|
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:32:06 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote: >And while National Defense (or Offense if we're to use your words) is >quite expensive, it is at least a constitutional role of the Federal >government, while many of the things they are spending gobs of OUR >money on are absolutely NOT. No, it's not. The Constitution provides for National Defense. There was no Constitutional basis to attack Iraq. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:22:03 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote: >> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending >> without the revenue to fund it. > >Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. The Dems are in control of both >houses. They are responsible for the budget. Puleeze. How long have "the Dems" been "in control" of the Congress? Add to that the fact that they are the lamest party around and can't push anything through that has the slightest opposition. Sorry, but Bush bears full responsibility for the massive overspending that has taken place and bankrupted us since 2000. Too bad he didn't get any economics lessons from his Dad. When you decide to pull your head out of the two-party system and look at reality, you'll have a better feel for what's really been happening. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:27 -0500, dbu <nospam@nospam.moc> wrote:
> > I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have >a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB. You might want to check into that statement a little closer. Let me know which spending bills Bush has vetoed. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On 2008-06-14, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:32:06 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> > wrote: > >>And while National Defense (or Offense if we're to use your words) is >>quite expensive, it is at least a constitutional role of the Federal >>government, while many of the things they are spending gobs of OUR >>money on are absolutely NOT. > > No, it's not. The Constitution provides for National Defense. There > was no Constitutional basis to attack Iraq. Why bother to quote at all if you're just going to ignore wholesale sections of the post? As I said, Iraq (and Afghanistan) could be considered National Defense simply for the fact that they are keeping the Islamic Terror organizations too busy to come over here... Like it or not, the President declared war, and the Congress approved it. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On 2008-06-14, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:22:03 -0500, Peaceful Bill ><snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote: > >>> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending >>> without the revenue to fund it. >> >>Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. The Dems are in control of both >>houses. They are responsible for the budget. > > Puleeze. How long have "the Dems" been "in control" of the Congress? > Add to that the fact that they are the lamest party around and can't > push anything through that has the slightest opposition. > > Sorry, but Bush bears full responsibility for the massive overspending > that has taken place and bankrupted us since 2000. Too bad he didn't > get any economics lessons from his Dad. > > When you decide to pull your head out of the two-party system and look > at reality, you'll have a better feel for what's really been > happening. On this, we are in total agreement. Bush has not done a damn thing to reduce overall spending, and the rare few cuts he has made have been in areas where the money is at least justifiable. Neither of the Parties running of this country has a ing clue, we are just about due to blow the whole thing up and start from scratch... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On 2008-06-14, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:27 -0500, dbu <nospam@nospam.moc> wrote: > >> >> I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have >>a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB. > > You might want to check into that statement a little closer. Let me > know which spending bills Bush has vetoed. LOL. I think he has vetoed 10 bills in total, and I can't recall a single one of them being a spending bill. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:52:05 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote: >dgk wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:46:21 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2008-06-12, Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote: >>>> Joe wrote: >>>>> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >>>>>>> Clearly, it is... >>>>>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >>>>>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down >>>>>> with new taxes...) >>>>>> >>>>>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting >>>>>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >>>>>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against >>>>> punitive taxes. <snip> >>>> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>> Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up >>> "More". I'll wait for you. >> >> Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the >> investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the >> rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The >> rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids. > >Investments of the wealthy??!!??!! ROTFLMAO. Yeah, wealthy, if you >consider living in the U.S. wealthy. > >I think you need to do a little homework. > >The $$ cost of the wars we're fighting is insignificant compared to the >cost of entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security. Entitlement >programs cost hundreds of times that of funding the war. > >Want to reduce taxes? Start by eliminating some of the entitlement >programs. Right now, Social Security is bringing in more money than it is paying out. The surplus is being used to pay for (among other things) the war on Iraq. If we stopped collecting social security tomorrow, we would either have to borrow more money on the open market (aka the Chinese) or raise other taxes to cover the shortfall. Medicare is also funded by a separate tax. I don't know how old you are or what your financial situation is. However, if you are lucky you will someday reach the age of 65. Maybe you will have enough money that you won't need Social Security. But I doubt you would be able to afford private health insurance, even if you could get it. If you have at lest $10 million in the bank to self insure, your position on this issue is rational. Selfish but rational. If you are of more modest means, you have been drinking the neocon Koolaid. Wake up. > >It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start >cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start >cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues >will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. > >The current tax structure places a heavy and uncompetitive burden on >businesses. They have trouble competing globally unless the dollar is >weak. The current weak dollar makes U.S. business competitive globally >by lowering the cost of their merchandise and/or services. > >But from your post, you would not seem to have any clue about economics. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Get real, every bill he vetoed was vetoed because of excess spending by
non-germane amendments inserted into legislation like the defense spending bills "still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:nta654d2hc76l37rom3vahu3lhtev96gi4@4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:27 -0500, dbu <nospam@nospam.moc> wrote: > >> >> I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have >>a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB. > > You might want to check into that statement a little closer. Let me > know which spending bills Bush has vetoed. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Where do you come up with that idea? SS funds, by law from day one, have
always been held in US government bonds, there are no SS funds "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:15d654d07bd8phcuvvqfdds0d71krjnq99@4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:52:05 -0500, Peaceful Bill > <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote: > >>dgk wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:46:21 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2008-06-12, Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> Joe wrote: >>>>>> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe >>>>>>> <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over >>>>>>>>> my head. >>>>>>>> Clearly, it is... >>>>>>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >>>>>>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid >>>>>>> down >>>>>>> with new taxes...