| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#222
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... In article , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400, wrote: We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole. I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero, it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich people to make up the other $700B. You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending $100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share. So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of the military and jobless? Oops, he didn't think about that. |
|
#223
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400, wrote: We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole. I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero, it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich people to make up the other $700B. You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending $100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share. So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of the military and jobless? Oops, he didn't think about that. He did. He is more in the Westborough Baptist Church state of mind when it comes to our men and women in uniform. Remember, most of them vote republican anyway. -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
|
#224
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
BAR wrote:
In , says... In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400, wrote: We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole. I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero, it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich people to make up the other $700B. You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending $100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share. So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of the military and jobless? Oops, he didn't think about that. I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task society needs. We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop. |
|
#225
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400, wrote: We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole. I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero, it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich people to make up the other $700B. You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending $100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share. So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of the military and jobless? In all seriousness, harry could care less about them as most of them tend to vote republican anyway... Oohhh..the loogywannabe wants me to respond to him....oohhh. Ain't gonna happen, crap-for-brains. Because you don't have a decent answer, dip****. |
|
#226
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
|
#227
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:49:05 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:46:47 -0700, wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:13:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:19:45 -0700, wrote: Me not complaining? I've complained about it from the beginning. You're the one who seems to be saying that you've got yours and to hell with everyone else. Have mine? What I have is $3,000 deductible, basically no insurance at all. But, of course you don't need insurance and you never will, and neither will all the other people, apparently. The fact is that the current healthcare reform legislation IS better for the consumer. It's flawed and should be fixed, but it is better than what we had before. I really do not believe this will do anything to cut the cost of health care. Yes, I've heard you say that. You don't have any facts to support it, but I've heard you say it. My insurance cost went up to a level I was unwilling to pay. That is fact enough for me. So, you opted out. I pray you stay healthy or have deep pockets. I have the 3 grand if that is what you mean. It is simple math. I can pay the 3 grand in monthly premiums, sick or not or save my money and only pay if I get sick. The low deductible plans are a rip off these days. Like everyone else, if you don't have the money to pay, it costs more for everything. So you do have some insurance that kicks in after the $3K. Good idea. $3K is not far from my deductible. |
|
#228
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:17:19 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:58:01 -0400, Harryk wrote: BAR wrote: In , says... In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400, wrote: We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole. I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero, it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich people to make up the other $700B. You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending $100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share. So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of the military and jobless? Oops, he didn't think about that. I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task society needs. We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop. The soldiers are one issue but the biggest part of the military budget goes to the military industrial complex and the people in that business are smart enough to be sure they generate jobs in all 50 states so everyone in congress all has an ox to be gored if a contract is cut. That is why we are building planes the pentagon doesn't want like the extra C-17s. Therefore, we should shut down the gov't because of Planned Parenthood. I get it. |
|
#229
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:57:48 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:11:56 -0700, wrote: On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:17:19 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:58:01 -0400, Harryk wrote: BAR wrote: In , says... In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400, wrote: We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole. I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero, it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich people to make up the other $700B. You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending $100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share. So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of the military and jobless? Oops, he didn't think about that. I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task society needs. We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop. The soldiers are one issue but the biggest part of the military budget goes to the military industrial complex and the people in that business are smart enough to be sure they generate jobs in all 50 states so everyone in congress all has an ox to be gored if a contract is cut. That is why we are building planes the pentagon doesn't want like the extra C-17s. Therefore, we should shut down the gov't because of Planned Parenthood. I get it. Are we changing ther subject again? Trying to follow your logic is like riding a Mad Mouse. According to you, one is never supposed to talk about anything unless that's how the thread started. Why aren't you talking about Obama and slavery??? |
|
#230
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:28:14 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:19:20 -0700, wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:28:43 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:27:08 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400, wrote: We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole. I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero, it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich people to make up the other $700B. You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending $100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share. If you don't cut the deficit (the amount we spend vs what we take in) you do have to pay it off every year. We are not talking about the rolling debt, we are talking about how much more we spend every year more than we take in. No, you don't. Not in the short term. Only in the long term. It's an issue that needs an intelligent solution, not cut gov't to the bone and throw a bunch of people out of work. What do you think will happen when these cuts have to be made because our interest payments triple and we can't afford the entitlements? Again, you always take the worst situation. Who says they all have to happen at once? The right wing. There's no middle ground is there. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Senate apologize for the wrongs of slavery | General | |||
| Goldwater's Granddaughter Endorses...Obama! | General | |||
| Colin Powell Endorses... | General | |||
| Union endorses Republican... | General | |||
| Communist Party endorses Kerry | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
