want as our mayor.
February 08, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Now there's a huge multi-tanker truck accident in KC. Its on MSNBC. We're getting lots of great national pub lately.
Mod Dem |
February 08, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Thank goodness the Rizzo's are safe!
February 08, 2007 at 11:57 AM
So lets update:
Backy Nace for vouchers
Becky Nace against vouchers
Becky Nace for labor
Becky Nace Anti-Labor
Becky Nace for religious right
Becky Nace for strip clubs
Becky Nace Democrat
Becky Nace Republican
Becky is lying to someone...and its not just the voters.
February 08, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Here's something for today's open thread I hope will spur some substantive yet respectful debate (perhaps a formal post from buzzblog on the topic would be nice as well):
WOULD YOU SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REQUIRING A BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET? Meaning, that the federal government would be constitutionally prohibited from spending more than it takes in for any given fiscal year.
To get things rolling I will offer my view that such a thing would make sense...with no exceptions...not even for war. Whatever the current generation does, the current generation must pay for.
February 08, 2007 at 02:08 PM
No. Yes, it makes sense, but I don't think it is realistic. Some states have this but the feds have much more to deal with--usually when it is unexpected. Can we really expect if another 9/11 happens that we don't spend money to deal with the after effects.
Plus, I'm not into making changes to the constitution because we the voters can't get our representatives to deal with fiscal issues.
February 08, 2007 at 02:25 PM
If by deal with the aftereffects you mean attack another Moslem country with no ties to the terrorists and which posed no appreciable threat to the people of the United States then my answer is yes, limit the funds! We cannot afford another Iraq in this generation.
Run to a budget or borrow from international bankers....hmmmm, let me think about that in terms of national sovereignty. OK, I am done. Run to a budget. It is the only constitutionally-respectful answer. (Of course that does not mean much anymore, does it? Better to give the Executive vast war times powers to transform the World ,,,,, and America…. Into a neo-con paradise, a Yankee town hall writ extra-large. ((but please hold the car bombs, Ishmael)
February 08, 2007 at 02:47 PM
ted, Bush's War is just that. For the record, I didn't support then nor do I support now the war in Iraq. But the question put here was concerning a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. The after effects I speak of had to do with relocation of citizens, housing, health care and such--not invading another country that had nothing to do with it. That is all for another thread. Do we not help our own citizens in such times because we thought we needed to alter our constitution because we didn't have representatives who couldn't stop spending more money then we took in? I don't think so.
As Dick Cheney once said, "Elections show that deficits don't matter." (or something like that). That is the kind of person that should not be elected.
Off soapbox now. That's all.
February 08, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Did you read Martin's piece in The Pitch today? It really points out the hypocracy of Miss Nace on TIF's . She gave away $23 million in tax dollars to Wal Mart so they could close a dying store and short shift the long term employees who were transfered 8 miles to the new super center.(about 12 minute drive) Nace's reply.." It's an entirely different market and the TIF plan created 1,535 NEW JOBS."
Did Miss Nace insist then on minority and women owned business contracts across the entire project costs as she preaches at forum's this week? Or is she just blowin (cigar) smoke up KC's you-know-what?
February 08, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Anna Nicole Smith died.
Thanks for the mammaries!
February 08, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Wow Becky Nace has turned into a real money Grabber first she sells out to the republicans and now organized crime . All three of those fundraisers have close mob ties . You are judged by the company you keep Becky
February 08, 2007 at 03:49 PM
so they could close a dying store and short shift the long term employees who were transfered 8 miles to the new super center.(about 12 minute drive)
Maybe they already lived closer to the new store. Overall I am taking your point but the comment about a 12 minute drive is irrelevant, you are assuming they live the opposite direction of the new Wal-Mart.
February 08, 2007 at 03:53 PM
And about the balanced budget. I agree that it needs to be done, the only problem is that it will lead to higher taxes in a certian year to keep it balanced. It will cause our politicians to be too short sighted (like they aren't already). Maybe an addition that the budget has to be balanced over a period of time like 3 or 5 years or somehing. Allowing it to be under one year and over the next, even the next extra.
And what happens if there is another Katrina or 911 and the effect on the budget that would have.
February 08, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Maybe the people in Chucks district who use to have jobs will not be voting for Nace. As mentioned the pitch just lit her up over the new opening of the Walmart in her district because they closed doors at the Bannister location. Becky Nace appears to be running things in the city council similar to Katheryn "the Toad" Shields...corrupt with self serving interest. Don't believe me read the article and educate yourself http://www.pitch.com/Issues/2007-02-08/news/martin.html
February 08, 2007 at 04:34 PM
Good points both jenn and BPA. Perhaps a clearly articulated allowance for emergency exceptions that still requires for an offset in spending or revenue increases that would fund or "pay back" the exception within a defined time-frame??
