Real humans modify the monkey's tax cuts
 

Fortunately, there are some thinking Republicans to temper the moron
president's pie-in-the-sky promises. :-)


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/po...rtner=homepage


March 10, 2005
G.O.P. Senators Balk at Tax Cuts in Bush's Budget
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

ASHINGTON, March 9 - President Bush's plan to extend his tax cuts over the
next five years ran into resistance in the Senate on Wednesday as Republican
leaders offered a budget for 2006 that would undo more than a fourth of the
cuts that Mr. Bush has requested.

Uneasy about the potential impact on the ballooning federal deficit, the
Senate Republicans called for $70.2 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years, as opposed to the estimated $100 billion the White House is seeking.
It does not specify which cuts will be extended or which taxes might be
restored, but Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is
chairman of the Budget Committee, said his intent was to extend reductions
on capital gains and dividend taxes, which are set to expire in 2008.

"I think we can get most of the expiring provisions, which I happen to
consider to be fairly benign provisions with a lot of support, under the $70
billion umbrella," Mr. Gregg told reporters after introducing the $2.6
trillion proposal, which lays out a blueprint for spending through 2010. He
added, "I think it's an appropriate approach."

The Senate's proposal to scale back the extension of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
comes at a time when Republicans are also feeling queasy about the White
House's major domestic policy initiative for the year, overhauling Social
Security. And the budget was not enough to mollify some Senate Republican
moderates, who expressed concern Wednesday about extending the tax cuts at a
time when the deficit is at a record high and domestic programs from farm
subsidies to veterans' benefits and education are facing steep cuts.

Like the White House budget, both the Senate budget, introduced on
Wednesday, and the $2.55 trillion House version, which Republicans pushed
through the Budget Committee on Wednesday, promise to cut the deficit in
half in five years, though Democrats dismiss that promise, saying extending
the tax cuts would increase the deficit over current projections. Both the
House and Senate would reduce spending on so-called entitlement programs,
including Medicaid, the insurance plan for the poor, marking the first time
since 1997 that Congress has sought to curb the growth of entitlements.

When asked if she would support extending the tax cuts, Senator Olympia J.
Snowe, the Maine Republican who is an influential member of the Finance
Committee, said, "Suffice it to say, I do have serious concerns with the
fundamental priorities that are being constructed in the budget." She added,
"It's exacting a high price from some of the programs that are critically
important to the future."

Senator Lincoln Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who has warned about the
federal deficit, said, "I've been consistently opposed to tax cuts when at
the same time we're not controlling our spending, and I don't think this
year will be any different."

The fight over taxes and spending, which will occupy Congress at least
through next week, will be a crucial test of President Bush's strength on
Capitol Hill. Though the budget resolution is nonbinding, it serves as an
important blueprint for federal tax and spending policy. Yet Congress has
failed to adopt a budget for two of the last three years; at a time when Mr.
Bush is emphasizing fiscal responsibility, failure to do so this year would
be an embarrassment for both the White House and the Republican leadership.

But as details of the budget plans emerged on Wednesday, it became clear
that meeting Mr. Bush's spending goals could prove a difficult task, not
only because of the tax issue but because many lawmakers are pressing to
restore Mr. Bush's proposed cuts in domestic programs. Among them is Senator
Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, who has gathered signatures of 57
senators to fight for urban renewal grants, which Mr. Bush proposes to cut.

"I think in the end we'll get there - I hope we'll get there," Mr. Coleman
said when asked if it would be possible to pass a budget this year. But, he
added, "At this point, there's a lot that's open to discussion."

The big fight will occur in the Senate, where the Republicans have 55 votes,
four more than are needed to pass the budget. Their plan also contains
language intended to open a wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil drilling - a
budget maneuver that would enable President Bush's long-stalled drilling
plan to pass the Senate by a simple majority, avoiding the threat of
filibusters that have killed it in the past. That provision is drawing
complaints from Democrats as well as some Republicans.

"I'm not particularly happy about ANWR being shoved back in there," said
Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, using the acronym (pronounced
AN-war) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. DeWine said he was also
"concerned about Medicaid, and what impact it's going to have on the
states."

Democrats in both the House and the Senate derided the Republicans' budget
as unsustainable and fiscally reckless. They said the proposals would starve
federal programs that benefit the needy while failing to cut the federal
deficit enough.

"The budget situation of the United States is becoming surreal," said
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Budget
Committee, complaining about "red ink as far as the eye can see."

The House budget tracks the president's plan fairly closely in tax cuts and
overall spending. Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and chairman
of the Budget Committee, introduced a draft budget bill that increases
overall spending to $2.55 trillion in 2006; Mr. Bush's budget calls for
$2.57 trillion. Mr. Nussle's panel approved the budget last night by a
party-line vote of 22 to 15.

The House budget calls for $106 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Mr. Bush's proposed tax
cuts would total $100 billion. The budget also instructs other House
committees to pare $68.6 billion from entitlement programs, in which
spending is determined by eligibility, over the next five years. According
to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Bush's budget proposed
only $51 billion, or about $18 billion less, in cuts to those programs. The
Senate budget, by contrast, instructs committees to cut $32 billion in
mandatory spending, including $14 billion from Medicaid.

"I think he would be pretty happy with where we are in the House," Mr.
Nussle said, referring to the president. Compared with the Senate, he said,
"We have quite a lot more savings and reform that we are requesting."

While pressure in the Senate is coming from Republican moderates, in the
House the pressure is from conservatives, who criticized Mr. Nussle's
proposal for not going far enough in reducing spending and cutting taxes.

"We would like it to go further," said Representative Paul D. Ryan,
Republican of Wisconsin and a member of the Budget Committee.

He said conservatives planned to push for spending cuts in Medicare, despite
President Bush's threat to veto any changes to the costly prescription drug
benefit passed by Congress in 2003. "We know that is an area where you can
find savings without undoing the spirit of the law," Mr. Ryan said.

