Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Any Family with an income below $22,000 NEEDS HELP!


Piss off, Col. Although my income now exceeds that, it hasn't always. And I truly resent people like you telling me what I "need"!

I am not telling YOU anything. I know with a family income at that level almost ALL people need help.

YOU PISS OFF you selfish idiot!

That's pure BS gene, and you know it.  I lived off less than that by myself before WITHOUT  any government assistance. 

Again, you ignore the fact that there is more in the treasury now than when Clinton was in office. Why do you claim that Clinton could balance the budget, but now that the treasury is up to $700 Billion it just can't be done?

Either Clinton DIDN'T actually balance the budget, or it CAN be done now. Either way, your contradictions expose your ignorance.

$900/month? I raised 4 kids, lived in apartments the whole time and never spent more than $600/month... even in Pacific Grove, California. You do think like an officer, don't you.

I wrote about this before:

http://draginol.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=139446&s=1

the site isn't up anymore but it wasn't difficult to eliminate the deficit by making cuts in federal education spending, medicaid, and other federal programs for "the poor".

Those are definitely not mandatory programs.

Reply By: CharlesCS1 Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
OK, I've had just about enough of your BS Col gene. You better be prepared to own up to your own words when I start throwing them in your face you hypocrite.


I have no idea nor do I support any new programs that we can not pay for and until we pay for what we are doing.


You lying Son of a (beep). Let me line up all your articles that disprove this BS reply of yours: YOU are the lying SOB

Congress Responds to S-CHIP Concerns. That was funded by an increase in the cigarette tax.

NOW Bush Threatens to VETO the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill would have lowered the subsidy by cutting off subsidies for people making over $500,000

Bush Threatens Veto of Border Protection. This is an area where we must spend more for our security and is the reason I favor increasing the tax rates on the wealthy.

Bush Veto of Supplemental would Deny Troop Funding. I said Bush threatened to veto a bill giving our troops an added 1% pay increase. Bush can allow private contractors in Iraq who are paid 4-6 TIMES what we pay our military to perform the same function but Bush would veto an added 1% of our military!


Time to Approve Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research. That is a health issue and yes I believe that is more important then giving tax Cuts to the wealthy and the Big Oil companies!

Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Idiot!

By your "logic" if you have a mortgage you can't possibly have money in the bank.

YOU COULD but the U.S. does not! In fact the Comptroller General has been showing just how many Trillions of dollars we have committed without the money to pay for those commitments. We are like a person who pays cash for about 80% of what they buy and put the other 20% on their credit card. How long do you think YOU could do that?

The welfare reform has helped insure that help goes to those the both need it and are not abusing the system. However the real issue is this:

In fact the Comptroller General has been showing just how many Trillions of dollars we have committed without the money to pay for those commitments. We are like a person who pays cash for about 80% of what they buy and put the other 20% on their credit card.

There are areas where we can cut and eliminate spending that is not needed. However, the amount of money needed will not come only from cutting pork and some programs that we can do without. To solve the problem we will need to BOTH cut spending and increase tax revenue. Anyone that claims otherwise has not taken an honest look at the budget nor just how much of a difference there is between the tax revenue and the spending even after the cuts that can be made.

as long as every program has an auto raise in funds every year. there will never be a balanced budget. even if taxes were 100%. so to solve the problem we need to freeze everything where they are now including taxes.

Col Gene,

Politics aside, the fact remains that the U.S Government (notice how I'm not pointing fingers at a particular individual?) lowered taxes by a MASSIVE amount and then invaded two countries, both of which required literally shipping pallets of cash overseas. Even if the U.S were to decide to leave Iraq tomorrow by the time all was said and done with getting the troops and materiel home, total cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation would come to around a trillion dollars by most estimates. If the U.S stays there longer it will easily pass the trillion dollar mark.

This isn't even taking into consideration the massive additional spending on

A) Defense contractors at home, who are producing the tanks, aircraft and support systems (cause you know that all those F-35's are needed to fight the box-cutter weilding terrorists, it has nothing to do with preparing for a future title fight with China)

"Homeland security" contracts, which means many, many, private security companies getting loads of your tax money from the U.S Gov to help "secure the homeland" with domestic surveillance of your own citizens

So in quick summary-

Lower the taxes significantly, reducing the amount of money the gov. gets, then go to war which will massively increase necessary expenditures, making sure to contract out as much as possible to private companies on cost-plus arrangements (quite often on no-bid contracts) further increasing the amount of public money that goes into private hands.

How does this all get paid for?

By countries like China, Japan and the U.K buying your debt. That's right, this entire war the U.S has been fighting is going on the biggest VISA bill in history and foreign nations are the credit card company. Thing is, they're only footing the bill because they've been buying such large amounts of U.S securities, largely because oil is traded around the world with U.S dollars. But as of late these countries have all been quietly dumping their stocks of U.S currency, in august China dumped more than 160 billion U.S for other currencies. This is part of the reason why the dollar is dropping at a precipitous rate and will soon be DOA with the feds' latest quarter point interest rate cut to speed along it's death. Now all these other countries won't dump their U.S dollars all in one go because that would be too big of a shock to the global economy, but mark my words they are doing it, just more gradually. What this means is that you are gradually going to see your dollar drop and drop- kind of like watching a slow motion train wreck. By the time the shite really hits the fan though, the present administration will be out of office and can say "hey, things were fine on our watch!"

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2007
. Anyone that claims otherwise has not taken an honest look at the budget nor is just how much of a difference there between the tax revenue and the spending even after the cuts that can be made.


“Yes we have. You are obsessed with taxing that you ignore everything else.

Just like the rest of your "facts"....debunked again.”

YOU ARE SO FULL OF BS IT COME OUT OF YOUR EARS., Everything I have posted can be verified by looking at the budget and going to the treasury web site. In addition what I have said is just what the Comptroller General has been saying. You and the other Bushies do not want to look at the truth concerning the fiscal mess we are in and neither do most of the democrats. Everyone wants to either ignore the problem or make believe it can be fixed with no pain. That is not correct. It will take the pain of some cuts in spending and the pain of increased taxes. I have not only researched the federal budget but have spent my working career dealing with the issues of fiscal management. I have challenged all on this web site to show where and by how much you will cut the budget with the reality that mandatory spending can not be cut and within the discretionary spending maintaining the essential functions for both security and the operation of the government which is essential for our society to function. It is too easy to just say lets Cut the budget and fix the problem. That WILL NOT solve even the majority of the problem !!!!!!!

“This just goes to show your stupidity; you decry that we spend to much and your solution is to add more to the debt and balance it by raising taxes.”

You are the stupid one. If you current income is not enough to pay all your bills and you have cut everything you can cut you likewise seek a higher paying job, try and work OT or get a second job to provide the money to meet you bills. The Tax increase to the wealthy is like the second job or getting a better paying job. If you decide you need or want to buy something additional and do not have the money or the credit, you either seek a job that pays more, get a second job or see if overtime is available to INCREASE you income to make the new purchase you want to make. I understand the wealthy are greedy and want to keep all their money even though they have everything and more then they need. However for the welfare of the country and our long term financial health, it is time to reverse the tax cuts to the wealthy which are not paying for themselves. That has been proven by the Comptroller General. He has shown that for every dollar of tax cuts we are only recovering fifty cents in new tax revenue form the economic growth.

Hey, I resemble that remark