Legend: mg = Michael Gardner
bartcop:
Damn, kicked off
MrConservative(moderator):
maybe you could explain govt meddling, mg
mgardner:
Nope, honestly can't explain the nat. gas shortage.
Is that what you think the root of the problem is, or rather the biggest
part of the problem?
bartcop:
But we always had enough power with "Clinton the meddler,"
but when "free market Cheney" took over, we ran out
bartcop:
I know they use (for some damn reason) nat gas to create elec in CA
bartcop:
The burden of proof is on BIG OIL.
We've always had enough power until the two oil men stole the White
House
mgardner:
It's more than just a fed. govt. issue and you know it.
It was poor policy on the part of CA and now they're paying for it.
Big time.
bartcop:
So, explain the SUDDEN catastrophe. As I said, I could believe a gradual
increase,
but this is pure greed, because they KNEW Bush would never ask them
to explain
mgardner:
Actually, the burden of proof in any criminal accusation is on the
one bringing the accusation.
bartcop:
When a monopoly raises prices ten times, you want the consumers to
prove they shouldn't have?
mgardner:
The sudden catastrophe? Didn't they have rolling blackouts over there
last summer too?
This has been building up for some time.
mgardner:
Oh, you're talking about the 10x increase in elec. rates. Sorry, misunderstood
earlier.
bartcop:
IF they had blackouts last summer, it was very minor. This year they
predict HOURS
with huge blocks of CA going dark
mgardner:
Well, it's simple. There's a shortage of elec. in CA, so they have
to get it from other parts of the country.
bartcop:
Is it your position CA is using, say, 5 times more power this year
than last?
bartcop:
That's a big question
mgardner:
The producers are cranking it out at a higher rate than usual, sending
it
across greater distances. And no, they aren't using 5x more power.
bartcop:
Higher rate? Then why is there a shortage?
mgardner:
The prices CA is seeing now are market prices due to high demand and
a shortage in that state.
A shortage brought about by govt. meddling.
bartcop:
You can't just yell "shortage" and expect the extra billions in BIG
OIL's account to be explained
bartcop:
Right now, BIG OIL is making more profit than any time in history,
and you want to yell "shortage?"
mgardner:
Do you deny that there is a shortage?
bartcop:
As I said, I'll buy a 5-10 percent shortage, but these extra billions
are a rape
If last year's elec bill of 200 went to 220, we wouldn't be having
this conversation
mgardner:
Who decides what profits are to be allowed? The Bureau of Reasonable
Rates (BRR)?
The Central Planning Bureacracy?
mgardner:
(I just made up BRR, ha ha)
bartcop:
Now you're just talking goofy. When big oil says "We're just passing
on the liberal
cleaning charges" and then they "accidentally" make an extra 200 billion,
you think that's normal?
MrConservative(moderator):
for a point of clarification bc, do the utility companies fall into
the catagory of big oil?
mgardner:
I think profits go up, and profits go down.
Why are you so opposed to profit, bc?
It's what drives our economy.
bartcop:
Mr C, yes, and MG, if we're to the point of "why are profits bad?"
then we're done here
mgardner:
Are you bailing out, then?
bartcop:
The word IF means something. If you're so lost for ideas that you're
going with "Why are profits bad?"
then yes, we're done. But if you stick to the argument, I'm still here.
bartcop:
I'm against big oil making an EXTRA 200 billion while claiming "We're
not gouging"
mgardner:
So you think it was off topic to ask that question? How about this
one.
Who determines what is a fair profit?
bartcop:
Why are you going there? We're not debating if $5 or $6 is fair
- we're talking hundreds of billions
bartcop:
What's topic 2?
MrConservative(moderator):
how about the bush tax cut.
mgardner:
OK bc, tell me why it's so unfair. The Bush tax cut, that is.
bartcop:
Ok, during the campaign, Bush said the super rich need a tax cut because
times were good.
Then, when he busted the bubble, he said we need one because yimes
are bad.
