# Dems Telling Us We Have To Pay Extra To Protect Our Troops



## mudwhistle (Nov 24, 2009)

I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan. 

In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting. 

They always say it will only effect the upper 1% but that's merely a starting point. Soon everyone will have to pay extra just to feed, cloth, and protect our kids in uniform.

I wonder if this is some new plan to turn America against *The Good War*.

The Raw Story | US lawmakers: New tax should pay for Afghan war

New Tax being proposed


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 24, 2009)

> If the war is not paid for, its costs "will devour money that could be used to rebuild our economy by fixing our broken health care system, expanding educational opportunities and job training possibilities, attacking our long term energy problems and building stronger communities," they said.



Says it all.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 24, 2009)

We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?


----------



## Zona (Nov 24, 2009)

If this happens, everyone who bitches about paying the extra tax is against America and against us being at war. 

This is great stuff here.   LOL


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?



It's not about supporting the war you stupid fuck, it's about supporting our soldiers. And you call yourself a US citizen. You're a pathetic piece of shit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 24, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?



I think that's a terrific idea.

Sell war bonds. Imagine the revenue that would generate.

But the only problem is Democrats don't like looking like they support the war and they also don't like it when we decide for ourselves if we want to pay extra. They are firm believers of forcing us to pay for whatever they deem is essential.


----------



## editec (Nov 24, 2009)

Waste of money.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?
> ...



Selling bonds increases the public dept, and costs more in the long term.  Pay as you go, in health care, in war.  Isn't that the conservative way (well, in word, not in deed).

When we first learned of IED's and our kids were being killed and maimed in Iraq (remember those unarmored vehicles Rumbsfeld sent to 'support' our men and women in uniform?) the Congress should have then passed a tax increase to pay for the war in Iraq, and the war on terror by providing our kids the defensive tools they needed.
I'm a Democrat and I support a tax to pay for the wars currently bleeding our nations kids and our national treasury.  
Let's start with a Patriot Tax, .10 cents a gallon on gasoline; and a 1% tax on income, across the board, gross income without any deductions, credits or other perks.
Then we will pay as we go, and, show the world and the American people whether the far right really gives a shit about our citizens in harms way, or if they are too greedy to give a damn.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 24, 2009)

editec said:


> Waste of money.



That's all our government does is waste money.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 24, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I don't want to hear this bullshit about Rumsfeld. We had 8 years of Clinton. He discovered in 93' we needed armor and instead cut back the Defense Department.

After Somalia he knew we needed to protect our troops in these Muslim countries and he ignored the problem.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 24, 2009)

This is what happens when you go to war for LIES and insist no one pays the bills to do so.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Waste of money.
> ...



A waste is a terrible thing to mind.

In waste there is opportunity for profit.

polysci 101


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 24, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> This is what happens when you go to war for LIES and insist no one pays the bills to do so.



Afghanistan is a lie now too.

Thanks for the info.

I figure if it wasn't for Iraq you folks would have made the same argument there.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 24, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



It's terrible to let a crisis go to waste as well.....


----------



## American Horse (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...



It's revealing of their motives and their cynicism, and belies their usual modus operandi which suggests that they do not understand that to tax an activity discourages it.  Example: Bush kept our miliary action in the ME off budget, Obama has put it on budget.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 24, 2009)

they been in power since 2006, why didn't they suggest this 3 years ago if it was so damn necessary? and any ways iiirc the dems promised in 2006 they would end the war,, how's that working ecactly?


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?
> ...


In theory it does sound good....but as we're heading towards bnkruptcy, it may not be the best of investments.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 24, 2009)

Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed not in military defeat, but in economic defeat.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



"IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  According to this moron.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 24, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?



You mean only some Americans should foot the bill for that which we all benefit?  Does that mean if we get attacked again anyone who did not contribute is a legitimate target then?  Maybe we should point those people out for the terrorists so the right people are the only ones being targeted and killed in an attack?  Just how does this work for you then? 

Just how far are people like you willing to go demanding that the wealthy should be forced to work to pay for everything so that people like you can sit on your ass and reap the benefits?  The top 50% of wage earners are the ones already paying for the war because they are the ones paying all federal income taxes in the first place and the top 1% pays about 40% of all federal income taxes.  Still not enough for you or what?  They already pay the bulk of the bill for the war and are the ones who will still end up paying for it even with no additional tax.  So what these Democrats are REALLY saying is they just want to lay claim to even more of their money and are willing to just use the PRETEXT that they still aren't paying their share of the burden for the benefit we ALL receive.   Even though they are the only ones paying more than their fair share for it already.   

Democrats are stupid enough to believe that Americans will never tire of them constantly fueling the flames of class envy - even though people have really caught on that it doesn't benefit this country.   These arrogant assholes need to lose their jobs big time.  In fact I'm starting to think those people who think they are entitled to have everything they want paid for by someone other than themselves and applaud having government confiscate the money of those who worked for it - so they can get a free ride and reap all the benefits, should start to look for a new home.  At some point those stuck with the lion's share of the bill will decide they have had enough of being abused by their own government and revolt.  History has shown they inevitably do.  In THIS country, our Constitution forbids  government from treating some Americans differently than others.  Democrats disagree, always insisting that some Americans have no right to expect government to treat them the same as everyone else insisting government should target some Americans for ever more taxation and have their money confiscated.  And now obviously favor a government that inflicts abusive levels of taxation until government has confiscated the wealth entirely away from those who earned it and forced to pay for the things everyone else wants but doesn't want to have to go out and earn it for themselves.  Sorry, that just doesn't work as an American value for me.


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed not in military defeat, but in economic defeat.



Well sort of...The Soviet Union's economy collapsed because the majority of the money was going to the military.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 24, 2009)

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed not in military defeat, but in economic defeat.
> ...



The point is we are at risk from sources other than 'terrorists'.  In some ways we are our own worst threat.


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Exactly....like bankrupting ourselves


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 24, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed not in military defeat, but in economic defeat.



They spent their money trying to keep up with the US militarily -and yes, wars can and have bankrupted nations.  But when we go bankrupt it won't be because of Afghanistan. WWll was FAR more expensive in both resources and lives yet we managed to figure out the cost of losing that war was still far more expensive than fighting it to win and instead chose to forgo any nonessential domestic spending until that threat was permanently removed.

So who thinks if we call off the war in Afghanistan, our enemy will say we are all Even Steven and just go away?  I think way too many people have forgotten WE did not declare this war -we were finally forced to take our enemy's declaration of war on us seriously which took the mass murder of thousands on our soil since evidently the previous 8 attacks on US interests never got much of a response.  THEY are the ones who declared war on us -and claim to know us so well and even better than we know ourselves -that they also predicted we would eventually end up just HANDING them victory and slinking off with our tails between our legs.  THEY aren't saying they want to walk off if we do -they have been saying the exact opposite.  That we are getting ready to do exactly what they predicted would happen and victory is nearly theirs now!

This is a war our enemy has no intention of calling off and if we hand them victory in Afghanistan, it will result in a resurgence of their strength and would be used as THE best recruiting tool we could ever give them, proving that roving bands of thugs who target unarmed civilians can bring down the US.  This is a war our enemy has promised is a fight to the death -and they intend to make sure it is OURS.   And unlike the US, they don't care how long it takes or how much it costs them in terms of lives or resources.  That doesn't leave me with many options then about what I think we should do.

Aside from guaranteeing our enemy will come after us again with renewed force and  more convinced than ever that we can and will be defeated, we would only prove to our enemy who predicted we would give them this victory that we really are exactly who they have been insisting we are all along.  Unwilling to commit to a lengthy fight, unwilling to bleed to defend what is ours, demoralize ourselves in spite of the fact they know they can't win a head-to-head fight with us and as a result we will just HAND them victory.  Thereby proving and reinforcing their belief that we really just an evil, worthless, spineless and morally weak people just like they have been insisting we were all along.   We can PRETEND handing them victory is cheaper than fighting to win but that is an historically proven self delusion and a very lethal one at that.   Even if we walk away, we will end up drawn back into the fight which will be far more expensive the next time around in both resources and lives lost.  Unarmed, unprepared civilians are easy to slaughter by the thousands and they know it and it will happen again and again as many times as needed until we wake up and realize the ONLY way to end it for good is also the least expensive way to handle it in terms of resources and lives lost.  By getting it over with and WINNING it so we can deal with other pressing issues without constantly having to look over our shoulder and get drawn back into this fight over and over but never to resolution and and completion - only to be drawn into it again and again by an implacable and fanatic enemy that has no intention of calling off the war just because we do!  What kind of stupid and suicidal thinking is that?  