THIS HAS TO REC.BOATS HOW?????
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Fortunately, there are some thinking Republicans to temper the moron
president's pie-in-the-sky promises. :-)


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/po...rtner=homepage


March 10, 2005
G.O.P. Senators Balk at Tax Cuts in Bush's Budget
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

ASHINGTON, March 9 - President Bush's plan to extend his tax cuts over the
next five years ran into resistance in the Senate on Wednesday as
Republican leaders offered a budget for 2006 that would undo more than a
fourth of the cuts that Mr. Bush has requested.

Uneasy about the potential impact on the ballooning federal deficit, the
Senate Republicans called for $70.2 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years, as opposed to the estimated $100 billion the White House is
seeking. It does not specify which cuts will be extended or which taxes
might be restored, but Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican
who is chairman of the Budget Committee, said his intent was to extend
reductions on capital gains and dividend taxes, which are set to expire in
2008.

"I think we can get most of the expiring provisions, which I happen to
consider to be fairly benign provisions with a lot of support, under the
$70 billion umbrella," Mr. Gregg told reporters after introducing the $2.6
trillion proposal, which lays out a blueprint for spending through 2010.
He added, "I think it's an appropriate approach."

The Senate's proposal to scale back the extension of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
comes at a time when Republicans are also feeling queasy about the White
House's major domestic policy initiative for the year, overhauling Social
Security. And the budget was not enough to mollify some Senate Republican
moderates, who expressed concern Wednesday about extending the tax cuts at
a time when the deficit is at a record high and domestic programs from
farm subsidies to veterans' benefits and education are facing steep cuts.

Like the White House budget, both the Senate budget, introduced on
Wednesday, and the $2.55 trillion House version, which Republicans pushed
through the Budget Committee on Wednesday, promise to cut the deficit in
half in five years, though Democrats dismiss that promise, saying
extending the tax cuts would increase the deficit over current
projections. Both the House and Senate would reduce spending on so-called
entitlement programs, including Medicaid, the insurance plan for the poor,
marking the first time since 1997 that Congress has sought to curb the
growth of entitlements.

When asked if she would support extending the tax cuts, Senator Olympia J.
Snowe, the Maine Republican who is an influential member of the Finance
Committee, said, "Suffice it to say, I do have serious concerns with the
fundamental priorities that are being constructed in the budget." She
added, "It's exacting a high price from some of the programs that are
critically important to the future."

Senator Lincoln Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who has warned about
the federal deficit, said, "I've been consistently opposed to tax cuts
when at the same time we're not controlling our spending, and I don't
think this year will be any different."

The fight over taxes and spending, which will occupy Congress at least
through next week, will be a crucial test of President Bush's strength on
Capitol Hill. Though the budget resolution is nonbinding, it serves as an
important blueprint for federal tax and spending policy. Yet Congress has
failed to adopt a budget for two of the last three years; at a time when
Mr. Bush is emphasizing fiscal responsibility, failure to do so this year
would be an embarrassment for both the White House and the Republican
leadership.

But as details of the budget plans emerged on Wednesday, it became clear
that meeting Mr. Bush's spending goals could prove a difficult task, not
only because of the tax issue but because many lawmakers are pressing to
restore Mr. Bush's proposed cuts in domestic programs. Among them is
Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, who has gathered signatures
of 57 senators to fight for urban renewal grants, which Mr. Bush proposes
to cut.

"I think in the end we'll get there - I hope we'll get there," Mr. Coleman
said when asked if it would be possible to pass a budget this year. But,
he added, "At this point, there's a lot that's open to discussion."

The big fight will occur in the Senate, where the Republicans have 55
votes, four more than are needed to pass the budget. Their plan also
contains language intended to open a wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil
drilling - a budget maneuver that would enable President Bush's
long-stalled drilling plan to pass the Senate by a simple majority,
avoiding the threat of filibusters that have killed it in the past. That
provision is drawing complaints from Democrats as well as some
Republicans.

"I'm not particularly happy about ANWR being shoved back in there," said
Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, using the acronym (pronounced
AN-war) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. DeWine said he was
also "concerned about Medicaid, and what impact it's going to have on the
states."

Democrats in both the House and the Senate derided the Republicans' budget
as unsustainable and fiscally reckless. They said the proposals would
starve federal programs that benefit the needy while failing to cut the
federal deficit enough.

"The budget situation of the United States is becoming surreal," said
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Budget
Committee, complaining about "red ink as far as the eye can see."

The House budget tracks the president's plan fairly closely in tax cuts
and overall spending. Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and
chairman of the Budget Committee, introduced a draft budget bill that
increases overall spending to $2.55 trillion in 2006; Mr. Bush's budget
calls for $2.57 trillion. Mr. Nussle's panel approved the budget last
night by a party-line vote of 22 to 15.

The House budget calls for $106 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Mr. Bush's proposed tax
cuts would total $100 billion. The budget also instructs other House
committees to pare $68.6 billion from entitlement programs, in which
spending is determined by eligibility, over the next five years. According
to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Bush's budget
proposed only $51 billion, or about $18 billion less, in cuts to those
programs. The Senate budget, by contrast, instructs committees to cut $32
billion in mandatory spending, including $14 billion from Medicaid.

"I think he would be pretty happy with where we are in the House," Mr.
Nussle said, referring to the president. Compared with the Senate, he
said, "We have quite a lot more savings and reform that we are
requesting."

While pressure in the Senate is coming from Republican moderates, in the
House the pressure is from conservatives, who criticized Mr. Nussle's
proposal for not going far enough in reducing spending and cutting taxes.

"We would like it to go further," said Representative Paul D. Ryan,
Republican of Wisconsin and a member of the Budget Committee.