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record >>>>>>> setting >>>>>>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >>>>>>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against >>>>>> punitive taxes. <snip> >>>>> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>> Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up >>>> "More". I'll wait for you. >>> >>> Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the >>> investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the >>> rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The >>> rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids. >> >>Investments of the wealthy??!!??!! ROTFLMAO. Yeah, wealthy, if you >>consider living in the U.S. wealthy. >> >>I think you need to do a little homework. >> >>The $$ cost of the wars we're fighting is insignificant compared to the >>cost of entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security. Entitlement >>programs cost hundreds of times that of funding the war. >> >>Want to reduce taxes? Start by eliminating some of the entitlement >>programs. > > Right now, Social Security is bringing in more money than it is paying > out. The surplus is being used to pay for (among other things) the > war on Iraq. If we stopped collecting social security tomorrow, we > would either have to borrow more money on the open market (aka the > Chinese) or raise other taxes to cover the shortfall. Medicare is > also funded by a separate tax. > > I don't know how old you are or what your financial situation is. > However, if you are lucky you will someday reach the age of 65. Maybe > you will have enough money that you won't need Social Security. But I > doubt you would be able to afford private health insurance, even if > you could get it. > > If you have at lest $10 million in the bank to self insure, your > position on this issue is rational. Selfish but rational. If you are > of more modest means, you have been drinking the neocon Koolaid. Wake > up. > > > > > >> >>It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start >>cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start >>cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues >>will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. >> >>The current tax structure places a heavy and uncompetitive burden on >>businesses. They have trouble competing globally unless the dollar is >>weak. The current weak dollar makes U.S. business competitive globally >>by lowering the cost of their merchandise and/or services. >> >>But from your post, you would not seem to have any clue about economics. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:6b0qrmF38rhjvU2@mid.individual.net... > Art wrote: >> I suppose we could continue to let the market fix the problem. >> Sure worked well over the last 30 years...... lol >> >> Republicans claim that government doesn't work. When they win >> office they prove it. >> >> What kills me is the assumption that the market and private >> industry is so efficient. Explain Enron to me please..... > > It's real simple - it was an extremely unethical company. One out > of how many? > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') The one that we know about, anyway. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >wrote: > >>You've fallen for the big con. >> >>The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate >>the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised >>taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing >>of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his >>very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. > >>Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that there >>a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you >>believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through >>massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. > >Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into >the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just >check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there. There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear the mind. >>I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got >>Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait. > >I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive. >There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the >RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic >"theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they >put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and >sales team ever. > >Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron >like pockets through massive government spending economically directed >to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put >billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots >about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it >benefits them personally (examples available). Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they think taxes might rise for them. >Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax >cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small >relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through >alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important >to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they >are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty, >conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money >from them. One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.) When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy. >But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever >enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are >hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being >beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals >at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-) I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is less evil. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me > <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>You've fallen for the big con. >>> >>>The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate >>>the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised >>>taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing >>>of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his >>>very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. >> >>>Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that there >>>a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you >>>believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through >>>massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. >> >>Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into >>the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just >>check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there. > > There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of > this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the > prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear > the mind. > >>>I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got >>>Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait. >> >>I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive. >>There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the >>RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic >>"theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they >>put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and >>sales team ever. >> >>Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron >>like pockets through massive government spending economically directed >>to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put >>billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots >>about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it >>benefits them personally (examples available). > > Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they > think taxes might rise for them. > >>Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax >>cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small >>relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through >>alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important >>to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they >>are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty, >>conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money >>from them. > > One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but > the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored > a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only > fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.) > When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a > big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was > long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long > disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy. > >>But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever >>enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are >>hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being >>beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals >>at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-) > > I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is > less evil. And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is still EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president we've had in my lifetime. As I often said, the best president Chinese money could buy. The only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was the Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on entitlement programs without limit. (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country financially and morally. The SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The US Government is not supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please reread the Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL welfare. Charles the Curmudgeon |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