Why not pay the debt THEN party?
mgardner:
I'm all for tax cuts too. Good times and bad.
bartcop:
It's unfair because Julia Roberts is getting 9000 a day and I'm getting
300 a year - maybe just once
bartcop:
Julia already has ten Rolls Royce's and 5 mansions - what's she going
to do with her extra 9000 - jump start the economy?
mgardner:
I'm sure she'll find a way to spend it.
bartcop:
The BartCop Tax Plan would've put $1500 in every tax PAYER's pocket
- that would stimulate the dying Smirk economy
mgardner:
Where is Julia "getting" the money from, anyway.
mgardner:
That would be quite unfair, bc. Your tax plan, that is.
bartcop:
You're crying for the super-rich, why is that? Don't you think the
super-rich can make it without your help?
mgardner:
I'm not crying for them. I'm sure they'll do just fine without my help.
bartcop:
Smirk's latest CLAIM is that we need it to start the economy - giving
millions to the rich won't do that
So why not help the working families?
mgardner:
No, bush wants to let more people keep what they have earned.
bartcop:
If 200,000,000 people got MY tax rebate, America might sell an extra
4 million cars
mgardner:
I just think it's wrong for a bunch of poorer people to gang up on
a rich person and steal that person's money, that's all.
bartcop:
"Gang up?" on the people who just stole the White House?
mgardner:
So, what does that have to do with anything?
As for GOP fairness, I agree that the Bush tax cut is terribly unfair.
bartcop:
You think Cheney sacrificed $22 mill to "be fair?"
The GOP sure likes fairness when the rich need more
mgardner:
You're pissed off that those rich folks are driving around in their
nice cars,
and you want to take some of that money from them.
bartcop:
No, I want to pay off Reagan's debt first. Then, if we're going to
have a tax cut,
and it's needed to jumpstart like Smirk says, we jump start a hundred
million
families instead of just the super rich
bartcop:
You want me to say it? I'll say it - fuck the super-rich, they have
theirs already
Smirk never worked a day in his life and he's going to explain "fair"
to the poor?
Smirk has the mental discipline of Jenna
mgardner:
Thanks, bc. Yes, I wanted you to say it. I wanted you to admit that
your motivation is class envy.
I wanted you to admit that it doesn't matter that people who have honestly
earned more money deserve to keep it.
bartcop:
"Class envy" is code for "fuck the poor."
If you were wealthy, I could accept that, but odds are YOU'RE going
to have higher taxes
mgardner:
Higher taxes than who?
bartcop:
That 1.3 trill must come from somewhere, and it won't be the rich
mgardner:
What 1.3 trill? Please elaborate.
bartcop:
We owe 4-5 trill to the debt. By spending that money on a tax cut for
the rich, the debt
is paid slower = higher interest rates, fewer new homes, fewer cars
loans etc etc etc
bartcop:
That's why Clinton did so well - he told Wall Street, with his budget,
that he was serious about erasing RR's debt
bartcop:
That's why we had a 8-year boom, and why it's crashing now that Smirk
wants to start voodoo again
mgardner:
Wait a sec. Are you talking about the prime rate? The one Greenspan
can adjust at his whim?
bartcop:
Yes, but "can" adjust and "will" adjust are different. If the
debt comes down, money becomes available
(keep in mind, I'm the last guy, besides Smirk, you should ever
take financial advice from)
mgardner:
Available to whom?
bartcop:
To everyone - the banks will have more to lend at better rates if the
debt is smaller
mgardner:
yeah well, I'm no economist either.
bartcop:
When the debt is higher, banks will only loan to the super-rich
That means fewer home loans, fewer car loans etc
mgardner:
I'm not quite sure that's true. I'm pretty sure the Fed. controls that.
bartcop:
Cheney knows this - but he's getting old and wants more millions before
that next heart attack
mgardner:
Although admittedly, the govt. has to spend more to pay interest on
the debt, the bigger the debt is.
bartcop:
It's just like your household debt. If you pay the credit cards off,
you can go to Disneyland,
but if you go to Disneyland when your cards are all maxed out, you
file bankruptcy
mgardner:
However, the reason I like the tax cut in spite of the debt, is that
it gets money out of Washington.
They'll be less tempted to spend it.
bartcop:
That's Limba talking - what about that idiot star wars idea? Whose
money is that?
mgardner:
As far as the cred. card analogy, the govt. never defaulted on its
debts.
bartcop:
star wars will cost more than the tax cut - whose money is that?
bartcop:
Moment - whose money is that?
mgardner:
Oh, I'm opposed to the Star Wars thing as it stands now, though a good
idea in principle.
bartcop:
But, whose money is that?
bartcop:
You know, if you move to the woods and live in a tent, your tax bill
will go to zero,
but you want services, don't you?
bartcop:
The idea that government shouldn't have money is insanity
mgardner:
We all like services. I just don't think its necessary to have so many
of them be government monopoly services.
bartcop:
But you love monopoly big oil? Explain yourself
mgardner:
The government should have money, just much less than they do now.