He said conservatives planned to push for spending cuts in Medicare,
despite President Bush's threat to veto any changes to the costly
prescription drug benefit passed by Congress in 2003. "We know that is an
area where you can find savings without undoing the spirit of the law,"
Mr. Ryan said.

A $70 billion tax cut is better than the tax increase that would have come
under a Democratically-controlled Congress.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Fortunately, there are some thinking Republicans to temper the moron
president's pie-in-the-sky promises. :-)


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/po...rtner=homepage


March 10, 2005
G.O.P. Senators Balk at Tax Cuts in Bush's Budget
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

ASHINGTON, March 9 - President Bush's plan to extend his tax cuts over the
next five years ran into resistance in the Senate on Wednesday as
Republican leaders offered a budget for 2006 that would undo more than a
fourth of the cuts that Mr. Bush has requested.

Uneasy about the potential impact on the ballooning federal deficit, the
Senate Republicans called for $70.2 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years, as opposed to the estimated $100 billion the White House is
seeking. It does not specify which cuts will be extended or which taxes
might be restored, but Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican
who is chairman of the Budget Committee, said his intent was to extend
reductions on capital gains and dividend taxes, which are set to expire in
2008.

"I think we can get most of the expiring provisions, which I happen to
consider to be fairly benign provisions with a lot of support, under the
$70 billion umbrella," Mr. Gregg told reporters after introducing the $2.6
trillion proposal, which lays out a blueprint for spending through 2010.
He added, "I think it's an appropriate approach."

The Senate's proposal to scale back the extension of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
comes at a time when Republicans are also feeling queasy about the White
House's major domestic policy initiative for the year, overhauling Social
Security. And the budget was not enough to mollify some Senate Republican
moderates, who expressed concern Wednesday about extending the tax cuts at
a time when the deficit is at a record high and domestic programs from
farm subsidies to veterans' benefits and education are facing steep cuts.

Like the White House budget, both the Senate budget, introduced on
Wednesday, and the $2.55 trillion House version, which Republicans pushed
through the Budget Committee on Wednesday, promise to cut the deficit in
half in five years, though Democrats dismiss that promise, saying
extending the tax cuts would increase the deficit over current
projections. Both the House and Senate would reduce spending on so-called
entitlement programs, including Medicaid, the insurance plan for the poor,
marking the first time since 1997 that Congress has sought to curb the
growth of entitlements.

When asked if she would support extending the tax cuts, Senator Olympia J.
Snowe, the Maine Republican who is an influential member of the Finance
Committee, said, "Suffice it to say, I do have serious concerns with the
fundamental priorities that are being constructed in the budget." She
added, "It's exacting a high price from some of the programs that are
critically important to the future."

Senator Lincoln Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who has warned about
the federal deficit, said, "I've been consistently opposed to tax cuts
when at the same time we're not controlling our spending, and I don't
think this year will be any different."

The fight over taxes and spending, which will occupy Congress at least
through next week, will be a crucial test of President Bush's strength on
Capitol Hill. Though the budget resolution is nonbinding, it serves as an
important blueprint for federal tax and spending policy. Yet Congress has
failed to adopt a budget for two of the last three years; at a time when
Mr. Bush is emphasizing fiscal responsibility, failure to do so this year
would be an embarrassment for both the White House and the Republican
leadership.

But as details of the budget plans emerged on Wednesday, it became clear
that meeting Mr. Bush's spending goals could prove a difficult task, not
only because of the tax issue but because many lawmakers are pressing to
restore Mr. Bush's proposed cuts in domestic programs. Among them is
Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, who has gathered signatures
of 57 senators to fight for urban renewal grants, which Mr. Bush proposes
to cut.

"I think in the end we'll get there - I hope we'll get there," Mr. Coleman
said when asked if it would be possible to pass a budget this year. But,
he added, "At this point, there's a lot that's open to discussion."

The big fight will occur in the Senate, where the Republicans have 55
votes, four more than are needed to pass the budget. Their plan also
contains language intended to open a wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil
drilling - a budget maneuver that would enable President Bush's
long-stalled drilling plan to pass the Senate by a simple majority,
avoiding the threat of filibusters that have killed it in the past. That
provision is drawing complaints from Democrats as well as some
Republicans.

"I'm not particularly happy about ANWR being shoved back in there," said
Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, using the acronym (pronounced
AN-war) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. DeWine said he was
also "concerned about Medicaid, and what impact it's going to have on the
states."

Democrats in both the House and the Senate derided the Republicans' budget
as unsustainable and fiscally reckless. They said the proposals would
starve federal programs that benefit the needy while failing to cut the
federal deficit enough.

"The budget situation of the United States is becoming surreal," said
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Budget
Committee, complaining about "red ink as far as the eye can see."

The House budget tracks the president's plan fairly closely in tax cuts
and overall spending. Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and
chairman of the Budget Committee, introduced a draft budget bill that
increases overall spending to $2.55 trillion in 2006; Mr. Bush's budget
calls for $2.57 trillion. Mr. Nussle's panel approved the budget last
night by a party-line vote of 22 to 15.

The House budget calls for $106 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Mr. Bush's proposed tax
cuts would total $100 billion. The budget also instructs other House
committees to pare $68.6 billion from entitlement programs, in which
spending is determined by eligibility, over the next five years. According
to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Bush's budget
proposed only $51 billion, or about $18 billion less, in cuts to those
programs. The Senate budget, by contrast, instructs committees to cut $32
billion in mandatory spending, including $14 billion from Medicaid.

"I think he would be pretty happy with where we are in the House," Mr.
Nussle said, referring to the president. Compared with the Senate, he
said, "We have quite a lot more savings and reform that we are
requesting."

While pressure in the Senate is coming from Republican moderates, in the
House the pressure is from conservatives, who criticized Mr. Nussle's
proposal for not going far enough in reducing spending and cutting taxes.