> > "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me >> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You've fallen for the big con. >>>> >>>> The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate >>>> the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised >>>> taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual >>>> balancing >>>> of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his >>>> very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. >>> >>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that >>>> there >>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you >>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through >>>> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. >>> >>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into >>> the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just >>> check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there. >> >> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of >> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the >> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear >> the mind. >> >>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got >>>> Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait. >>> >>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive. >>> There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the >>> RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic >>> "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they >>> put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and >>> sales team ever. >>> >>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron >>> like pockets through massive government spending economically directed >>> to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put >>> billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots >>> about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it >>> benefits them personally (examples available). >> >> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they >> think taxes might rise for them. >> >>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax >>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small >>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through >>> alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important >>> to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they >>> are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty, >>> conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money >>> from them. >> >> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but >> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored >> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only >> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.) >> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a >> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was >> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long >> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy. >> >>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever >>> enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are >>> hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being >>> beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals >>> at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-) >> >> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is >> less evil. > > And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is still > EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president we've had > in my lifetime. He didn't send thousands of US troops to their deaths in Iraq. Nor did his actions lead to disruption of millions of lives of Americans and their families who had to fight in Iraq, had family members (husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, parents) go to Iraq multiple times, nor did he disrupt a country based on shaky intelligence. > As I often said, the best president Chinese money could > buy. The only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was the > Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on > entitlement programs without limit. (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the > country financially and morally. The SECOND worst president in my > lifetime.) The US Government is not supposed to be a sow with 250 > million teats. Please reread the Preamble. Provide for the COMMON > defense, promote the GENERAL welfare. > > Charles the Curmudgeon |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:32:06 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote: >On 2008-06-12, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the >> investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the >> rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The >> rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids. > >I am all for investigating any way to decrease spending. > >In most cases, these nasty little wars are more of a defense than an >offense, though. Let's face facts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan >are doing a great job in keeping the bulk of the community >tied up. When those actions are done, you will see a marked increase >in Islamic terrorism in North America. I am pretty skeptical of this. Certainly hitting al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a no brainer and very disruptive of their operations. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on that, we got distracted with Iraq which had little to do with international terrorism. I don't buy the "flypaper" argument - that we are attracting terrorists to Iraq so we can fight them there. The overwhelming majority of who we have been fighting in Iraq are Iraqis who either hate us for invading their country or Shiite radicals who used to hate Saddam but now hate us for dominating their country. It doesn't seem likely that a cell of terrorists ready, willing and able to attack on US soil would be deterred because we are waging war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi currently living in Pakistan. Prior to 9-11, Osama stated three objectives for his organization: 1. Force the US to abandon military bases in Saudi Arabia which he saw as a desecration of the holy land. 2. Draw the US into a war in the Middle East where they could be punished for their offenses against Islam. 3. Drive oil prices to $144 a barrel as lower prices constituted US/Western theft of Islamic wealth. With the help of his accomplice, George Bush, he has achieved goals 1 and 2 and is within a few dollars of achieving number 3. Except for the two attacks on the WTC over the last 15 years, I am hard pressed to think of any Islamic attacks in the US. Given this spotty record, it is impossible to say what effect our adventures in the Middle East have had or will have in the future. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
In message
news:0e01f052-5a9c-4e9b-becc-557ce419fceb@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> burned some brain cells writing: > > > Klark Kent wrote: > >> In message news:wbb4k.7598$uE5.3573@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com, SMS >> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> burned some brain cells writing: > >> > Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? >> >> This is a two-part question. First the national debt must be paid >> off. > > The national debt never has to be paid off If you lack of conscience permits theft from voiceless future generations. > Interest on the national debt is a transfer of wealth > from the poor to the rich Interest on the national debt is a transfer of wealth from the US to China. > and currently amounts to roughly (very > roughly) $1,000 a person annually. Lowering the debt/GDP ratio will > allow for interest rates to be lower, and that can't be bad for > consumers and business. Interest rates are already ridiculously low, not because of debt but because Ben Bernancke won't stop printing money out of thin air. >> In order to do that you can either raise taxes or cut spending. Since >> it has been established that raising taxes is detrimental to the >> economy, spending cuts are the way to go. > > It has not been established that raising taxes is always or even > usually detrimental to the economy. And the name of a nation that taxed itself into prosperity is....? ___________________________ Didn't think so. >> Spending cuts also make it easier to accomplish the >> post-national-debt-payoff phase: eliminating the income tax >> completely. > > Spending cuts are difficult because powerful politicians are behind > spending, especially the most wasteful spending. Politicians are only as powerful as the voters who elect them. Put more people like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul into Congress and spending will return to reasonable, constitutional levels. > Also taxes can be > hard to cut without incurring deficits. Which is why spending needs to be cut, first and deeply. >> > Do you believe that there a lower limit where they no longer produce >> > any stimulus? >> >> No. Elimination of the income tax would be the best thing that could >> be done to stimulate the economy, and it would result in revenue to >> the government equivalent to 1999 levels. > > Cite proof from someone who has a good track record of forecasting > revenue. Such numbers can be found in any World Almanac or on the CBO website. > Cutting taxes hasn't resulted in revenue gains unless the > top marginal rate was very high or the average rate was very, very > high, and neither situation exists today. I didn't say I wanted to CUT the tax RATE; I want to ELIMINATE the income tax COMPLETELY and replace it with NOTHING. > Any tax cuts will have to > be accompanied by some spending cuts to avoid deficits. Yep. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:55 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands