On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:40:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:21:36 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

agreed. we need spending cuts, in defense and medicare, AND tax
increases. unfortunately.


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

exactly. it's another form of welfare


I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

yep. the defense budget is a form of foreign aid. most folks dont
realize this, but much of our defense budget is used to defend other
countries.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:54 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

yeah that's pretty much the case with the rich. they're paying the
lowest tax burden in 50 years.

On 22/02/2011 9:14 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:22:08 -0700,
wrote:

On 22/02/2011 5:37 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:18:33 -0700,
wrote:


which, i suppose, is why the GOP cut the capital gains tax on the rich

and threw the economy into recession

For what difference it will make? Come now. You would have a better
chance saving the Titanic with bubble gum.

Government has to slash at least 50% of its gross spending at a minimum,
and that may not be enough.

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit

Would not even come close. You could litterally double EVERYONE'S
income tax and DC would still run a deficit. In the end, one way or
another expect massive Greece/Ireland/Iceland types cuts. They are coming.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates combined after taxes total wealth wouldn't
keep Obama running the government for just 5 weeks.

Debt is so bad in DC, bankruptcy is now inevitable. Yep, liberalism in
debt and currency mismanagement screwed the cat dead.

Think, Obama now debt spends more dollars than America uses in sheets of
toilet paper. Quite literally.

Obama and the Democrats bankrupted the USA.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 22/02/2011 11:24 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

Forgetting inflation and interest rates which only make it worse. $3.7
trillion over 10 years is 370 billion per year. Obama be well over
$1600 billion on the over spend, so that is about 23% if you believe
Obama big mouthed liar. In fact, Obama now overspends more than all the
income taxes collected. That is, doubling the income tax for everyone,
and Obama still can't balance the budget.

The only half way sane thing is to massively cut federal spending and
reduce the size of the fed by over 50% AND increase taxes, or
alternatively cut fed spending by 60%.

Not going to happen, we will see a hyper-inflationary devaluation of the
USD, oil, gold, silver, copper, iron, wheat, barley, flour, you name it
will go up in double digit inflation.

That is until Americans riot along with other countries.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 23/02/2011 4:21 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

agreed. we need spending cuts, in defense and medicare, AND tax
increases. unfortunately.

wall street's done us no favors regardless of what the right thinks

You don't pay taxes do you?

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:09:09 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:05 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:17:01 -0500, wrote:



Everything? Really? Typically, when someone says everything, always,
and similar, that's a clue that the argument is full of holes.

It has ben your answer to everything in this thread.

That's not accurate either.

What have you admitted was a problem?

?? Not sure what you're asking? Do we have a long-term financial
problem? Sure. Are there some things we can do in the short-term that
will help? Sure. Is the sky falling? Nope.




Don't be shocked when that happens. It will come in the guise of the
Canadian waiting list.
Medicare does spend most of it's money on people in their last 6
months of life and the estimate is it really only buys a month or so.

Well, perhaps if the Republicans stopped their nonsense about the
false death panels, people would have a greater ability to consult
with their doctor and thus prevent some of the unnecessary care, but
when you have politicians playing on fear, e.g., pull the plug on
grandma, then you certainly are not helping the situation.

There is a lot of money in keeping corpses alive with a very low risk.

So, you're saying the doctors were lobbying for removing their ability
to be paid to consult with people about their end care?

If you lose one due to a doctor screw up, the chances of getting
caught are pretty slim. Most people who die in a nursing home do not
even have an autopsy. They simply accept the attending physicians
cause of death
A popular one is COPD which means "Cant Offer a Precise Diagnosis".


No idea what this has to do with the false notion put forth by Palin
and others.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:40:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:21:36 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

agreed. we need spending cuts, in defense and medicare, AND tax
increases. unfortunately.


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:54 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

You keep saying that as though it has some great weight in your
argument. There's a significant portion of the population that doesn't
pay income tax because they ARE POOR.

I'm happy to have the tax laws reformed, just don't go blaming poor
people for this country's problems. It's mostly about greed at the
top.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:50:53 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:30:28 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:54 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

yeah that's pretty much the case with the rich. they're paying the
lowest tax burden in 50 years.

The top 5% still pay 57% of the taxes but I would have them pay more
if they would. The problem is they also do most of the contributing to
candidates so they talk louder. If they raised the top rate, it would
be offset by more write offs rich people can take. We have a lot of
social engineering in the tax code.

So, you don't believe the tax code can be straightened out? You seem
to love absolutes.... well, if we do this, then they'll just get
around it... as though nobody else thinks this stuff through.

On 2/24/2011 2:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:09:09 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:05 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:17:01 -0500, wrote:

Everything? Really? Typically, when someone says everything, always,
and similar, that's a clue that the argument is full of holes.
It has ben your answer to everything in this thread.
That's not accurate either.
What have you admitted was a problem?
?? Not sure what you're asking? Do we have a long-term financial
problem? Sure. Are there some things we can do in the short-term that
will help? Sure. Is the sky falling? Nope.



Don't be shocked when that happens. It will come in the guise of the
Canadian waiting list.
Medicare does spend most of it's money on people in their last 6
months of life and the estimate is it really only buys a month or so.
Well, perhaps if the Republicans stopped their nonsense about the
false death panels, people would have a greater ability to consult
with their doctor and thus prevent some of the unnecessary care, but
when you have politicians playing on fear, e.g., pull the plug on
grandma, then you certainly are not helping the situation.
There is a lot of money in keeping corpses alive with a very low risk.
So, you're saying the doctors were lobbying for removing their ability
to be paid to consult with people about their end care?

If you lose one due to a doctor screw up, the chances of getting
caught are pretty slim. Most people who die in a nursing home do not
even have an autopsy. They simply accept the attending physicians
cause of death
A popular one is COPD which means "Cant Offer a Precise Diagnosis".

No idea what this has to do with the false notion put forth by Palin
and others.

Gas is $3.299 today. Up 15c from yesterday. What are the rest of you
folks paying?