"We would like it to go further," said Representative Paul D. Ryan,
Republican of Wisconsin and a member of the Budget Committee.

He said conservatives planned to push for spending cuts in Medicare,
despite President Bush's threat to veto any changes to the costly
prescription drug benefit passed by Congress in 2003. "We know that is an
area where you can find savings without undoing the spirit of the law,"
Mr. Ryan said.

Agreed, and it would be nice if I could just toss out my credit card
bills too, but there comes a day of reckoning

NOYB wrote:
A $70 billion tax cut is better than the tax increase that would have come
under a Democratically-controlled Congress.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

Fortunately, there are some thinking Republicans to temper the moron
president's pie-in-the-sky promises. :-)


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/po...rtner=homepage


March 10, 2005
G.O.P. Senators Balk at Tax Cuts in Bush's Budget
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

ASHINGTON, March 9 - President Bush's plan to extend his tax cuts over the
next five years ran into resistance in the Senate on Wednesday as
Republican leaders offered a budget for 2006 that would undo more than a
fourth of the cuts that Mr. Bush has requested.

Uneasy about the potential impact on the ballooning federal deficit, the
Senate Republicans called for $70.2 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years, as opposed to the estimated $100 billion the White House is
seeking. It does not specify which cuts will be extended or which taxes
might be restored, but Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican
who is chairman of the Budget Committee, said his intent was to extend
reductions on capital gains and dividend taxes, which are set to expire in
2008.

"I think we can get most of the expiring provisions, which I happen to
consider to be fairly benign provisions with a lot of support, under the
$70 billion umbrella," Mr. Gregg told reporters after introducing the $2.6
trillion proposal, which lays out a blueprint for spending through 2010.
He added, "I think it's an appropriate approach."

The Senate's proposal to scale back the extension of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
comes at a time when Republicans are also feeling queasy about the White
House's major domestic policy initiative for the year, overhauling Social
Security. And the budget was not enough to mollify some Senate Republican
moderates, who expressed concern Wednesday about extending the tax cuts at
a time when the deficit is at a record high and domestic programs from
farm subsidies to veterans' benefits and education are facing steep cuts.

Like the White House budget, both the Senate budget, introduced on
Wednesday, and the $2.55 trillion House version, which Republicans pushed
through the Budget Committee on Wednesday, promise to cut the deficit in
half in five years, though Democrats dismiss that promise, saying
extending the tax cuts would increase the deficit over current
projections. Both the House and Senate would reduce spending on so-called
entitlement programs, including Medicaid, the insurance plan for the poor,
marking the first time since 1997 that Congress has sought to curb the
growth of entitlements.

When asked if she would support extending the tax cuts, Senator Olympia J.
Snowe, the Maine Republican who is an influential member of the Finance
Committee, said, "Suffice it to say, I do have serious concerns with the
fundamental priorities that are being constructed in the budget." She
added, "It's exacting a high price from some of the programs that are
critically important to the future."

Senator Lincoln Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who has warned about
the federal deficit, said, "I've been consistently opposed to tax cuts
when at the same time we're not controlling our spending, and I don't
think this year will be any different."

The fight over taxes and spending, which will occupy Congress at least
through next week, will be a crucial test of President Bush's strength on
Capitol Hill. Though the budget resolution is nonbinding, it serves as an
important blueprint for federal tax and spending policy. Yet Congress has
failed to adopt a budget for two of the last three years; at a time when
Mr. Bush is emphasizing fiscal responsibility, failure to do so this year
would be an embarrassment for both the White House and the Republican
leadership.

But as details of the budget plans emerged on Wednesday, it became clear
that meeting Mr. Bush's spending goals could prove a difficult task, not
only because of the tax issue but because many lawmakers are pressing to
restore Mr. Bush's proposed cuts in domestic programs. Among them is
Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, who has gathered signatures
of 57 senators to fight for urban renewal grants, which Mr. Bush proposes
to cut.

"I think in the end we'll get there - I hope we'll get there," Mr. Coleman
said when asked if it would be possible to pass a budget this year. But,
he added, "At this point, there's a lot that's open to discussion."

The big fight will occur in the Senate, where the Republicans have 55
votes, four more than are needed to pass the budget. Their plan also
contains language intended to open a wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil
drilling - a budget maneuver that would enable President Bush's
long-stalled drilling plan to pass the Senate by a simple majority,
avoiding the threat of filibusters that have killed it in the past. That
provision is drawing complaints from Democrats as well as some
Republicans.

"I'm not particularly happy about ANWR being shoved back in there," said
Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, using the acronym (pronounced
AN-war) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. DeWine said he was
also "concerned about Medicaid, and what impact it's going to have on the
states."

Democrats in both the House and the Senate derided the Republicans' budget
as unsustainable and fiscally reckless. They said the proposals would
starve federal programs that benefit the needy while failing to cut the
federal deficit enough.

"The budget situation of the United States is becoming surreal," said
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Budget
Committee, complaining about "red ink as far as the eye can see."

The House budget tracks the president's plan fairly closely in tax cuts
and overall spending. Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and
chairman of the Budget Committee, introduced a draft budget bill that
increases overall spending to $2.55 trillion in 2006; Mr. Bush's budget
calls for $2.57 trillion. Mr. Nussle's panel approved the budget last
night by a party-line vote of 22 to 15.

The House budget calls for $106 billion in tax cuts over the next five
years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Mr. Bush's proposed tax
cuts would total $100 billion. The budget also instructs other House
committees to pare $68.6 billion from entitlement programs, in which
spending is determined by eligibility, over the next five years. According
to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Bush's budget
proposed only $51 billion, or about $18 billion less, in cuts to those
programs. The Senate budget, by contrast, instructs committees to cut $32
billion in mandatory spending, including $14 billion from Medicaid.