A much smaller budget. It's not insanity bc. You need to branch out.
bartcop:
But, as Rush has told us 10000 times, your boys are NOT cutting anything,
so where will the 1.3 trill come from?
bartcop:
To whom is big oil answerable?
mgardner:
Big oil answers to the consumers. There's still more than one, you
know.
bartcop:
They made the pie smaller. That means you & I won't get a
piece this time
Where is your brain? They took the money from the fund and are throwing
a GOP party with it.
When the bills come due, it's tax raising time
mgardner:
Might as well ask "Who do the auto makers answer to?" They answer to
the consumers.
bartcop:
autos don't have a monolopy - you can buy 30 diff brands of cars,
but with 3 oil companies, we're fucked
bartcop:
Reagan and Bush both raised the HELL out of taxes, don't you know that?
In 86, they took away our interest deductions
mgardner:
We're not discussing Reagan a Bush Sr. here.
bartcop:
It was smart of you to run away from RR, good move
We're discussing what happens when you raid mom's purse - the money
is GONE
mgardner:
And as for spending cuts, they should cut spending. did you ever consider
that bc?
Instead of just ACCEPTING that govt. expenses will continue to rise,
did it ever occur that we could have a SMALLER Federal government?
bartcop:
Fine - cut spending FIRST, and tell us BEFORE the election what you're
cutting
No repub would ever do that
mgardner:
hey, once they get in, they can do anything they want. You know it,
and I know it.
And I agree, no repub would ever do that (at least that I know of).
bartcop:
We're in circles, what else we got?
mgardner:
Just like Clinton didn't tell us he was going to raise taxes before
he got in.
he explicitly said he wouldn't.
bartcop:
he was 98.5 percent honest - can your side say the same?
mgardner:
I think you make the R's look like the devil, and the D's look like
angels.
But it's not that simple.
(Koresh, sorry for the religious analogy).
bartcop:
He raised taxes on the super-rich, and Pigboy squealed like he was
caught in a tractor's nuts
MrConservative(moderator):
anymore on this topic or do we move on
bartcop:
I say we move on...
Give the cut man time to work on mg
mgardner:
I guess it's pretty clear where we stand.
How about the arsenic in the drinking water?
bartcop:
Sure, another Pigboy lie
mgardner:
You think Bush wanted to poison people?
What's the lie? Explain.
bartcop:
Clinton got that arsenic report in late 2000, so Rush spends all day
screaming
"He had 8 years to do that."
bartcop:
If you got a report saying we needed to lower the arsenic in water,
what would you do? Ignore it and laugh?
mgardner:
Ok, so why do you think Bush wanted to poison people?
I think you said as much on your site.
bartcop:
No, Bush sees "a few deaths" as acceptable, because when you're name
is Bush you have no worries at all
mgardner:
The EPA wrote the report. They regulate. That's their job.
They often don't take into account the cost of doing things.
mgardner:
But bc, but bc, even if they lowered it to 10ppb, a few would still
die.
bartcop:
There's a formula here: let me explain -
If a town can get 5,000 new jobs, and they have to dump a gallon of
oil
in the lake ever year to get those jobs, it's a good deal, right?
But if they have to dump 5,000 gallons of oil in the lake to get 30
jobs,
it's not worth it, right?
bartcop:
All we need is some honest math and we won't have this argument
mgardner:
As to your point, yes, these things must be weighed against each other.
bartcop:
True, I'm saying we need honest math,
mgardner:
I just don't think Bush is the boogeyman you've made him out to be
on this issue.
bartcop:
Granted, BC left a bomb for Smirk with that arsenic report, and Bush
fell for it big time
In 5 months, Smirk has become Mr Drill everywhere, Mr Arsenic and Mr
Weak & Stupid
If only we had a Democratic party in this country...
mgardner:
OK, so do you admit that Bush was *possibly* looking out for the nation's
interest,
not trying to poison people?
bartcop:
I feel a winding down happening - are we getting near the end?
mgardner:
Democrat, Republican, it all leads to more government.
MrConservative(moderator):
has this topic ran its course
bartcop:
yes, anything else?
mgardner:
So bc, you never answered my last question above.
MrConservative(moderator):
that pretty much runs the list of topics that mg suggested.
bartcop:
Wait, one more - Bush was looking out for America's best interests?
ha ha