On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:02:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:14:24 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:55:57 -0400, wrote:

The Bush tax cuts are about a quarter of the deficit (all of the
cuts, not just the $250k people).

gee. and that's exactly what i said. they are the LARGEST component.


Then you are wrong Bob. The tax cut on the $250k+ people is $700
billion over 10 years. The people less than $250k would pick up an
additional $3 trillion over 10 years. The whole nut was $3.7T over 10
years.

WHOA sports fans. the tax cuts included the middle class. the TOTAL
tax cuts amount to over 3.7 TRILLION and THAT is the largest component
of the deficit

AND 700 billion is nothing to sneeze at. the RICH CAUSED this problem
and got a bailout. it's time they paid for the damage they've caused.
why are THEY getting a free ride? why is the right so SOCIALIST??


That is over 10 years. The $1.5T deficit is per year.

If you repeal the whole tax cut (very unlikely) it is still only a
quarter of the deficit, leaving us with a 1.13 trillion problem.

i absolutely agree.

Personally I think we should have let the rich eat the turd they gave
us but everyone said that was going to cause a depression

amazingly enough you're one of the few folks who seems to realize
this. that realization is completely absent in the tea party folks

.. The only
thing that makes that comment suspect is it was former Goldman Sachs
people saying it (the same ones who still advise the White House).
If it was Lehman people dominating the government policy I bet Goldman
would have gone down and Lehman would have been bailed out.

paul krugman also says it. unfortunately i think the 'too big to fail'
mentality has us permanently on the hook to those guys

On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wf3h wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

afghanistan remains a real threat.


The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

yep. i think nation bulidng there is a recipe for losing money. it may
be a case of just keeping a special forces base there and occasionally
running a killing mission against the taliban.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 00:10:46 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:44:40 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:50:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:40:03 -0700, wrote:



And, we don't have to solve the "whole" nut in one action. Keep at it.
You seem to think in the very short term when it suits you.

You are not even willing to start fixing this. If we don't attack the
deficit in some meaningful way we will never get a handle on the debt.
If you repealed the whole Bush tax cut it is barely a decent start on
the deficit,

Now you're going to just lie? I clearly outlined a way to start.
Repeal tax breaks for those over $250K, ding corps that ship jobs
overseas, make them pay their fair share in taxes, end subsidies, and
spend not one additional cent on the military.

There, you just said it again. You don't think there is a cent we
could cut from the current military budget, you just want to keep it
the same?

I'm saying that it would be a good place to start. Are you unable to
understand that simple statement?

You are not giving us any specifics about exactly how you "ding" these
companies. It is an interesting concept but I have not heard plan that
really works.

That's a very complicated question, and nobody on this newsgroup is
qualified to answer it. Of course, that doesn't matter, since big
concepts seem to be beyond your ability to grasp.

We have already determined that tax cut on the $250k+ people is an
insignificant amount of money (1/2% increase in the interest debt will
eat that.)

You have already determined that. As I said, and as I will continue to
say, IT'S A GOOD START.

Let me say this again slowly. a half of a percent hike in the interest
we pay on the debt would eat all of repealing that Bush tax cut on the
250K+ people.

What does that have to do with anything... so what. Interest rates
change. How much would a 1/2% decrease in interest on the debt change
our financials? So what.

So your tax cut repeal is insignificant. A half percent is not only
possible it is very likely. That was what S&P report really said.
This is not an issue of whether the US will pay back the bonds, it is
what the dollar will be worth when they do.

As would be the opposite. It's a short term issue which has nothing to
do with the long term problem.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 00:16:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:47:07 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:52:58 -0400, wrote:


For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


So when Bush was in office HE spent the money but now when Obama is in
office it is congress spending the money.

It is stupid statements like this that show how mindlessly partisan
you are.

Screw you. Bush pushed us into a war we didn't need nor could afford.
He was the one who pushed tax cuts when none were needed.

Sounds to me you're the partisan, stupid one.

I have condemned Bush's wars every time it comes up.

The difference is you seem to applaud Obama's wars Two and counting
now.

Insults do not strengthen your case.

You're the one who started with the insults. You seem unable to have a
civil discussion, and when you realize your position is weak, you
claim things like I make "stupid statements" and that I'm a "mindless
partisan."

I have NEVER applauded any war, and you know DAMN WELL I haven't.
You're just angry and scared, apparently. You think Bush is a GODDAMN
hero deep down and you think EVERYTHING is OBAMA's fault or he has to
solve all the problems Bush made much, much worse.

Illogic and right wing nonsense is what has undermined this country.
You're contributing.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:34:44 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:44:35 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
m...

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:32:46 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

Reply:
The deficits are being driven up by overspending

the fact is the deficits are being driven up by bush's tax cuts. THEY
are the largest components of the deficit

your cliche is mindless babbling

REPLY:
Your racist cliché and Bush blame cliché is nothing but a cliché.