"I think he would be pretty happy with where we are in the House," Mr.
Nussle said, referring to the president. Compared with the Senate, he
said, "We have quite a lot more savings and reform that we are
requesting."

While pressure in the Senate is coming from Republican moderates, in the
House the pressure is from conservatives, who criticized Mr. Nussle's
proposal for not going far enough in reducing spending and cutting taxes.

"We would like it to go further," said Representative Paul D. Ryan,
Republican of Wisconsin and a member of the Budget Committee.

He said conservatives planned to push for spending cuts in Medicare,
despite President Bush's threat to veto any changes to the costly
prescription drug benefit passed by Congress in 2003. "We know that is an
area where you can find savings without undoing the spirit of the law,"
Mr. Ryan said.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Agreed, and it would be nice if I could just toss out my credit card bills
too, but there comes a day of reckoning

For you, maybe...because you have a limited lifespan. The government can
borrow ad infinitum because there will always be revenue coming in.

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Agreed, and it would be nice if I could just toss out my credit card
bills too, but there comes a day of reckoning

For you, maybe...because you have a limited lifespan. The government can
borrow ad infinitum because there will always be revenue coming in.




Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

NOYB wrote:
.... The government can
borrow ad infinitum because there will always be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will always be
revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military, towards building the
nation's infrastructure, towards encouraging new business growth, and
towards education are worthwhile expenditures. Money paid to second and
third generation welfare recipients, and subsidies paid towards dying
technologies to keep them afloat are poor expenditures.

.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will always be
revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?



NOYB wrote:
I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military,

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud &
outright theft?

... towards building the
nation's infrastructure,

Can you point to a single example of this in Bush/Cheney's budgets?

... towards encouraging new business growth

Ditto

... and
towards education are worthwhile expenditures.

Now this is funny. Are you familiar with the term 'unfunded mandate'? It
perfectly describes Bush/Cheney's federal education programs...

... Money paid to second and
third generation welfare recipients,

Hasn't happened since Clinton ended "welfare as we know it."

... and subsidies paid towards dying
technologies to keep them afloat are poor expenditures.


You mean like 1950s style oil bid'ness?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?



NOYB wrote:
I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military,

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud &
outright theft?


You really have a warped view of what's really going on.


... towards building the nation's infrastructure,

Can you point to a single example of this in Bush/Cheney's budgets?

Just one? How 'bout lots:

Transportation:
a.. Provides full funding of the Highway "guarantee" level of $32.3
billion, o support state and local highway and bridge improvements. This
funding level includes $145 million for the President's New Freedom
Initiative to ensure transportation alternatives are available for the
disabled and increases research and development funding to support
congestion reduction technology initiatives.



b.. Includes full funding of the Mass Transit "guarantee" level of $6.7
billion, to expand mass transit programs.



c.. Provides full funding for the Aviation "firewall" level of $13.3
billion, to meet the Federal Aviation Administration's operating, safety and
security responsibilities and to minimize air traffic delays and modernize
the air traffic system.



d.. Proposes $5.1 billion for the Coast Guard, to support operational
requirements and begin rebuilding the Coast Guard's aging fleet of ships and
aircraft.



e.. Provides $521 million for Amtrak capital programs-a funding level that
supports the railroad's glidepath to achieve operational self-sufficiency.
Corps of Engineers:
a.. Targets funds for completing priority ongoing projects, such as the
environmental restoration work in the Florida Everglades.



b.. Reduces funding for studying potential new projects, given the $40
billion backlog of construction projects that are either ongoing or
authorized but not started.



c.. Provides a funding increase for the Corps' program for evaluating
proposed development in wetlands.



... towards encouraging new business growth

Ditto


According the the Natinal Federation of Independent Businesses, Bush has a
near 100% perfect record on issues affecting small businesses.



... and towards education are worthwhile expenditures.

Now this is funny. Are you familiar with the term 'unfunded mandate'? It
perfectly describes Bush/Cheney's federal education programs...


Look at this graph:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbud...mages/19-1.gif

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.


I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

snip

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to fight
it.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?



NOYB wrote:
I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military,

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud &
outright theft?


You really have a warped view of what's really going on.

You really have a warped view of economics. Does not matter what entity, it
can not borrow forever, no matter it's lifespan. You get to the condition
on countries of Brazil, 15-50% inflation. Germany, after WWII when the
paper was worth more than the money printed on it. Inflation is a tax!

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.


I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

snip

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to
fight it.

I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we can
create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by "soldiers"
well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones carrying warheads,
unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of firing from
hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're in the early
development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to do the
street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...armyrobot.html

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will
always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?



NOYB wrote:
I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military,

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene
profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud &
outright theft?


You really have a warped view of what's really going on.

You really have a warped view of economics. Does not matter what entity,
it
can not borrow forever, no matter it's lifespan.

But we're not "borrowing forever". A country will have economic ups and
downs. In the "down" years, net tax receipts fall, and deficits surge. In
the "up" years, net receipts rise, and the deficits shrink. Since a country
like the US has an infinite lifespan, *AND A CONSTANTLY EXPANDING ECONOMY*,
it can weather long, long periods of deficits without any adverse affects.



You get to the condition
on countries of Brazil, 15-50% inflation. Germany, after WWII when the
paper was worth more than the money printed on it. Inflation is a tax!


And what is the current inflation rate in the United States?

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will
always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?



NOYB wrote:
I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military,

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene
profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud &
outright theft?


You really have a warped view of what's really going on.

You really have a warped view of economics. Does not matter what
entity,
it
can not borrow forever, no matter it's lifespan.

