Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Congrats to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.. confidence in the Congress is now at 11%.. an all-time low.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Congr ... tions.aspx

Let's face it, Pelosi and Reid aren't the only ones to blame. ALL of our elected officials have basically been smelling each other's farts for some time now.

Grizalltheway wrote:Let's face it, Pelosi and Reid aren't the only ones to blame. ALL of our elected officials have basically been smelling each other's farts for some time now.

Good one Lewis.

Maybe people are just a lot better informed than they were in 1973.

clenz wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Let's face it, Pelosi and Reid aren't the only ones to blame. ALL of our elected officials have basically been smelling each other's farts for some time now.

Good one Lewis.

I originally wrote out "to quote Lewis Black", but decided to try and pass it off as my own.

SunCoastBlueHen wrote:Maybe people are just a lot better informed than they were in 1973.

Doubtful, but interesting timing none the less. Isn't that when Watergate was starting to heat up?

Nixon put hatred of government on the map, Reagan sealed the deal.

kalm wrote:Reagan sealed the deal.

How's that?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:Reagan sealed the deal.

How's that?

Well you could make a case that Carter's failures proved that government was inept, but I think Reagan's rhetoric about limited government and the "the nine most terrible words" really stuck with a lot of people.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote:


How's that?

Well you could make a case that Carter's failures proved that government was inept, but I think Reagan's rhetoric about limited government and the "the nine most terrible words" really stuck with a lot of people.

When you take into consideration that the 'gubmint' made $110,000,000,000 in "improper payments" to dead people, people in prison, fugitives, etc. last year alone, it's very hard to refute Reagan's philosophy.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote:


How's that?

Well you could make a case that Carter's failures proved that government was inept, but I think Reagan's rhetoric about limited government and the "the nine most terrible words" really stuck with a lot of people.

89%...

Kinda makes you wonder if Reagan didn't hit the nail on the head.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well you could make a case that Carter's failures proved that government was inept, but I think Reagan's rhetoric about limited government and the "the nine most terrible words" really stuck with a lot of people.

89%...

Kinda makes you wonder if Reagan didn't hit the nail on the head.

And it took us 30 years of following Reagan's economic policies of cut taxes on the rich and spend to get here.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
89%...

Kinda makes you wonder if Reagan didn't hit the nail on the head.

And it took us 30 years of following Reagan's economic policies of cut taxes on the rich and spend to get here.

Tax cuts are a good thing because they foster growth and investment, but history states it took 70 years of "progressive redistributionist" policy to get it where it is today.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
And it took us 30 years of following Reagan's economic policies of cut taxes on the rich and spend to get here.

Tax cuts are a good thing because they foster growth and investment, but history states it took 70 years of "progressive redistributionist" policy to get it where it is today.

Victory in WWI, WWII, New Deal public works projects, the GI Bill, Interstate Highways, the space program, the Cold War all paid for at the expense of the besieged wealthy class. Too bad the rich had to suffer through those years and not have the opportunity to pass their fortunes on to their heirs. Why if we had kept taxes below 25% the entire time, we would have really kicked some Nazi ass and perhaps sent a man to the dark side of the moon.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Tax cuts are a good thing because they foster growth and investment, but history states it took 70 years of "progressive redistributionist" policy to get it where it is today.

Victory in WWI, WWII, New Deal public works projects, the GI Bill, Interstate Highways, the space program, the Cold War all paid for at the expense of the besieged wealthy class. Too bad the rich had to suffer through those years and not have the opportunity to pass their fortunes on to their heirs. Why if we had kept taxes below 25% the entire time, we would have really kicked some Nazi ass and perhaps sent a man to the dark side of the moon.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, WIC, Food Stamps, EITC's, Section 8 Housing, School Lunch Programs, AFDC, Job Corps, Head Start, Peace Corps, National Endowment of the Arts, PBS, NPR, etc, etc, etc, etc. With the Chinese subsidizing our entitlement economy, maybe we can finally win that "progressive" War on Poverty.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Victory in WWI, WWII, New Deal public works projects, the GI Bill, Interstate Highways, the space program, the Cold War all paid for at the expense of the besieged wealthy class. Too bad the rich had to suffer through those years and not have the opportunity to pass their fortunes on to their heirs. Why if we had kept taxes below 25% the entire time, we would have really kicked some Nazi ass and perhaps sent a man to the dark side of the moon.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, WIC, Food Stamps, EITC's, Section 8 Housing, School Lunch Programs, AFDC, Job Corps, Head Start, Peace Corps, National Endowment of the Arts, PBS, NPR, etc, etc, etc, etc. With the Chinese subsidizing our entitlement economy, maybe we can finally win that "progressive" War on Poverty.

Impressive list...and it has done nothing to prevent people from wanting more. Simply put, there is no "winning" a war on poverty. When you give people something, all they do is ask for more.

And those demands will keep coming because today's definition of "poor" isn't about providing basic necessities...it has morphed into some crap about soothing egos and giving people some luxuries (TVs, cell phones, etc) so that they aren't "embarrased" (heaven help us if someone was forced to pull out food stamps) about being poorer than someone else.

If you look at what "poor" people have today versus those in the past, it isn't a close comparison. People today have, or have access to, shoes, clothing, food, shelter...all the basics. But is that enough? According to some, no. They want the poor to be given more. And more. And more.

That is garbage. If someone wants more, than get out and earn it. Yup, cleaning toilets is not a pretty job, but it can get you started. Trouble is, not a lot of people want to start at the bottom. And fewer people want to go back if they've had a bit of success. It is all about egos and work ethics...and we have a bunch of people who don't want to get their hands dirty.

Grizalltheway wrote:

clenz wrote: Good one Lewis.

I originally wrote out "to quote Lewis Black", but decided to try and pass it off as my own.

Had it not been on every other commercial for three weeks leading up to his stand up special you would have gotten away with it too...