I fear that at some point generations to come may have to go even further and require a government surplus every fiscal year in order to start paying down the national debt.
February 08, 2007 at 04:44 PM
It certainly is interesting all of our good friends who mostly support Bush and the Republicans are now calling for a Balanced Budget.
I wonder why they never talked about this issue when Bush and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
Where was their concern when Bush's tax cuts were clearly going to create deficits?
Do they support continuing Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans?
Do they support raising taxes to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so there is a little sacrifice on those of us who haven't volunteered? (I recognize that Bush has said watching the news about Iraq is a sacrifice, but should he be asking more from us than being upset by the news?)
Old Drum |
February 08, 2007 at 05:29 PM
Nace has made a deal with devil and lost my vote .I am amazed how fast a good person turns bad to try and stay in office
February 08, 2007 at 05:29 PM
I also think that there should be a mechanism to force a balanced budget, but not sure if it calls for an ammendment. And also good points BPA and jenn. I think what is need is a Macro plan Dave Ramsey like plan. That plan also calls for an emergency fund (like the strategic oil reserve, exept with money). This would take a lot of time and a lot of cooperation and sacrifice by everybody.
On a side note, we have been agreeing a lot lately, we have room for you as a Republican, come over to the dark side.
On another side note. Larry, quit trying to be a pinhead. You have some intelligence so use it instead of being divisive.
February 08, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Whoever is taking over DeAnn's beat (DeAnn, you did a fine job, ignore the guttersniping trash).
1. What was the County Legislature doing when Sugar Creek was annexing unincorporated Eastern Jackson County for the sole purpose of rezoning so LaFarge could mine next to an elementary school? Specifically Denny Waits?
2. With the extra money from the "no billionaire left behind" sales tax (stadiums). Since the teams are responsible for any cost overuns, will the county use that extra money to pay down the bonds early like they did for the Kansas Speedway? Anyone can do the math and figure out there will be a surplus.
February 08, 2007 at 05:50 PM
The idea of a balanced federal budget is a good theory, however our economy is largely based on federal debt. In other words, the safest investment for average Americans is to loan money to the Federal Government.
Perhaps actually enforcing a debt ceiling (rather than raising it every couple of years) would make more sense.
February 08, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Any update on the Penguins? It's pretty quiet...
Drew Murphy |
February 08, 2007 at 08:32 PM
Apparently the Republican Party is not quite sure on the name of the other party. This is a paragraph in the latest GOP (God's Own Party?) voice. I have capitalized the relevant examples.
While Missouri Republicans are strong and united as we head into another election year, Democrats are in total disarray. Roger Wilson quit as chairman of the Missouri DEMOCRAT Party, their executive director left to take a job with the struggling Claire McCaskill and now Jay Nixon is under attack by African Americans. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the legislative Black Caucus distributed copies of a letter it sent to McCaskill just over a week ago, voicing disenchantment with the Missouri DEMOCRATIC Party and Wilson. Nixon, meanwhile, is left to try to clean up his party’s mess, even though African-Americans still blame Nixon for his role in phasing out the state's substantial financial role in the region's school desegregation programs. How bad is it for Nixon? Says House Minority Whip Connie Johnson of St. Louis: "He's not a consensus-builder; he's not. Jay Nixon wants a 'Jesse Jackson' to come in and get all the African-Americans in line so he doesn't have a headache." After years of making promises to Missouri’s African American community and failing to deliver, Democrats like Johnson are disenchanted with the direction of her party. "Until we look like the party of inclusion that we boast to be, what we stand for is questionable. We're either a party of inclusion, or illusion," Johnson said. The meltdown within the DEMOCRAT Party goes even further. House Minority Leader Jeff Harris failed to deliver solid election results in November and is facing problems within his own caucus over new House rules he opposed but other Democrats supported. McCaskill, meanwhile, is facing a series of ethical problems in Washington, including serious conflicts of interest between her official duties and her family’s vast business interests. This type of division and in-fighting is quite troubling for leading Democrats who head into the next election with a serious image problem with the voters of this state.
Coool. I sure would like to know what gives the Republicans the right to determine the name of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
President Bush apologized. Do you think our good Republican friends in Missouri will do the same?
Old Drum |
February 08, 2007 at 08:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.