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



We as a
country are spending $1.60 for every tax dollar collected. How much did
Bush cut the tax collection? Double the amount of Personal Income Tax
collected and we could still not balance the budget. Explain why it is
all
Bush's fault. No ****ing cliché. A reasoned response. If another
cliché,
forget about ever being considered as have a brain and not just a waste
of
oxygen.

it's bush's fault because

1. he cut taxes especially on the rich

2. he increased spending by an unfunded drug program added to medicare

3. he increased spending by spending a trillion in iraq

4. he deregulated the markets so that wall street blew up the economy

and yet the right still blames

the black guy


Reply:
You are still stupid. Obama has been President long enough to have
started
his reelection quest. Why did he not cut spending? Not increase it. Why
did he make Wall Street to big to fail house bigger? Why has he accepted
all the debt from those financial houses now paying Billions of bucks in
bonus money so they could pay those bonus bucks? Why has he not
implemented
a tax of 110% on all bonus money over say 1 million bucks? You are so
shallow. It is always some racist or Right Winger that is the problem.
You
are a racist in you are like Jessie Jackson. Blame all on race. You must
be one crappy engineer, or at least have no creative ability, as you have
no
real though processes.

For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


So when Bush was in office HE spent the money but now when Obama is in
office it is congress spending the money.

It is stupid statements like this that show how mindlessly partisan
you are.


Reply:
Can we hear an AMEN. Obama could start vetoing spending bills. He can not
instigate spending, Bush seems to have been able to, but Obama could veto
spending. Also he could get his party affiliations in Congress to institute
more controls on the TOOBIGTOFAIL. And implore Congress to reinstitute
Glass-Steagall or the equivalent.

Can we hear an AMEN for two morons arguing over stupidity.

Bush could have no promoted a war of choice, but that was ok with you.
Bush could have acted in the best interest of the people vs. the
corps, but that's not ok with you.

You're one of at least a pair or scumbag assholes, who blame all your
troubles on a black man. Look in the mirror. YOU and yours got us into
this mess, not the you are in any way financially like the CEOs and
Wall Street creeps. You're just ignorant and scared.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wf3h wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

According to your nonsense, we should just pack our bags and leave
Germany and all other places tomorrow. A bunch of hooey.

You just can't accept the fact that Obama is doing what he can to
extricate us from Iraq. You can't accept the fact that Obama had to do
something in Afg.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 09:01:14 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In articleR7KdnRQPSsSweSHQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...
"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
...

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?


For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.

yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??


VETO the ****er!!! Then Congress has to show how bad they are to override
the veto. Bush signed almost all the spending bills he received and those
he should have vetoed he signed with some statement of memorandum. He was
almost as F'ed up as Obama. I am giving the most F'ed award to Obama, as he
came in saying he was going to fix the problems. Got us in to another
couple wars, did not get us out of wars he said he would, and has been a
cheerleader for overspending.

The racists here only support him because he is black... Anyone with a
brain can see that...


You sure play fast and loose with your misinterpretation of terms,
little pile of dog ****.

Please don't denigrate piles of **** like that!

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:31:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:01:36 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wf3h wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

According to your nonsense, we should just pack our bags and leave
Germany and all other places tomorrow. A bunch of hooey.

Yes I do think we should pull the troops out of Germany. What is our
national interest there?
We are not saving the world from the Soviets and I doubt the Nazis are
coming back.
I can say the same thing about Japan.

You just can't accept the fact that Obama is doing what he can to
extricate us from Iraq. You can't accept the fact that Obama had to do
something in Afg.

We did what we were supposed to do in Afghanistan and like I have been
saying all along, it was one small special Ops team running a small
operation in Pakistan, not an army of 150,000 men in Afghanistan.

Amen.

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:24:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 14:51:19 -0700, wrote:

So your tax cut repeal is insignificant. A half percent is not only
possible it is very likely. That was what S&P report really said.
This is not an issue of whether the US will pay back the bonds, it is
what the dollar will be worth when they do.

As would be the opposite. It's a short term issue which has nothing to
do with the long term problem.

The fed money rolls over as often as every 30 days. That could easily
be an immediate problem. If the foreign money people start believing
the dollar is dropping in value they will want an interest hike that
keeps them whole. This is an auction.

It never has been. Perhaps China wants to eliminate it's customer
base? I doubt it.

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:21:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 13:08:51 -0400, wf3h wrote:

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

yep. i think nation bulidng there is a recipe for losing money. it may
be a case of just keeping a special forces base there and occasionally
running a killing mission against the taliban.

That was the flawed policy we had in Vietnam and it really never
accomplished much of anything.
It is like stepping on ants. It may make you feel like you are doing
something but it does not do much to cut down on the ant population.

Now that OBL is dead I am not sure how we justify staying there. Are
we going to admit OBL was not really that important to our mission?

Now that OBL is dead, the rest of the organization is in even more
chaos. This isn't the time to cut and run.