But we're not "borrowing forever". A country will have economic ups and
downs. In the "down" years, net tax receipts fall, and deficits surge.
In
the "up" years, net receipts rise, and the deficits shrink. Since a
country
like the US has an infinite lifespan, *AND A CONSTANTLY EXPANDING
ECONOMY*,
it can weather long, long periods of deficits without any adverse affects.



You get to the condition
on countries of Brazil, 15-50% inflation. Germany, after WWII when the
paper was worth more than the money printed on it. Inflation is a tax!


And what is the current inflation rate in the United States?



About 2.5%. What was the unexceptable inflation rate when Nixon put in wage
and price controls? 3.5%. At 2.5% costs will double in 28 years.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will
always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?



NOYB wrote:
I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military,

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene
profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud &
outright theft?


You really have a warped view of what's really going on.

You really have a warped view of economics. Does not matter what
entity,
it
can not borrow forever, no matter it's lifespan.

But we're not "borrowing forever". A country will have economic ups and
downs. In the "down" years, net tax receipts fall, and deficits surge.
In
the "up" years, net receipts rise, and the deficits shrink. Since a
country
like the US has an infinite lifespan, *AND A CONSTANTLY EXPANDING
ECONOMY*,
it can weather long, long periods of deficits without any adverse
affects.



You get to the condition
on countries of Brazil, 15-50% inflation. Germany, after WWII when the
paper was worth more than the money printed on it. Inflation is a tax!


And what is the current inflation rate in the United States?



About 2.5%.


Which is lower than it averaged for the 80's and 90's. In 2000, there was a
surplus, yet inflation averaged 3.38%. Your argument that a high inflation
rate is the result of an increasing deficit just doesn't seem to agree with
recent historical data.


What was the unexceptable inflation rate when Nixon put in wage
and price controls? 3.5%. At 2.5% costs will double in 28 years.


If you can't afford to pay $6 for a gallon of milk 28 years from now, then
there's something wrong with your investment portfolio.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
et...

NOYB wrote:

.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.


I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

snip

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to
fight it.


I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we can
create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by "soldiers"
well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones carrying
warheads, unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of
firing from hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're
in the early development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to
do the street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...armyrobot.html


Hell, we have a pilotless drone in the White House by name of Bush.

Battlefield robots doing street-to-street fighting? Heheheh. Too much
RoboCop in your TV diet.

You won't be laughing when one shows up at your door.

"Sarah Connor?" BAM!

Maybe Tuuk's a Cyborg?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will
always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative"
and
posting things like this?



NOYB wrote:
I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of
the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military,

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene
profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go
without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud
&
outright theft?


You really have a warped view of what's really going on.

You really have a warped view of economics. Does not matter what
entity,
it
can not borrow forever, no matter it's lifespan.

But we're not "borrowing forever". A country will have economic ups and
downs. In the "down" years, net tax receipts fall, and deficits surge.
In
the "up" years, net receipts rise, and the deficits shrink. Since a
country
like the US has an infinite lifespan, *AND A CONSTANTLY EXPANDING
ECONOMY*,
it can weather long, long periods of deficits without any adverse
affects.



You get to the condition
on countries of Brazil, 15-50% inflation. Germany, after WWII when
the
paper was worth more than the money printed on it. Inflation is a
tax!


And what is the current inflation rate in the United States?



About 2.5%.


Which is lower than it averaged for the 80's and 90's. In 2000, there was
a
surplus, yet inflation averaged 3.38%. Your argument that a high
inflation
rate is the result of an increasing deficit just doesn't seem to agree
with
recent historical data.


What was the unexceptable inflation rate when Nixon put in wage
and price controls? 3.5%. At 2.5% costs will double in 28 years.


If you can't afford to pay $6 for a gallon of milk 28 years from now, then
there's something wrong with your investment portfolio.




There is the problem with paying $6 / gallon as it is the young family that
is trying to raise kids and does not have a 40 years investment portfolio.
As to inflation, being only 2.5% presently, is because the interest rate is
held artificially low and the government is holding it in check. Higher
employment or higher wages will give inflation a big kick. As inflation is
more dollars chasing less product.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
t...

NOYB wrote:

.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will
always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.


I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

snip

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to
fight it.


I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we
can
create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by
"soldiers"
well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones carrying
warheads,
unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of firing from
hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're in the early
development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to do the
street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...armyrobot.html

unnecessary offensive comment deleted

Battlefield robots doing street-to-street fighting? Heheheh. Too much
RoboCop in your TV diet.

Actually, a weapons platform advancing in front of a platoon that has on it
advanced radar and targeting that "sees" incoming rounds and directs
suppression fire without intervention all within milliseconds would be a
good tool. They have a few systems that track mortar and larger shells and
direct fire in the field now.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:51:39 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

You really have a warped view of economics. Does not matter what
entity,
it
can not borrow forever, no matter it's lifespan.

But we're not "borrowing forever". A country will have economic ups and
downs. In the "down" years, net tax receipts fall, and deficits surge.
In
the "up" years, net receipts rise, and the deficits shrink. Since a
country
like the US has an infinite lifespan, *AND A CONSTANTLY EXPANDING
ECONOMY*,
it can weather long, long periods of deficits without any adverse
affects.



You get to the condition
on countries of Brazil, 15-50% inflation. Germany, after WWII when
the
paper was worth more than the money printed on it. Inflation is a
tax!


And what is the current inflation rate in the United States?



About 2.5%.


Which is lower than it averaged for the 80's and 90's. In 2000, there was
a
surplus, yet inflation averaged 3.38%. Your argument that a high
inflation
rate is the result of an increasing deficit just doesn't seem to agree
with
recent historical data.


What was the unexceptable inflation rate when Nixon put in wage
and price controls? 3.5%. At 2.5% costs will double in 28 years.


If you can't afford to pay $6 for a gallon of milk 28 years from now, then
there's something wrong with your investment portfolio.




There is the problem with paying $6 / gallon as it is the young family that
is trying to raise kids and does not have a 40 years investment portfolio.

Fret not. By then the minimum wage will be $15/hr and the poverty line
will be $60,000 per year. It's all relative.

Dave

How about money squandered on pointless slaughter, while obscene profits
are not only raked in by favored industries... and troops go without
needed equipment... but those same favored companies commit fraud &
outright theft?



NOYB wrote:
You really have a warped view of what's really going on.


You think so because you're looking through warped glasses.

Did several companies awarded no-bid contracts for the military...
awarded at the direction Cheney's office... either provide poor service
(a commonly reported example is spoiled food) or no service? Did any
companies "lose" gov't supplied equipment? Did any companies take
advantage of the billions of dollars loosely thrown around by the
provisional gov't in Iraq? Etc etc.

Nod your head yes. It will only hurt a little bit, and the truth is good
for you.




... towards building the nation's infrastructure,

Can you point to a single example of this in Bush/Cheney's budgets?


Just one? How 'bout lots:

Transportation:
a.. Provides full funding of the Highway "guarantee" level of $32.3
billion, o support state and local highway and bridge improvements. This
funding level includes $145 million for the President's New Freedom
Initiative to ensure transportation alternatives are available for the
disabled and increases research and development funding to support
congestion reduction technology initiatives.


Numbers like this are meaningless without a comparison of previous
annual expenditures on the same line item.

In short... a lot of ballyhooing about nothing... more hat, still no
cattle...

b.. Includes full funding of the Mass Transit "guarantee" level of $6.7
billion, to expand mass transit programs.


Ditto


c.. Provides full funding for the Aviation "firewall" level of $13.3
billion, to meet the Federal Aviation Administration's operating, safety and
security responsibilities and to minimize air traffic delays and modernize
the air traffic system.


If that's true, then why are all the pilots complaining publicly about
how the FAA *still* hasn't made any significant improvement in airline
security?


d.. Proposes $5.1 billion for the Coast Guard, to support operational
requirements and begin rebuilding the Coast Guard's aging fleet of ships and
aircraft.


If that's true, then how come all the Coasties I know (a fairly long
list) universally complain about getting heaped with more tasking ans
less funding? The ironic thing is that many of them are Bush supporters,
but none of them believe this "new budget" is any kind of improvement.



e.. Provides $521 million for Amtrak capital programs-a funding level that
supports the railroad's glidepath to achieve operational self-sufficiency.

A line of crapola from way back. Why should the railroads be
"self-supporting" when their main competition is nearly 100% subsidized?
However, *if* this number does actually represent an improvement in
funding then that's good.


Corps of Engineers:
a.. Targets funds for completing priority ongoing projects, such as the
environmental restoration work in the Florida Everglades.


Looking for oil?

b.. Reduces funding for studying potential new projects, given the $40
billion backlog of construction projects that are either ongoing or
authorized but not started.


Such as keeping the ICW open for commercial traffic?

c.. Provides a funding increase for the Corps' program for evaluating
proposed development in wetlands.


So that Bush pals can build expensive developments, thus killing off
what few wetlands remain?



According the the Natinal Federation of Independent Businesses, Bush has a
near 100% perfect record on issues affecting small businesses.


And this "Natinal Federation of Independent Businesses" is a Bush/Cheney
shill front, right?



... and towards education are worthwhile expenditures.

Now this is funny. Are you familiar with the term 'unfunded mandate'? It
perfectly describes Bush/Cheney's federal education programs...



Look at this graph:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbud...mages/19-1.gif


All bull****. Everybody that has *anything* to do with education knows
that the "No Child Left Behind Act" has been a calamity for education,
quite literally an unfunded mandate which has the effect of closing down
public education. The Bush/Cheney gang has also severely undercut
college loans and all but eliminated educational grants, while at the
same time slashing science funding. That's a good way to improve the
educational level of the nation, right?

Of course, why bother to look at the facts, when you can outright lie
and enough people will believe it?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


According the the Natinal Federation of Independent Businesses, Bush has
a near 100% perfect record on issues affecting small businesses.


And this "Natinal Federation of Independent Businesses" is a Bush/Cheney
shill front, right?




NFIB is a small-business advocacy group with 600,000 small business people
as members.

http://www.nfib.com/page/home

NOYB wrote:
NFIB is a small-business advocacy group with 600,000 small business people
as members.

http://www.nfib.com/page/home


Interesting... if you try to get any actual business news, the links
peter out... if you click on politics, you get HUGE amounts of
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney... they do have small "bipartisan" content...

Verdict: it's a shill site, but a well constructed and almost subtle
one. I bet it's funded by one of those 527 groups.

BTW I noticed you had no further support for any of your previously
stated fantasies? Giving up kind of early? Or is the truth finally
beginning to sink in?

DSK

I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military
The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other
than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to
fight it.
I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we
can create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by
"soldiers" well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones
carrying
warheads, unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of
firing from
hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're in the early
development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to do the
street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...armyrobot.html


Battlefield robots doing street-to-street fighting? Heheheh. Too much
RoboCop in your TV diet.

Actually, a weapons platform advancing in front of a platoon that has on
it
advanced radar and targeting that "sees" incoming rounds and directs
suppression fire without intervention all within milliseconds would be a
good tool. They have a few systems that track mortar and larger shells
and
direct fire in the field now.

Spin-offs from our highly successful "Star Wars" missile defense system,
no doubt.

Yes, they finally had a successful test. A few more and one of the tools
for intercepting incomming warheads is on-line. I believe this one is for
short range low altitude missles apx 500 mile range. The ICBM intercept
(Star Wars) system is still buggy and they haven't decided on the best
method. With a successful system in place Iran and N Korea are not as much
of a threat.

We still have to worry about terrorism in any case so the development of
those systems won't make much difference to the current situation.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
t...

NOYB wrote:

.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will
always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.


I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

snip

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other
than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to
fight it.


I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we
can
create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by
"soldiers"
well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones carrying
warheads,
unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of firing from
hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're in the
early
development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to do the
street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...armyrobot.html

unnecessary offensive comment deleted

Battlefield robots doing street-to-street fighting? Heheheh. Too much
RoboCop in your TV diet.

Actually, a weapons platform advancing in front of a platoon that has on
it
advanced radar and targeting that "sees" incoming rounds and directs
suppression fire without intervention all within milliseconds would be a
good tool. They have a few systems that track mortar and larger shells
and
direct fire in the field now.

I also saw a product being developed based on video imaging, where each
frame is analized for change, and they trace sniper fire back to the point
of origin.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...


"DSK" wrote in message
. net...


NOYB wrote:


.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will

always

be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.


I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

snip

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other
than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to
fight it.


I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we

can

create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by

"soldiers"

well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones carrying

warheads,

unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of firing from
hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're in the
early
development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to do the
street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...armyrobot.html

unnecessary offensive comment deleted

Battlefield robots doing street-to-street fighting? Heheheh. Too much
RoboCop in your TV diet.


Actually, a weapons platform advancing in front of a platoon that has on
it
advanced radar and targeting that "sees" incoming rounds and directs
suppression fire without intervention all within milliseconds would be a
good tool. They have a few systems that track mortar and larger shells
and
direct fire in the field now.




Spin-offs from our highly successful "Star Wars" missile defense system,
no doubt.

They were in use in Viet Nam. I guess you saw them in action.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other
than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there
to
fight it.

I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we

can create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by
"soldiers" well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones
carrying
warheads, unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of
firing from

hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're in the
early
development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to do the
street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._armyrobot.htm
l



Battlefield robots doing street-to-street fighting? Heheheh. Too much
RoboCop in your TV diet.

Actually, a weapons platform advancing in front of a platoon that has
on
it
advanced radar and targeting that "sees" incoming rounds and directs
suppression fire without intervention all within milliseconds would be
a
good tool. They have a few systems that track mortar and larger shells
and
direct fire in the field now.


Spin-offs from our highly successful "Star Wars" missile defense system,
no doubt.


Yes, they finally had a successful test. A few more and one of the
tools
for intercepting incomming warheads is on-line. I believe this one is
for
short range low altitude missles apx 500 mile range. The ICBM intercept
(Star Wars) system is still buggy and they haven't decided on the best
method. With a successful system in place Iran and N Korea are not as
much
of a threat.

We still have to worry about terrorism in any case so the development of
those systems won't make much difference to the current situation.



Hahahahohohhehehe.

You don't need a missile to nuke a US city. A Ryder truck will do the job.


Read Clive Cussler. Motorcycle sidecar fits the requirement.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:51:39 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

You really have a warped view of economics. Does not matter what
entity,
it
can not borrow forever, no matter it's lifespan.

But we're not "borrowing forever". A country will have economic ups
and
downs. In the "down" years, net tax receipts fall, and deficits
surge.
In
the "up" years, net receipts rise, and the deficits shrink. Since a
country
like the US has an infinite lifespan, *AND A CONSTANTLY EXPANDING
ECONOMY*,
it can weather long, long periods of deficits without any adverse
affects.



You get to the condition
on countries of Brazil, 15-50% inflation. Germany, after WWII
when
the
paper was worth more than the money printed on it. Inflation is a
tax!


And what is the current inflation rate in the United States?



About 2.5%.


Which is lower than it averaged for the 80's and 90's. In 2000, there
was
a
surplus, yet inflation averaged 3.38%. Your argument that a high
inflation
rate is the result of an increasing deficit just doesn't seem to agree
with
recent historical data.


What was the unexceptable inflation rate when Nixon put in wage
and price controls? 3.5%. At 2.5% costs will double in 28 years.


If you can't afford to pay $6 for a gallon of milk 28 years from now,
then
there's something wrong with your investment portfolio.




There is the problem with paying $6 / gallon as it is the young family
that
is trying to raise kids and does not have a 40 years investment
portfolio.

Fret not. By then the minimum wage will be $15/hr and the poverty line
will be $60,000 per year. It's all relative.

Dave

We can eliminate poverty now. Make the minimum wage 80% of congressional
salaries.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
t...

NOYB wrote:

.... The government can borrow ad infinitum because there will
always
be revenue coming in.


Don't you feel kinda strange, calling yourself a "conservative" and
posting things like this?


I'm a social conservative, and fiscal moderate.


I don't mind spending money, as long as I see see the fruits of the
expenditures. Money paid towards a strong military

snip

The strong military you're buying now will be staffed by none other
than
your children. No matter WHAT the cause, you won't want them there to
fight it.


I'd like to see our military spending increased to the point where we
can
create completely automated weaponry that can be controlled by
"soldiers"
well out of harm's way. We already have pilotless drones carrying
warheads,
unmanned ground vehicles, and Tomahawk missiles capable of firing
from
hundreds of miles away with near-pin-point accuracy. We're in the
early
development phase of battlefield robots that will be able to do the
street-to-street fighting being done in Iraq.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...armyrobot.html

unnecessary offensive comment deleted

Battlefield robots doing street-to-street fighting? Heheheh. Too much
RoboCop in your TV diet.

Actually, a weapons platform advancing in front of a platoon that has on
it
advanced radar and targeting that "sees" incoming rounds and directs
suppression fire without intervention all within milliseconds would be a
good tool. They have a few systems that track mortar and larger shells
and
direct fire in the field now.

I also saw a product being developed based on video imaging, where each
frame is analized for change, and they trace sniper fire back to the point
of origin.

Ahh! a stealth system in case we don't "own the battlefield".