new budget cuts and spending bill

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by saxon, Apr 14, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. saxon

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Everyone should take note: There was NO budget cut involved. In reality, there was an INCREASE in spending instead. The dollars "cut" consisted of unspent TARP and stimulus funds, money from construction projects that came in under budget, and other savings which were not actually slated to be spent anyway. BUT there was an ADDITIONAL $50 billion given to the Pentagon that does exist.
    So for Tea Partiers and Democrats alike, you were given the sleeves from the budgetary vest. Both sides assume that the American public is too dogmatic and too ill-informed and too ill-educated to figure out that it was actually a spending increase, not a spending cut.
    You've been had, folks! And once again it proves that what politicians (regardless of party) believe is true.

    In fact, as the Washington Post notes, when the cost of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, attacking Pakistan on the side and bombing Libya and other war on (manufactured) terror ventures are factored in, the budget increases by $3.3 billion.

    CBO: Budget deal cuts this fiscal year’s deficit by just $352 million, not $38 billion touted - The Washington Post
  2. deen_ad

    Vancouver, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Not surprised at all. Look at all the people that would be out of work if there were no wars. We might actually be able to bring our troops home and start to seal our borders!

    8 US Presidents have been NRA members. They are: Ulysses S. Grant,
    Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
    John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

    80 MILLION gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!


    The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

    NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
    Washington Arms Collector member
  3. bugeye

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    The DOD gets about 600 billion per year + an extra 169 billion for Iraq and Afganistan. So far these two major wars have cost us about 1.5 trillion and it was all put on plastic so it amounts to about 11% of our national debt. While this has kept some people employed just the money being spent on Iraq and Afganistan could employ 3.8 million people at $50K each. We currently have about 160,000 troops in these two wars at any given time, and it seems this may go on forever.

    The Ryan - GOP budget proposal for 2012, will lower taxes on the uppers while tossing Medicare to the states, giving them block grants that won't cover medical services for the elderly no matter how clever the states are. While it will lower the cost of running the federal gov it will result in a fair number of old dead people, because they aren't going to have the additional $5000 per year that will be needed to keep them getting services. this will also mean huge increases in the cost of health care insurance for others because the old are going to start showing up without much coverage at the emergency rooms. In addition, I'm sure the private insurance companies will be getting rich overcharging the elderly that can pay. So, its 'bless an aristorcrat and bring out your dead', the GOP marching us forward into the dark ages. But you can't blame the GOP why not make America a country by the rich and for the rich, because after all, a lot the peons still will vote for us, prooving that they really don't deserve any better than subjugation after all.

    As far as any of that trickle down BS goes, we have given the ubbers so many tax cuts we should have more than full employment.
  4. Blitzkrieg

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    No surprise.. the agenda is to wreck our economy and destroy our standard of living so that we can lose our national autonomy (what's left of it) and be dragged kicking and screaming into the NWO
  5. Jamie6.5

    Western OR
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Ahh, yes the old "we don't tax the rich enough" argument. The class warfare battle cry of the left. As if we could balance the budget that our idiot in chief has proposed.

    Despite the FACT that the top 1% of income earners made 20% of the country's adjusted gross income, yet paid over 38% of ALL THE TAXES paid for 2008.
    Or how about the top 5% that paid 58.7% of ALL TAXES PAID in 2008, despite the FACT that they only earned 34.7% of ALL INCOME.

    Then there's the top 25% of income earners. You know, the ones that earned more than $67,280.00/yr in 2008. They only paid 86.34% of ALL TAXES PAID, despite the FACT that they only earned 67.38% of ALL income.

    Or does buggy mean the upper 50% (over $33k/year) that paid 97.3% of ALL TAXES PAID in 2008, leaving a mere 2.7% for the other half of the country to pay.

    Demonizing the rich? You decide. I say yes. The goal is to make the working man hate the successful, and blame them for all that is wrong with the country.
    Then the "organizer in chief" can rally the common man to his "cause."

    "Yeap ol' Georgie boy let them rich folks off, scott free."

    Balance the budget this way?? Not a freakin' chance!!
    Not this clown's budget!!
    EVEN IF YOU TAXED THE TOP 50% of all taxpayers at 100% of their income.
    (you see, they only made 1.004Trillion in taxable income!)

    Now, just in case you think these figures don't include the people that paid zero because they had "loopholes" or "tax shelters":
    See for yourself:
    The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data <---LINK
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page