If Democrats are NOW all of a sudden concerned about the budget and how to pay for things -then I suggest they demand the unspent TARP funds be returned immediately, that they scrap the guaranteed job killer cap-and-trade crap and that they put their embarrassing 2,000+ page monstrosity of a sick joke on health care reform that has nothing to do with health, care or reform -in the trash can where it belongs, that they lower personal income taxes because it is an historically proven fact that WILL result in job creation and more government revenues while what they have been doing hasn't made a dent in the rising double digit unemployment numbers.  And stop this never ending wet dream spending spree of theirs that has quadrupled the deficit in the first six months of Obama's administration and set us on the path to utter financial ruin.  THAT is where we actually have options to work with.  NOT with whether we want to survive without constantly having to divert precious resources to keep looking over our shoulder knowing good and well this enemy WILL continue coming after us.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 24, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> If Democrats are NOW all of a sudden concerned about the budget and how to pay for things -then I suggest they demand the unspent TARP funds be returned immediately, that they scrap the guaranteed job killer cap-and-trade crap and that they put their embarrassing 2,000+ page monstrosity of a sick joke on health care reform that has nothing to do with health, care or reform -in the trash can where it belongs,


Not apt to happen.
Because the government likes to take more in taxes. 
If a working person is taxed to the point they cannot save enough for retirement, then they are dependent in their old age on a government pension (known as Social Security)
Dependence makes them reliable - for the government. 
The purpose of Social Security is to make things more secure for the government.
The same purpose applies to all the other methods of taking income from the earners and putting it into government hands, regardless of the alleged use.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 24, 2009)

Strange how some of those who cry out balanced budget wants to fight a war on credit.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> *...after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look... *



Excuse me!??!


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...



Good deal.  The American people would be less prone to get us into asinine wars if they knew they had to pay for them upfront (as opposed to passing the debt on to their children).

It should be a national law that any military action mandates an income tax hike. 

I'd betcha we'd be a lot less caviler about "pre-emptive war" then.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 24, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



Makes sense to me.
More sense than going to war and cutting taxes.  That worked out great.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Waste of money.
> ...



So you support these wars....

Until it hits you in the wallet?

Nice.

Guess what?  Whether we pay for it now, or pay for it later with interest, we still have to pay.

And, oh by the way, our biggest lender has been China.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 24, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?
> ...



Strange. I didn't see anything in that article indicating the proponents of this legislation were saying, "send us more money or the troops get it". What I read is them saying we have to start paying for what we're doing if we're gonna keep doing it. Something we _haven't_ been doing for a few years now.

I also read this:




> It would also exempt members of the US military who have served in combat since the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes, their families, and families of soldiers who died as a result of combat.
> 
> "The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families," the lawmakers said. "We believe that if this war is to be fought, it's only fair that everyone share the burden."



Draw from that what you will.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 24, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



Hasn't it been said more than once that this is the first time in our history that taxes were cut - or at the very least not raised - during wartime?


----------



## Polk (Nov 24, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Hasn't it been said more than once that this is the first time in our history that taxes were cut - or at the very least not raised - during wartime?



Indeed.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 24, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Moron huh?

Unlike you.....I was in Mogadishu in 93'. I saw what happened with my own fucken eyes....much of it went unreported......and most of it was unnecessary and could have been avoided. Recommendations went to the White House after Black Hawk Down on what needed to be done. All of the questions on how it happened and why were available and let's face it President Clinton cared just a little bit more for our troops then our current president.

Because he refused to act on the findings presented to him in 93' we had a repeat of the same mistakes in the streets of Baghdad, Falluja, and Mosul. I blame Clinton for not getting the ball rolling because it takes years to re outfit an entire Army. 

His priority instead was to gut the military so he could get his balanced budget at the cost of several thousand American's lives. We didn't have the proper equipment in Mogadishu and we still didn't have it in Iraq over 10 years later.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I blame Clinton for not getting the ball rolling because it takes years to re outfit an entire Army.
> 
> His priority instead was to gut the military so he could get his balanced budget at the cost of several thousand American's lives. We didn't have the proper equipment in Mogadishu and we still didn't have it in Iraq over 10 years later.



And now that the military cannot be gutted, the Democrats want huge tax increases rather than cut their socialist programs.
Wait, they'll raise taxes and still gut the military.
And blame Bush.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...



Pretty arrogant, isn't it?  We already funded the war -we all knew a war was still going on when paying our income taxes.  What we didn't expect to be funding was the wild spending spree by Democrats quadrupling the budget deficit in Obama's first six months.  So now they already put our feet firmly on the path to utter financial ruin they think they still haven't confiscated enough from taxpayers as if its THEIR money?  Its like your mother giving you the money to go to the store to buy bread and milk with it - and you take a side trip to 7th Heaven and buy a new CD instead.  And then have the balls to expect her to just simply give you the money for it again with no consequences to you.  My God I cannot stand these arrogant jerks.  

I have a better idea for Congress and ones like Obey, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Murtha and Levin should be first in line.  Now that you've burdened our children, grandchildren and their grandchildren with the worst debt in our history and have us at the brink of bankruptcy and now want to play politics again with our national security -FORFEIT YOUR SALARIES and expect to get a pink slip come re-election.   How DARE you expect us to foot the bill for your INCOMPETENCE.  Government's first Constitutional duty is to provide for our national defense and wage war on our enemies.  All the bullshit you spent us into for the next century plus - IS NOT.


----------



## oreo (Nov 24, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...




Yes, another attempt from liberal democrats to say well--if you want war--then pay for it-- *First of all there is no-one that wants war in this country. * But from my experience "cutting & running" is no answer either.  First of all--in all of our wars this will be the FIRST enemy that will counter attack us--IOW they will use our departure as a tool for recruitement.  The enemy we face today--(terrorists) are outright maniacs.   They are not Germans, they are not Japaneze, they are not Russians, nor Vietnameze.    They are determined & they will never surrender to our way.  They are in fact, the worst---continual enemy we will ever fight--& it will be continual--because they will never surrender.  They have been fighting each other for *centuries. * They are blood thirsty, they attack & oppress their own women & children & there is absolutely no reason to believe that we can change their ways.  

Our only option is to protect ourselves against them.

.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 25, 2009)

> When we first learned of IED's and our kids were being killed and maimed in Iraq (remember those unarmored vehicles Rumbsfeld sent to 'support' our men and women in uniform?) the Congress should have then passed a tax increase to pay for the war in Iraq, and the war on terror by providing our kids the defensive tools they needed.



This is all out of control!  

Guys, the moment any deficit spending bill was approved to send the first ship towards Iraq the U.S. decided to SOMEONE (our children?) were going to in effect pay a tax for the war.

Now Clinton gets ripped for not raising taxes to improve the bottom armor of a Humvee or APC.  Someone else just got ripped for suggesting we levy a tax to improve the bottom armor of a Humvee or APC.  

Weird, the stuff just isn't going to cut and bolt itself onto the equipment.  If there is a tax or if its deficit spending I'm going to live long enough to be paying for it.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 25, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...



So you support the troops as long as you don't have to flip the bill.  



This should have been implemented from the jump along with the scrapping of the Bush tax cuts.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 25, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...








brother murtha was right there whispering in billboard's ear,, "pull the troops out." and obama bin laden said "the us is a paper tiger."


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 25, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...





hey! We the People have always footed the bill. The US of KKKA gets it's money from one source and one source only.. they get it from WE The People..And they piss most of it away too. on stupid shit like cash for carburatorers and lemming love.


----------



## American Horse (Nov 25, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



I sure as hell would rather pay taxes to support our national defense over giving money to consumers to buy a new car, or even to put them into their first home.  We're going to have to pay for all of it anyway, one way or another.  

If there were an added sur-tax to pay for "cash for clunkers" or the "first time home buyers tax credit" would you be so willing to support those in lieu of our common national defense?  We pay for these things, all of them through the inflation tax.  But I see maintaining our national safety, economic stability, even rebuilding the infrastructure of a foreign Afghanistan to ensure a stable government there preferable to rebuilding large parts of American cities after another 9/11 attack, or living in a state of chronic insecurity like prevails in Israel or many European countries.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 25, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



If by We the People you mean we "The People's Republic of China and future generations of Americans" then you would be correct.


----------



## American Horse (Nov 25, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



The more immediate payers will be those who suffer from the affects of inflation. The beneficiaries will be everyone in the future who benefits from a secure world and a stable economy over one of chaos and insecurity; that's the equation. We've always had to pay one way or the other.  We paid for WWI and WWII and all other wars in the same way.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 25, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



You're one of those glass half full kinda guys, huh?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 25, 2009)

oreo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



Oreo.....how the fuck are you!!


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 25, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



does this government not collect Federal Income taxes from roughly 50% of We The People?  yes 50% of us pay our share! the other 50% not so much.. so I have funded the military my entire working life.


----------



## American Horse (Nov 25, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Astute of you.  Better a half glass than an empty glass, but the glass also has value.  Our national security is a major component of  the glass in this case. . . .


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 25, 2009)

I still don't quite get the rub over this.  We can pay for it now, or pay for it later with interest.  Either way, we have to pay for it.  

Do you cons think these wars don't come with a price tag?  They do.


----------



## American Horse (Nov 25, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> I still don't quite get the rub over this.  We can pay for it now, or pay for it later with interest.  Either way, we have to pay for it.
> 
> Do you cons think these wars don't come with a price tag?  They do.



There is a difference: since when do we create sur-taxes for one item in a budget.  Put the costs of the war in the military budget as was defined by the constitution.  To tax is to discourage; to apply a tax directly is to explicitly discourage.

I've paid enough taxes in recent years to amount to entire family incomes in a given year, and I know some others right here have done the same.  I've always persuaded myself that my taxes are buying lots of things that are good for me or my country, even though I would question some. National defense is first among the budget items I put in the necessary column.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 25, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



It is half full?  I thought it was lower than that?


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 25, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Don't be silly, Willow.  _Everyone_ pays taxes.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 25, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> I still don't quite get the rub over this.  We can pay for it now, or pay for it later with interest.  Either way, we have to pay for it.
> 
> Do you cons think these wars don't come with a price tag?  They do.



Maybe because your mind is in the wrong place.

First of all, Democrats have a reputation of not giving a fuck about the troops. This only reinforces that belief. Being the party of image over substance one would think this would be paramount on their minds.

Second of all, the funds needed to do this operation properly are a drop in the bucket compared to what they want to spend on health care and Cap & Trade, both of which are total farces.....and a fraction of what they've already spent on the none-stimulative Stimulus Bill.

This smacks of opportunism of the worst kind. Yet another excuse to tax the wealthy which eventually will only be passed on to the rest of us.


----------



## Polk (Nov 25, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> I still don't quite get the rub over this.  We can pay for it now, or pay for it later with interest.  Either way, we have to pay for it.
> 
> Do you cons think these wars don't come with a price tag?  They do.



One prominent liberal blogger has said if the goal was to end the war, the quickest way to kill it would be to force finding sixty votes in the Senate to pay for it. 

And of course they don't think these wars come with a price tag. Why do they quote the cost of health care reform as a ten-year number, but quote defense spending and war funding as single year numbers? To hide the cost of conflict.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 25, 2009)

The silly bastards would have been apoplectic had this been proposed 6 years ago by the GOP.

A pox on both their lyin, thievin, conniving, parties and their acolytes.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 25, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Maybe because your mind is in the wrong place.



How so?  I am a big believer in avoiding interest.  I thought you conservatives where all about fiscal responsibility.

You know what I am about?  Not empowering our future economic rival, China, by borrowing even more money from them.



> First of all, Democrats have a reputation of not giving a fuck about the troops. This only reinforces that belief. Being the party of image over substance one would think this would be paramount on their minds.



Generalities are intellectually lazy.



> Second of all, the funds needed to do this operation properly are a drop in the bucket compared to what they want to spend on health care and Cap & Trade, both of which are total farces.....and a fraction of what they've already spent on the none-stimulative Stimulus Bill.



So, if we can't pay for the total bill out-right, we shouldn't try and pay for it at all?

Tell that to your credit card company and see how it flies.  



> This smacks of opportunism of the worst kind. Yet another excuse to tax the wealthy which eventually will only be passed on to the rest of us.



Either way, we have to pay for this war.  We can either start selling real estate or pay for it in taxes.  

I know that Bush mislead you all into thinking that Wars don't cost money, but they do.  

A lot of money.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 25, 2009)

JWBooth said:


> The silly bastards would have been apoplectic had this been proposed 6 years ago by the GOP.
> 
> A pox on both their lyin, thievin, conniving, parties and their acolytes.



Actually, the Democrats did try to enact taxes that would fund the war six years ago.

W. Bush resoundingly opposed any such tax, because he knew that most Americans wouldn't support his silly wars if they actually knew they had to pay for them.

The joke is on us, because, guess what?  We still have to pay for them.

Now we get to pay the interest too.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 25, 2009)

Polk said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't quite get the rub over this.  We can pay for it now, or pay for it later with interest.  Either way, we have to pay for it.
> ...



Right on. 

Bush was a big believer in not making anyone (save for the military and their families) sacrifice for these things.

Well, we are still going to have to sacrifice eventually.  I guess that's what you get when you elect a guy whose lived his whole life on credit.  

Personally, I think they should amend the constitution to automatically enact an income tax in the event of any war.

I'd bet we'd be a lot less gung ho then.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Nov 25, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> I still don't quite get the rub over this.  We can pay for it now, or pay for it later with interest.  Either way, we have to pay for it.
> 
> Do you cons think these wars don't come with a price tag?  They do.



I have an idea. Why don't we tax political fund raisers 30% of their gross take. 
It would be fair because both parties would fork up money.
It would be fair because no voter is force to pay.
It would be fair because Politicians put us in this war - had they done their jobs 911 would have been averted. 
It would be fair because Politicians are the ones who never balance the budget.

It might even get the Politicians to find a better way to handle Our money; remember that all the money the Politicians have is *Our* money, and they have all made a habit of misusing it for decades. Let them pay. That's a *Change* we all might *Hope* to see.


----------



## Rozman (Nov 25, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...




They always say it will only effect the upper 1% but that's merely a starting point. Soon everyone will have to pay extra just to feed, cloth, and protect our kids in uniform.

Every new proposal that comes down the pike the Libs argue this only applies to the upper 1%....Then there's another hair brain scheme for health care....Well this new tax only applies to the upper 1% of taxpayers If you make less then $250,000 you're fine.Soon there aren't going to be those rich folks to hit up for taxes any more....

Maybe this is the Libs plan all along.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...



And what is your plan?  Just not pay for this war?  Or the Iraq war which we never paid for?

Funny how all the born again fiscal hawks on the right react when someone actually calls their bluff.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 26, 2009)

We need to pretend that wars don't cost money...it worked for Bush


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> We need to pretend that wars don't cost money...it worked for Bush



It is so hilarious when libs start squalling about spending.

The Iraq War cost about $180 billion so far compared to $900 billion for a Stimulus package, and $1.4 trillion for health care.......and Bush was the big spender. 

Fucken hilarious I tell you.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...






WOW I couldn't beleive it either I mean WTF raise taxes to pay for not ONE but TWO wars. I mean if you want to talk about being al "Mavericky" then Bush was numero uno by being the ONLY President to NOT raise taxes during war time. I guess he figured our children would be SOOOO much better for it that they would JUMP at the chance to pay more taxes for a war started by the previous generation........Are you fucking HIGH!!??


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



Wonder how he was able to lower the deficit during two wars?

It was around $500 bil after 9/11 and in 2006 it had dropped down the $280 bil.....before the Dems took over congress and started spend like crazy raising it back up to $500 bil in 2008. Now it's around $1.4 trillion.

Yup that bastard Bush was such a spender.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We need to pretend that wars don't cost money...it worked for Bush
> ...






$180 billion? WTF ARE YOU ON!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????? Try $10 BILLION a MONTH and does NOT include the ONGOING costs to care for vets with their ARMS and LEGS blown off? How about those with MASSIVE BRAIN injuries that have damaged them to the point that they may NEVER regain any level of independant living. How about the SOCIAL costs of the rate of CHILD ABUSE, DIVORCE, and SUICIDE at rates NEVER before seen in the military. 

You are perhaps the most CLUELESS Bush appologist EVER IN THE HISTORY of Bush appologists. Your #s are SO COMPLETELY FUCKED up that you are IMPOSSIBLE to take as anything but a BAD JOKE!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





Hey did you FORGET to include the $800 BILLION that BUSH signed into law? You need to get either OFF or ON to some very heavy medication!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Hey mudd you may ALSO but only if you WANT to consider that the military equipment used in Iraq for WELL past it's useful lifespan that our military will have to be REBUILT due to being totally worn out by this EXTREMELY LONG CONFLICT. Gosh I wonder what the DEMS are going to have to pay for THAT?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Is your drunk ass daddy telling you to write this shit because he can't read/write?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're talking about shit that happens every day in the military. War or regular long deployments....it makes no difference. 

And I'd like to see a link for $10 billion a month. That would mean that since we've been fighting in 2001 it's cost us over a trillion and that's over a period of 9 fucken years yet the Dems were able to spend that much in less then a year.

Still waiting for you to explain how Bush outspent the current adminstration.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Tell me Mudd didn't I hear Rummy talking about Iraqi oil profits PAYING for the war which at that time was ("ESTIMATED" what a fucking joke of EPIC proportions) that it would cost $100 billion for the war. Do the math douchbag. $10 BILLION a MONTH for EACH MONTH of this fucked up conflict. Adds up to a bit more than $180 Billion doesn't it. Now once again that # does NOT include replacing equipment AND/OR arms and legs. Now you MAY but likely WON'T admit the FACT that Bush CUT money from the VA at EXACTLEY the time they needed it most. So don't you DARE for one FUCKING SECOND blame the DEMS for the men and women of our military coming back BLOWN TO FUCKING BITS with many of them too brain damaged to EVER fully function again........ALL OF THESE HORRORS based on a fucking LIE sold and willingly BOUGHT by the Bush admin from a FUCKING EXILE code named "CURVE BALL". His code name was FUCKING CURVEBALL!!!


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey mudd you may ALSO but only if you WANT to consider that the military equipment used in Iraq for WELL past it's useful lifespan that our military will have to be REBUILT due to being totally worn out by this EXTREMELY LONG CONFLICT. Gosh I wonder what the DEMS are going to have to pay for THAT?



The military is rebuilt. They have more new equipment then they ever had while I was in. And most of it was spent during the last 3 years. Alot of it is still waiting stateside to be shipped over to the Middle East.

Now the spiget has been shut off. Now it's trillions for health care and Global Warming legislation...payoffs to the U.N. and bribes to Democrats not willing to go along with the crowd on bills. $20 billion to a Brazilian oil company, Billions to ACORN, $140 billion to foreign banks via AIG. A huge slush fund in the form of a Stimulus bill to the tune of $900 billion and another on the way.

Shut the fuck up about Bush being a big spender. All you're doing is passing gas.


----------



## judyd (Nov 26, 2009)

Remember how conservatives turned on Bush I when, after the Persian Gulf War, he said he would have to raise taxes?  This was money that hadn't been planned for, but supposedly the cons supported the war--but didn't want to pay the costs.

It seemed like his son didn't want to make the same mistake, so he just pretended the money wasn't a problem.  Where did you people think it was going to come from?  The continual whining about taxes from people who support these ill-conceived wars doesn't make sense.  As someone already pointed out, the money for the injured will be ongoing for the next fifty years at least--and the number of victims is increasing daily.  And that doesn't even include the people who will develop PTSD and other war-related problems. 

I don't mind paying more in taxes, but I also think much more should be done to control defense spending--or more specifically the incredible waste and cost overruns which have been so acceptable.  The people have to demand better accounting of the military, as well as stop the revolving door of the pentagon and the defense contractors.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Yeah that's right DOUCHBAG over a $TRILLION for the war with ongoing costs to care for the vets and rebuild our military. Where the FUCK did you find $180 billion? UN-FUCKING-BELEIVABLE!


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



If you're talking about TARP....it was $700 not $800 and only $400 of it was spent during the Bush Administration. The rest was spent this year by Obama.


----------



## judyd (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey mudd you may ALSO but only if you WANT to consider that the military equipment used in Iraq for WELL past it's useful lifespan that our military will have to be REBUILT due to being totally worn out by this EXTREMELY LONG CONFLICT. Gosh I wonder what the DEMS are going to have to pay for THAT?
> ...



The money was borrowed but it was never paid back!!!  Bush didn't even include these wars in the annual budgets.  Where on earth did you get the idea that any of it was paid for???  What "spiget(sp)" are you referring to?  Did you really believe that the bush people had been paying for it?  No, they didn't.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Whatever numbnuts. We have the equipment........paid for or not. I don't think the Chinese can repossess our equipment now.....they however are welcome to try.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion 
In addition to the cost of war, taxpayers pay for rising veteran health care costs, and returning soldiers faced with foreclosure and unemployment.
EMAIL  |   PRINT  |   SHARE  |   RSS TWITTER 
Yahoo! Buzz 
DIGG 
FACEBOOK 
DEL.ICIO.US 
REDDIT 
STUMBLE UPON 
MYSPACE 
MIXX IT 
Subscribe to Economy

 feed://rss.cnn.com/rss/money_news_economy.rss
Paste this link into your favorite RSS desktop reader
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close) By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: June 12, 2008: 12:20 PM EDT

The cost of war

More Videos 
Quick Vote
Should oil companies be allowed to drill in protected wildlife areas to increase the oil supply?
YesNo or View results
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the Iraq war continues with no clear end in sight, the cost to taxpayers may balloon to $2.7 trillion by the time the conflict comes to an end, according to Congressional testimony.

In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.

At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. But the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected, and costs have ballooned to nearly ten times the original estimate.

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, told members of Congress that the Iraq war has already cost taxpayers $646 billion. That's only accounting for five years, and, with the conflict expected to drag on for another five years, the figure is expected to more than quadruple. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told members of Congress that the war costs taxpayers about $430 million per day, and called out the Bush Administration.

"It is long past time for the administration to come clean and account for the real costs of the war in Iraq," said Schumer. "If they want to disagree with our estimates or with other experts ... fine - they should come and explain why."

The Bush Administration, which was invited to give testimony, declined to participate.

The Pentagon has previously said that the war costs approximately $9.5 billion a month, but some economists say the figure is closer to $25 billion a month when long-term health care for veterans and interest are factored in. 

Health care: In testimony before the committee, Dr. Christine Eibner, an Associate Economist with research firm RAND, said advances in armor technology have kept alive many soldiers who would have been killed in prior wars. But that has added to post-war health care costs for veterans, especially for "unseen" wounds like post traumatic stress disorder, major depression and traumatic brain injury.

Two-year post-deployment health care costs for the 1.6 million service members currently in Iraq and Afghanistan could range from $4 billion to $6.2 billion, according to Eibner. For one year of treatment, the costs are substantially lower, ranging from $591 million to $910 million. Eibner admitted that the study did not take into account long term care, and her estimates probably underestimate the total costs. 

However, Eibner noted that an increasing number of soldiers are not seeking the care that they need, which affects their ability to get and maintain jobs. And, that, she said, must change.

"Many service members are currently reluctant to seek mental health treatment due to fear of negative career repercussions," said Eibner. "Policies must be changed so that there are no perceived or real adverse career consequences for individuals who seek treatment."

Unemployment: Furthermore, many veterans who recently completed their service are coming back to a difficult job and housing market.

Among veterans who completed their service within the last 1 to 3 years, 18% were unemployed, and 25% earned less than $21,840 a year, according to a recent report commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

"Trying to convince [job interviewers] that my service will translate into skills ... at a bottling factory or a distributing company is almost like you're speaking French to someone who doesn't speak French," said Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America policy associate Tom Tarantino. 

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer agreed, saying the government does a poor job at readying veterans for post-Army life.

"We haven't figured out how to convert a warrior to a citizen yet," Schweitzer told the committee. 

Foreclosure: Many soldiers who come home from active duty are also finding difficulty keeping their homes.

"Military families are already shouldering heavy burdens to care for and support families while their loved ones are serving abroad or recovering at home," said Schumer. "Knowing that so many more are losing their homes to foreclosure is heartbreaking -- and its just plain wrong." 

The senator said that Army personnel returning from duty are at a 37% higher risk of foreclosure, because the areas populated by military families have substantially larger foreclosure rates.

"Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better," testified Tarantino. 

Tarantino recommended Congress quickly sign into law an update to the World War II GI Bill, which would help ease the economic hardships returning solders are feeling.

"More than any other single piece of legislation, the GI Bill will make a difference in the economic futures of the troops returning every day from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. 

First Published: June 12, 2008: 12:07 PM EDT

What the Iraq war will cost the U.S


----------



## judyd (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



I can't believe you seriously feel this way.   It just doesn't make sense--and hasn't made sense during these wars--to keep borrowing billions without any thought to paying it back--and not even seeing the amount as important enough to include in the budget.  The whole iraq operation was a complete abuse of power which now has to be paid for, and if that means increased taxes, so be it.  On the other hand, I do think the corrupt defense contractors who overspent must be held accountable and forced to repay the country the money they stole.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





Gawd you get dumber and dumber. You DO know that the budget year 2008 which BUSH signed into law ENDS in 2009 RIGHT!!!??? 

BUSH spent that money because HE signed it into law. 

I have NEVER seen such a PSYCHOTIC est. for the cost of the war $180 billion. You are truely INSANE and COMPLETELY out of touch with reality. GET HELP AND GET IT SOON!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

And by the way Mud I am DEADLEY SERIOUS!!!! GET SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP TOMORROW!!!


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



That doesn't sound very reasonable.

I really can't see why you feel our troops don't deserve the great equipment they have today.....I sure wish we had it when I was in.

I think you have a problem understanding what an abuse of power is.....taking over private banks and companies.....forcing them to fire their CEOs and putting your man in instead. Stealing billions from the taxpayer over fuzzy math and fake science. Spending millions to bribe Congressmen into voting for your bills......giving millions of dollars to ACORN so they can ruin the economy and steal elections for you.

I really don't know where you get off bud!!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Oh and another neat little trick was Bush used special appropriations to HIDE the real cost of the war. You remember about once a year there would be "special" appropriations for the Pentagon? I thought that was a nice touch too.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Didn't get 4,000 US servicemen killed and TENS of thousands with LIFE ALTERING injuries.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 26, 2009)

> Billions to ACORN,


?

Not looking too hard I found one website claiming 780 Billion to Iraq and and another 900 Billion to the war on terror.
Cost of Iraq War 2008
Cost of War | National Priorities Project

The nice thing about the Bank Bailout is we will probably get some percentage of it back.  Same in theory with any stimulus spending......

Ok, Ike's Interstate projects cost xxx dollars.  The improved transportation network allowed Americans to be xxxxxxx dollars more productive.  That's the thought behind the increase in deficit spending.  To this point its trickling around the system and does not seem to have a grand vision.  Even a TVA or CCC type of vision.  None the less someone has or will make money off it and that person will pay taxes.  Trick will be rolling back the spending or slowing it down to let the GDP catch and lower it as a % of national product


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



And you're stupid as fuck....the President (Bush) doesn't control spending...Congress does....check the Constitution dipshit. Anything that was spent since Jan. 2009 is on Obama and the Dems.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 26, 2009)

> taking over private banks and companies.....forcing them to fire their CEOs and putting your man in instead.


Well, if I ask for a government hand out then they'll demand I do something like apply for 3 jobs a week in exchange.  Darn bankrupt companies should at least have to do something.

In the long run letting them all fail COULD have been the right choice.  Boy it was going to destabilize the next few years.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...




Hey douchbag the PRESIDENT signs or VETOS all spending bills and he sure as FUCK wasn't complaining about it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






You really CAN'T be this stupid.......The FY budget ending in 2009 was PASSED AND SIGNED into law by BUSH, Obama had ZERO to do with it. Now if you actually want to bring up the powers of Congress and the President then you are going to have a REAL hard time explaining why SO MANY things didn't get done when the Republicans controlled BOTH houses of Congress AND the WH.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





Oh and golly quite a retort here. Do we have all this equipment you claim we do? I kinda doubt it. One thing IS for sure dessert sand doesn't mesh well with military equipment. Helicopters, Humvees, Tanks, Jet fighters, and support equipment of EVERY SORT has been in theater for FAR TOO LONG just like our military men and women.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 26, 2009)

Well Mudd I have lost a few thousand brain cells arguing with the most ignorant poster I have found ANYWHERE on the ENTIRE INTERNET EVER!!!


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 26, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well Mudd I have lost a few thousand brain cells arguing with the most ignorant poster I have found ANYWHERE on the ENTIRE INTERNET EVER!!!



Yeah...I'm sure you're 100 percent correct in that assumption. [sarcasm intended] 

I guess you haven't been around here long enough to know different.

Wonder why you folks on the left always call people you disagree with ignorant, stupid, moronic.

Why can't it be a case of a misunderstanding rather then all of the fucken insults.

I think it's because you don't have any answers.....just fucken insults...like the typical brainwashed Lib that you are.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Nov 27, 2009)

The DEMS  have already screwed up the nations finances , worse than they were, and they continue on their BS ways to steal whatever the citizens have left.

They also want to TAX WALL STREET, 150 BILLION/Yr to be used for Job Creation....WTF?
Are they NUTZ or what? I thought *that* was in the Stimulus Package?

 I think the USA has the most screwed up, greedy, self centered, scheming bastad, politicians on the planet.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 27, 2009)

Cost of the Iraq war approaching $1TRILLION and the costs for giving the BEST ongoing care for our wounded soldiers will go FAR beyond $1TRILLION. The injuries they have received are LIFE CHANGING, frome missing limbs to MASSIVE brain injuries they will require and DESERVE the BEST treatment in the world. There are also SEVERE psycological illness that are often NOT diagnosed or are treated as LESS than "real"  physical injuries but can be EVERY BIT as debilitating. Add to the physical and psycological injuries; serious financial problems, serious marital problems often resulting in divorce at numbers NEVER before seen in the military, foreclosure of their HOMES, children that have suffered abuse by spouses overwhelmed by the absence of their husbands/wives and last but OBVIOUSLY not least SUICIDE rates at all time highs likely due to too much time in the field and not nearly enough leave time to recover and prepare for further deployment.


So tell me exactly WHO should pay these costs. Our children and grand/great grand children or the people who can MOST afford the sacrifice during these economic times.

Bush is the ONLY President in history to not raise taxes to pay for the war effort but in fact, gave massive tax BREAKS to the wealthiest Americans. 

Since Reagan's "Top down" or "Trickle down" economics which resulted in TRIPILEING of our national debt we have LOST millions of manufacturing jobs. The WEALTHY didn't do their part, they HID their money in secret Swiss bank accounts to avoid ANY taxes or built factories and made jobs in FOREIGN countries SCREWING their fellow AMERICANS. Now if those tax cuts for companies and individuals were DIRECTLY tied to making jobs HERE for AMERICANS then I would be o.k. with that but they DON'T and THAT is why our manufacturing jobs are GONE never to return.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 27, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Well Mudd I have lost a few thousand brain cells arguing with the most ignorant poster I have found ANYWHERE on the ENTIRE INTERNET EVER!!!
> ...






$180 billion and $1 TRILLION is NOT a misunderstanding it is a blatant attempt to attack the Dems for expecting SOMEONE of this generation to pay for the war. 

Bush unabashidly kicked the cost of the Iraq war down the road and you question the DEMS!!!??? Un-freakin-beleivable. Someone HAS to pay, should it be the ULTRA-WEALTHY or future generations who will be lucky to pay the INTREST on the debt GWB left us with from the war.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 27, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> > If the war is not paid for, its costs "will devour money that could be used to rebuild our economy by fixing our broken health care system, expanding educational opportunities and job training possibilities, attacking our long term energy problems and building stronger communities," they said.
> 
> 
> 
> Says it all.



Yup, there are a good many people in this country who think those things are important and want to see them get funded. We've had to go along with a foreign policy direction we didn't agree with that is also a large drain on the treasury, so guess what...


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 27, 2009)

There are no free rides. Wars cost money, to make people believe otherwise is deceptive


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 27, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> There are no free rides. Wars cost money, to make people believe otherwisw is deceptive



So why doesn't Obama get us out like he promised?

I'll tell you why.....his anti-war rhetoric was just one big load of bullshit.

Sure he's cut back on high-tech weapons systems.....but we're still foundering in Iraq and Afghanistan 11 months after the prick took office.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > There are no free rides. Wars cost money, to make people believe otherwisw is deceptive
> ...







WOW 11 MONTHS how many YEARS did Bush have us in Iraq/Afghnistan? Oh and by the way the Iraqi leadership says we are right on target according to THEIR time table to be OUT of Iraq. Where next if we elect another chickenhawk Republican? I predict Pakistan since the only way to keep them quite is to give them foreign aid. I would not be a BIT surprised if by early next year we will have a MAJOR rift between the US and Pakistan. So much for IRANIAN nukes. One more thing how about you tell me what weapons systems OBAMA HIMSELF cut? Missile shield, and the F-22? First of all the "MISSile shield only fuels our problems with the Russians and increases unrest in the region and the PENTAGON advised against the F-22. 

Now if you want to talk about weapons systems that COULD HAVE BEEN in iraq YEARS ago were the MWRAP body armor (one called Dragon Scale which some military paid for THEMSELVES and were not alowed to use despite its great effectivness and a point defense weapon for our ground vehicles. Israel built, tested, and had ready to equip but an American defense contractor called Raythion lobbied AGAINST it until they could bring their version to Iraq. Good thing to know that our military members lives were risked for a few bucks.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 28, 2009)

The level of stupid that mudwhistle has put on display in thread is quite impressive.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So what you're saying is Obama was full of shit because the Bush plan is still in force.

We're still withdrawing on an agreement that was signed during the Bush Administration.

The way Obama made is sound he was gonna pull us out immediately. In truth he never intended of pulling us out completely. He was just gonna cut back so drastically that our troops wouldn't be able to defend themselves anymore. Clinton did the same exact thing back in 93' and look what it got us. I suspect that Obama is intentionally setting up a similar scenario.

And for your information...the *MWRAP* is an armored vehicle....not body armor. Soldiers wear Kevlar with chicken-plates inserted in the front and back for extra stopping protection.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2009)

So have the conservatives on this thread figured out that, despite what Bush told them, that we do in fact have to pay for these wars?

Since the main holder of the note is our future economic rival, China, we are better off starting to pay for it now.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> The level of stupid that mudwhistle has put on display in thread is quite impressive.



And if I even thought you knew what in the fuck you were talking about that just might offend me.....but you don't....so it doesn't.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> So have the conservatives on this thread figured out that, despite what Bush told them, that we do in fact have to pay for these wars?
> 
> Since the main holder of the note is our future economic rival, China, we are better off starting to pay for it now.



We gotta pay for everything.....but it's funny you bitch about paying a dime when what your Democrats are proposing will cost us an unimaginable amount for the rest of our lives.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > So have the conservatives on this thread figured out that, despite what Bush told them, that we do in fact have to pay for these wars?
> ...



WTF are you talking about?  Where have I "bitched about paying a dime"?

I am a pragmatist.  I know everything in this country costs money.  I know that when we get involved in wars it costs a lot of money.  

I further think that our greatest security threat is not terrorists, but what will happen to our country when the world economic sphere shifts from Manhatten/London to China/India.  

In that light, we have empowered our greatest rival.  We'd be smart to pay them off now as best as we can.  

It is you, that apparently lives in some sort of fantasy land where we can leave this all on the credit card.

As for Obama's policies, if we are going to spend the money, I'd rather do it here than in some shit-hole middle eastern country that, at best, will be another Saudi Arabia.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 28, 2009)

You see, its really easy...

If you don't include something in the budget, then you are really not paying for it. Conservative Economics 101


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> You see, its really easy...
> 
> If you don't include something in the budget, then you are really not paying for it. Conservative Economics 101



LOL.  And when you include "part time jobs" in your employment numbers, unemployment goes waaaayyyyy down.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You see, its really easy...
> ...



They also included contract workers who already have a job....and overtime as jobs saved or created. 4 hours of overtime equals one job saved or created.

Fuzzy math is what they live off of.


----------



## judyd (Nov 28, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> So have the conservatives on this thread figured out that, despite what Bush told them, that we do in fact have to pay for these wars?
> 
> Since the main holder of the note is our future economic rival, China, we are better off starting to pay for it now.



Conservatives don't seem to get it.  Bush used all of those tax rebates to get re-elected, while borrowing huge amounts from the Chinese--who have a much larger military and more fire power than we have.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2009)

judyd said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > So have the conservatives on this thread figured out that, despite what Bush told them, that we do in fact have to pay for these wars?
> ...



Well, at least the ones who supported this war don't get it.

The fiscal and paleo-cons get it.  

Nice that Iraq has only managed to empower Iran and China.


----------



## Meister (Nov 28, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> You see, its really easy...
> 
> If you don't include something in the budget, then you are really not paying for it. Conservative Economics 101



That's not just a conservative trick, because it was used by Clinton, also.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



You're living in some kind of alternative Universe.

Iran has been allowed to enpower themselves....and Russia has been helping them along the way.

China loaned us some cash but Obama went over to ask for more and they told him to stop trying to pass Cash & Tax....and expensive Health Care legislation as a condition. They're worried about their investment. They think Obama is trying to render the dollar worthless....and they're right. They don't want him pulling all of these stunts to ruin the economy so he can rebuild it.

Figure the odds on him listening to them.


----------



## judyd (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...




SOME CASH????  They pretty much financed all of the tax rebates, as well as the war, and then bush went to them to finance the bank bailout.  BUSH DID THAT!!!  Do you people get newspapers down in Tennessee?  And, as far as Russia goes, we seem to be doing a lot better with them than we did when bush was in office.  They seem to understand now that Iran is a problem.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The worst part of the fuzzy math is the notion that without the stimulus bill NONE of these jobs (getting past whether they even exist at all or not) would have ever happened.  In reality since government is actually a poor source for creating sustainable jobs in the first place, had this money been spent by the private sector in the private sector -not only would FAR MORE JOBS have been created -they would have been sustainable jobs as well.  Government make-work projects don't work to get a country out of a recession and hey, we already found that out under FDR when his make-work projects didn't do a damn thing for unemployment numbers or getting us out of a depression.  Common sense is NOT so common since those in Congress claim to be normal yet should KNOW we cannot SPEND our way out of a recession - because when those bills come due, it will result in a double dipped recession and possibly outright depression instead.  

The phony stimulus bill that largely went to pay off Democrat supporters was a dreadful, inefficient and ultimately ineffective use of OUR money.  And still the arrogant idiots in DC think another round of massive government spending even more money we don't have and are increasingly unlikely to ever have -is just what we need.  And it will only be siphoned off to Democrat supporters and districts once again -this Congress is BLATANTLY and unapologetically CORRUPT.  And should be thrown out of office.

At some point it becomes undeniable what they are really up to when they keep right on adding to their nonstop spending spree -that spending us into bankruptcy is actually a goal of theirs because that fits with their much broader agenda.  Which is not and never has been about the best interests of this nation.   It is about their party's best interests and bankrupting the country would actually work to cement and more permanently entrench their power.  Doing so would result in more people looking to government and becoming financially dependent on government -and a government-dependent people are far more likely to vote for the very party that did it and then promises to dole out a tiny sliver more back to them.  And ALWAYS claiming to do so only at the expense of the "rich" because class warfare is a NECESSARY Democrat and liberal tool and they will NEVER stop using it.  Democrats constantly accuse some group of fellow Americans of being the nation's enemy -ones that must be destroyed by force of government.   As if it is only THEIR country and whichever group they deem the "enemy" have fewer rights as Americans than they do.  The "rich" are a perennial favorite and routine standby and will always be dragged out by Democrats.  Even when there are no rich people left  -except themselves of course.  Because these are the people who will ALWAYS exempt themselves from that which they ram down the throats of everyone else.  Those in power always makes sure to vote themselves the most comfortable package at OUR expense -while we are denied those same benefits at all times.

Everything about this administration is a hoax and nothing is being done for the reasons given to the public -whether discussing cap-and-trade, global warming, stimulus bill -or health care reform.  A monstrosity of a bill that is CALLED "health care reform" but in reality has NOTHING to do with health, care or reform.  Even the Congressional Budget Office says the Democrats' 2,000+ page atrocity will make premiums RISE even faster than they are and will ADD massively to health care costs.  AND in addition, it takes phony juggling of the numbers to try and hide from the most ignorant in this country that this bill will actually cost more than 2 TRILLION dollars as a low ball estimate -even more money we don't have and never will!  (To say nothing of the fact that no entitlement has EVER come in for less than 4 times the original estimate and often many times more than that - and neither will this.  It will end up costing many more times than the phony estimates being tossed around -which are already OUTRAGEOUS considering we are BROKE and don't have the money!)  It only adds to the rate we will become bankrupt as a nation.   And still the Democrats WANT this and are intent on ramming it down our throats in spite of the fact the majority of people OPPOSE IT.  They don't care what WE THE PEOPLE want, they don't care this will do the exact opposite of what they CLAIM were their goals -and intend to FORCE this on us all anyway.  

Which begs the question -if it doesn't achieve their stated goal of bringing down overall health care costs, lowering premiums and streamlining the health care system, then why favor a bill that will undeniably do the exact opposite?  They want it because it is about expanding the control and power of government over YOU.  And at the expense of YOUR freedoms which will be forfeited to government.  Which has been their REAL goal all along and with these bills that do the exact opposite of their pretend goals, can no longer be denied. This is all about stripping WE THE PEOPLE of power and handing it over to GOVERNMENT.  If government controls your health care, it controls YOU -right down to what you are allowed to eat and how long you are allowed to stay in the shower.   If government controls these things and can (and will) punish you for not eating what they want you to eat and for not getting out of the shower when they want you to -then you aren't a free person and this will no longer be a free country.  

FREEDOM is only an illusion if government punishes you for not exercising your "freedoms" the way those in POWER want you to.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I guess when you kiss their ass they seem to like it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



If you can't connect the dots and figure out how borrowing a shit-ton of money and empowering the Shi'tes in Iraq (not to mention eliminating their most feared rival) hasn't been the greatest gift to China and Iran we could ever give, then I can't help you.  

BTW, China has loaned us more than "some cash".


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...







My post was unclear I know what MWRAP is.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

So let me guess the way to pay for the war is to NOT pay for the war......Fuckiing genius.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> My post was unclear I know what MWRAP is.



Obviously not.

You said it was body armor.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

No I mentioned body armor DIRECTLY AFTER MWRAP and did not make clear that they are TOTALLY different items. You off course NEVER refuted my claim that some soldiers bought their OWN "Dragon Scale" and were told they could not use it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 28, 2009)

You also failed to counter the FACT that Israel had developed a point defense weapon that the Pentagon REFUSED to use because a US based company called Raythion. How many died for THAT decision?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So let me guess the way to pay for the war is to NOT pay for the war......Fuckiing genius.



Knock off the Drama Queen routine.

Democrats have no problem spending cash we don't have by the trillions for their social programs....some of which many of us don't even want.......but when it comes to asking to supply the troops what they need to win *Obama's stupid clusterfuck of a war*......well we've just got to empty our pockets.....and they aren't ashamed to say it out loud.

The suggestion is so insulting just thinking of it makes me want to fill their fucken asses full of hot lead.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me guess the way to pay for the war is to NOT pay for the war......Fuckiing genius.
> ...



Get in line.


----------



## judyd (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me guess the way to pay for the war is to NOT pay for the war......Fuckiing genius.
> ...




Oh please!  We still have to get started paying back the billions and billions that bush borrowed for iraq.  You fail to acknowledge that--just try to keep blaming the administration that hasn't been in office for a year yet.   Bush should have increased taxes when he started the Iraq war--but he was afraid he wouldn't get reelected--just like his father didn't when he said he would have to raise taxes to pay for the persian gulf war.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me guess the way to pay for the war is to NOT pay for the war......Fuckiing genius.
> ...



Soooooooo......

Have you figured out that we have to pay for this war yet, or not?


----------



## rdean (Nov 29, 2009)

Republicans have been voting against the troops for years.  John McCain has one of the worst voting records in congress.

Bush and the Republicans never included the cost of either war in their budget for his entire administration.

For some reason, Republicans don't understand that war costs money.  

They have become the party of fools.  

They support tax cuts for the rich, which means the cost of the wars are moved to the people who are least likely able to pay for it.  

They defend health care companies skimming billions off insurance policies.  

They say "No government health-care" on the same damn sign that says, "Don't touch my Medicare".

They don't even know that Iraq has become a religious theocracy and either killed or drove the majority of their Christian citizens out of the country.

Like I said, The Republican Party is the "Party of Fools".


----------



## Barb (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...





> Soon everyone will have to pay extra just to feed, cloth, and protect our kids in uniform.



 ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! Did you think ELVES paid for the foreign adventures instigated by our civilian government? How old are you? Did you turn 18 during the last 8 years? Raising taxes to PAY for war used to be standard OPs, but that was sound fiscal management, kind of a pay as you go kind of thing, as quaint and silly as it may sound to you. Meanwhile, "just to???!" really?


----------



## Barb (Nov 29, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?
> ...



 I'm half-assed certain his tongue was firmly lodged in his cheek, but where is your outrage to the OP? Oh, riiiight...


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Hasn't been in office for a year yet......????

Bush caught hell after 7 months for 9/11.....you want me to cut this fucker more slack then him?????

And for your information....Bush had most of it paid back but when the Dems took over congress in 2007 they started spending like naked sailors in a whorehouse in Tiajuana. They doubled the deficit in the first year and have now raised the deficit from it's low-point in Dec 31, 2006 of $280 billion to it's current level of somewhere around $1,400,000,000,000.00. And that's even without health care being included.

Oh, by the way, His father raised taxes because the Democrats in Congress gave him the choice between doing something he felt meant something or being called a do-nothing President. He was just stupid enough to say "Read My Lips". Eventually blamed him for their tax increases and for doing nothing. So he was still fucked. Just goes to show you...never trust a Democrat.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Have you figured out that we have to pay for Universal Health Care yet?????


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

rdean said:


> Republicans have been voting against the troops for years.  John McCain has one of the worst voting records in congress.
> 
> Bush and the Republicans never included the cost of either war in their budget for his entire administration.
> 
> ...



Party of fools vs. the Party of the Foolish.

Oh and......remember.......we shouldn't be telling these people how to run their lives.

That's something Obama wants to do to us, but I think we shouldn't be doing it to the Iraqis.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

Barb said:


> ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! Did you think ELVES paid for the foreign adventures instigated by our civilian government? How old are you? Did you turn 18 during the last 8 years? Raising taxes to PAY for war used to be standard OPs, but that was sound fiscal management, kind of a pay as you go kind of thing, as quaint and silly as it may sound to you. Meanwhile, "just to???!" really?



First of all it helps if you declare war first....then you can raise taxes all you want for it.

Second of all you really haven't been listening to a friggen thing I've been saying.

Sure...all of this cost money and has to be paid for.....but the Dems give us the impression that health care reform isn't gonna cost an extra dime yet the war somehow is gonna be a drag on the economy and taxes must be raised through the roof because of it. I've learned two things in my life.....nothing is free and that the government is always gonna be a total mess. They can't do anything efficiently. 

I have to wait 6 months just to get the doc to stick a finger up my ass at the VA these days. If I need surgery I can put that off for at least a year or two. There's your socialized medicine for you. 

*Increasing taxes during are a recession will do only one thing.....raise unemployment....and thus decrease revenue.

 This is economics 101.* 

There are better ways to pay for a war.


But let's say for argument sake the new surge costs $200 billion over the next few years.....and health care reform will cost $900 billion in the first year......which one can we afford? 

Well we really aren't in a position to afford anything thanks to the Dems and Obama but which bitter pill is easier to swallow?

And for your information...I'm a retired Army Vet. I spent seven months being shot at in Somalia in 93'. I've been in during the terms of Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents and I can tell the difference it makes to this country and the military. 

Some of us *actually experienced things in our lives* rather then just watched it in the news like most of you folks. I don't need a motherfucken lecture from kids who've led sheltered lives *and think hardship is not having broadband service.*



lol


----------



## judyd (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...




Who do you get your information from?   He most certainly did not have most of it paid back--he just decided that the war wouldn't be included in the budget--and it wasn't.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



I guess you're not up on how things get paid for. Most of the time it was included in  *Suppliment budget* requests he submitted to Congress in the form of an *Omnibus Bill*. Congress saw fit to add billions in *Ear-marks* to his war fund just so they could get their pet projects through. 

Funny how they used Ear-marks to take over Congress and yet they raised the practice another 7% over the Republican Congress that preceeded them.


----------



## judyd (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what was included in the budget--THE MONEY WAS BORROWED--NEVER PAID BACK.    The sensible thing would have been to forget giving those stimulus payments to taxpayers and put it towards the debt.  But then he wouldn't have been re-elected.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



What stimulus payments to taxpayers?

Most of that is in a slush fund to help reelect Democrats in the next two elections.

It hasn't been spent yet but nobody seems to know where it went.

I think we should start by holding back on paying ACORN for one. $53 million this year....to steal elections and screw up the economy. They say it's to help poor people get home loans but instead what it did was help them set up the next wave of housing loan forclosures.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Bush caught hell after 7 months for 9/11.....you want me to cut this fucker more slack then him?????



GeeDubya didn't catch *any* hell when 9/11 happened. In fact, after it happened, he enjoyed a period of even greater popularity than Pres. Obama has had. it wasn't until 2003that he started getting any serious criticism over it at all, when his 9/11 karma started running out.

Still wondering where just where you're getting your info for all this.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 29, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Bush caught hell after 7 months for 9/11.....you want me to cut this fucker more slack then him?????
> ...



I wouldn't hold my breath ... homeboy is spinning like a top.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Bush caught hell after 7 months for 9/11.....you want me to cut this fucker more slack then him?????
> ...



Trying to rewrite history now?

The naysayers kept quiet and made their plans and after the shock of 9/11 passed they started talking shit about Bush...how it was really his fault. How he even ordered the bringing down of WTC #7.

James Carville said they could use the war against Bush but what really did him in was Katrina. With the help of ACORN and the media they used a natural disaster that effected all races.....with a serious amount of bullshit and ignorance on the part of the public it was used as a way of illustrating that not only did Bush hate Black People but he couldn't perform miracles after FEMA screwed the pooch. Funny thing is FEMA didn't, but you wouldn't know that. The Governor of LA and the Mayor of New Orleans were the real culprits...not Bush. Take a lesson in civics if you don't believe me.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...




No, but you seem to be trying to invent it:




> The naysayers kept quiet and made their plans and after the shock of 9/11 passed they started talking shit about Bush...how it was really his fault. How he even ordered the bringing down of WTC #7.
> 
> James Carville said they could use the war against Bush but what really did him in was Katrina. With the help of ACORN and the media what was a natural disaster that effected all races.....it was used as a way of illustrating that not only did Bush hate Black People but he couldn't perform miracles after FEMA screwed the pooch. Funny thing is FEMA didn't, but you wouldn't know that. The Governor of LA and the Mayor of New Orleans were the real culprits...not Bush. Take a lesson in civics if you don't believe me.



^^^^^^^^^^^

You got any sources for all this? I mean besides something like _Paranoid Wingnuts Daily_, that is.

Furthermore, what political machinations people may or may not have been planning doesn't change the fact that he was immensely popular right after 9/11 happened and didn't recieve any serious, widespread criticism over this until after he was in office for over two years. What this means is that this dog...




> Bush caught hell after 7 months for 9/11...




...don't hunt.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



I don't need links for all of this shit. All you needed to do was know how government works and keep your eyes and ears open and not fall for every stereotype the leftist media throws at us.

And it's not my problem you fell for the hoaxes the Left and the media constantly throw at us.

9/11 happened during Bush's 7th month....now let's count from when he was inaugerated and figure out how many months into Bush's first term September was.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I don't need links for all of this shit. All you needed to do was know how government works and keep your eyes and ears open and not fall for every stereotype the leftist media throws at us.
> 
> And it's not my problem you fell for the hoaxes the Left and the media constantly throw at us.
> 
> 9/11 happened during Bush's 7th month....now let's count from when he was inaugerated and figure out how many months into Bush's first term September was.



Translation: "I got nothin', but I'll keep on blustering like I do."


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need links for all of this shit. All you needed to do was know how government works and keep your eyes and ears open and not fall for every stereotype the leftist media throws at us.
> ...



No....the correct translation is I have an open enough mind and a good enough memory to have seen all of this develop....seen all of the quotes by the parties involved and looked at the big picture as opposed to being led around by the nose like a lemming.

I've learned from first hand experience not to believe everything that journalists print or publish and I know enough about how government works having worked inside it most of my life....to be able to figure out the crap the media tells us is a bunch of bullshit.

The Drivebys have an agenda....they have no problem lying to us. Moby once said and it spells it all out "Bush doesn't need to do anything wrong to look bad..because we can just make a bunch of shit up and it will be like he actually did it!!!"


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



The same way we pay for everything, to include wars:  taxes.

Sorry you are just now figuring out that a war (which I bet you were a cheerleader for) was actually going to hit you in the wallet.

"How dare the Democrats try and pay for the war!  That's our grandkid's responsibility!"


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I don't need links for all of this shit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Spoken like a true Lib.

There are various ways to pay for things and taxes....raising them is only one of them....but the worst one during a Recession.

Selling savings bonds....or providing incentives. 

Start to incentivize the economy rather then punishing those who make it run.

That's the best way to pay for it.

Why are savings bonds a good deal and a better way? 

The economy is bad now. People buy bonds and cash them in when the economy is good that way the pain is spread out rather then raising taxes and causing everyone undue suffering now. 

The worst thing about new taxes is once you get a new tax you can't get rid of it. Congress will end up wasting the money once it's not needed and continue spending it on their friends and constituencies. 

It's not their money so they could give a fuck. 

Never...ever volunteer to give government a new tax unless you're a fucken idiot. You're just begging to get fleeced.

But this all just makes too much sense for somebody like you to grasp.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Translation: "I got nothin', but I'll keep on blustering like I do."
> ...



You're testimonial above is a convenient catch-all, but ultimately meaningless here. I'm surprised you're even trying to use it. 

You also said this about the Dems in your first post in this thread:



> ...after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look...



That alone tells me you're full of shit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



One part of a sentence....taken out of context.....????

Your the one that's full of shit.

Want me to explain the meaning of that sentence for you?

It means the Dems don't care how bad they look...how stupid they sound because they already have the mechanisms in place that covers up their little fibs and fuckups.

They say or do something stupid and Sunday morning the talking heads say.."Well....this is what they really meant....."

They don't care that the public is up in arms over their abuses because they figure we can't do anything to stop them. Given enough time the media will convince everyone the ream job we just got is good for us.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Spoken like a true Lib.
> 
> There are various ways to pay for things and taxes....raising them is only one of them....but the worst one during a Recession.



I didn't say anything about raising taxes.  I said we pay for things with taxes.  You failure to comprehend that is patently obvious in this thread.  You inability to come to grips with the fact that we have to now pay for Bush's military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan are patently obvious.

I'll bet you supported Iraq didn't you?  What in the fuck did you think was fueling those tanks and jets?  

It wasn't french-fry grease and it costs a lot of money.  

Welcome to reality.  Sorry you just now realized that we have to pay for Bush's political science experiment.



> The economy is bad now. People buy bonds and cash them in when the economy is good that way the pain is spread out rather then raising taxes and causing everyone undue suffering now.



If Bonds were such a magic bullet, then they would have been floated long ago.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 29, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Spoken like a true Lib.
> ...




The Dems in Congress want to raise our taxes. That's why they weren't floated.

And you must think you're talking to a fucken idiot. When you say taxes are the answer that means new taxes or more tax increases.

You are one dumb motherfucker.


----------



## rdean (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans have been voting against the troops for years.  John McCain has one of the worst voting records in congress.
> ...



Good one.  Then why did we "flatten their country"?

We tell gays how to live.  

Like I said, "the Party of fools".


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> The Dems in Congress want to raise our taxes. That's why they weren't floated.



Stop right there.  The GOP was in control of the house, senate, and executive branch from 200-2006.  Bush was the President until 2008.  He never once proposed a war bond.  In fact, Bush went to great lengths to shield the American people from the realization that they would have to pay for these wars (which has been covered at length here).



> And you must think you're talking to a fucken idiot.



At least you got one thing right on this thread.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me guess the way to pay for the war is to NOT pay for the war......Fuckiing genius.
> ...






Better to spend on OUR social problems than IRAQS!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Well FUCK Bush was on VACATION for SIX of those seven months.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Under Bush and the REPUBLICAN congress there was MORE pork both by #s and by $s. But you are still the stupid fucker who thinks that the war cost $180 billion. And you are soooo honest as to ignore the $800 BILLION Bush signed into law bringing HIS last year deficit spending to $1,080,000,000,000.00 but I'm sure you just want to IGNORE or flat out LIE to try to hide that FACT!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! Did you think ELVES paid for the foreign adventures instigated by our civilian government? How old are you? Did you turn 18 during the last 8 years? Raising taxes to PAY for war used to be standard OPs, but that was sound fiscal management, kind of a pay as you go kind of thing, as quaint and silly as it may sound to you. Meanwhile, "just to???!" really?
> ...





$200 billion over 5 YEARS? Well let's see......$10 BILLION per month X 60 would equal $600 BILLION MORE!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

Mud do you REALLY think that repeating your FLAT OUT INSANE lies of the cost of the war will convince us they are anywhere NEAR the true #s?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 29, 2009)

Mud all anyone has to do is look at your TOTALLY BS cost of the war at $180 billion. After seeing that guttershit come our of your head NOBODY will EVER beleive anything you spew.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 30, 2009)

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Reality check here.  Billions is not TRILLIONS, ok?  I know you can't really comprehend the difference between the two numbers because no one has ever seen a billion or trillion of anything and it all just means "really big number" with no real difference between the two.  

But let's try to compare whether billions each year needed for a war is actually comparable to TRILLIONS needed every year for NEW domestic spending they decided to undertake knowing full well we were in a war already, ok?  And let's keep in mind that Bush did leave Obama with a pretty much done deal in Iraq and all that's left there is to wrap things up and get out.  WAR is finite and so is the bill for it.  The domestic spending is NOT but is intended to be FOREVER.   Meaning we will never be free of that bill. 

If you wanted to count to a billion it would take you 32 years to do that -with no break, no sleep.  Long time and unlikely you would actually do it -but it actually exists within the realm of possibilities -the fact it is still extremely unlikely notwithstanding.  

But if you want to count to a trillion, no chance in hell its going to happen.  Zero, zip.  Because it would take 32 THOUSAND YEARS to do it -and in case you didn't know this, no human being will ever come close to living anywhere long enough to come anywhere close to counting that high.   

Ok, you think it serves us better to dwell on the fact that Bush AND the Democrat controlled Congress spent billions on a war in Iraq that the Democrat controlled Congress voted to OVERWHELMINGLY approve (and backtracking now and pretending they didn't is just partisan but phony ass POLITICS).  But let's take a real look at what is driving the budget deficits TODAY -because it sure as hell isn't BUSH!  And let's stop this ludicrous nonsense that Clinton left Bush a surplus -because SORRY he left a larger deficit than the one he had when he came to office too!  That surplus bullshit is just that -total bullshit and a big Democrat lie still being repeated to this day.  Right along with the lie that they own the history of the Republican party and the Republican party owns that of the Democrat party and they MIRACULOUSLY switched histories and principles at the VERY same time!  Only the ignorant will fall for that but Democrats are counting on that number to be substantial after our public school system gets done with them.   But to move on....

President Bush expanded the federal budget from the $350 billion budget deficit he was handed to an historic high of  $500 billion through 2008. President Obama has added $2.5 TRILLION in just his first six months.  Sorry, but there is no close second to this "accomplishment".  This is something that has put bankruptcy as a VERY real outcome for the nation.  Something your favorite whipping boy Bush never did.  These facts can be found from numerous reliable sources including government sources as well as several media sources including separate editions of the Washington Post and LA Times.  

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade.  President Obama and the most seriously considered Democrat proposal for a new government health care bill is estimated to cost $2.5 TRILLION dollars in the first ten years of government outlays.   And let's get real -the CBO has never once gotten the cost of government entitlement programs right and has consistently ended up lowballing by a factor of 4-6.  Which means the real cost is far more likely to cost $10-15 TRILLION. At no time should you forget the REAL difference between a billion and a trillion and go back to deluding yourself that there is no substantial difference between a billion and a trillion.  The difference between the two is MIND BOGGLINGLY HUGE.  

So here is just a tiny BIT of why our budget deficits are out of control under a Democrat Congress and Democrat President:

President Bush increased federal spending on education by 58 percent more than the rate of inflation over the course of 8 years.  That rate will double under Obama next year.  

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased THAT rate of spending by 20% in his first year.  Just imagine what it will be by the end of year 4 of his administration.  It doesn't really matter -we are fast approaching the point where we can't pay for any of this bullshit anyway.

President Bush oversaw a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt because of a mutual agreement on White House policy between the incoming and outgoing Presidents - President Obama&#8217;s budget will add an additional $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.  Again, keep in mind the major differences between "billion" and "trillion".

Time to start living in THIS reality where Obama is President and fully responsible for what HE does.  Not a former President who hasn't had a thing to do with ANY of Obama's decisions since leaving office.  Bush's billions can't hold a candle to Obama's TRILLIONS.  And frankly, we'd be better off by far if we were only beholden for those billions instead of Obama's trillions.  Several generations to come will end up footing the real bill for what Obama has done to this country.  Just don't hold your breath waiting for any of them to thank him -or any of us - for it either.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 30, 2009)

rdean said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I know alot of people that have been in Iraq. We didn't flatten it.

We're the only country that it pays to pick a fight with because once we beat your ass into a surrender we rebuild your country at our own expense.

We aren't telling gays how to live....but it seems that they feel we have to change our lives to accommodate them. That's what same-sex marriage means. They already have the same legal rights as hetero couples.....but somehow they've figured out an angle to cause a point of contention. I think it's intentional....just to cause trouble....and the Democrat latched onto the issue without even saying a word. Obama himself is against same-sex marriage. Yet you probably think he's all for it. 

You're probably one of those that thinks Obama is trying to help the poor...when in fact he's just trying to help his financial supporters. Fleecing the Treasury for every cent he can and sending it out of the country.

How's it feel to be a member of the party of the foolish.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 30, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > The Dems in Congress want to raise our taxes. That's why they weren't floated.
> ...



You've no room to talk.

Anyone who thinks the Democrats aren't doing everything they can to raise our taxes has their heads up their asses.

They do it in every state they take over....they drive businesses out of the state and destroy job growth.

New Jersey found this out.....Michigan.....Ohio....California......next is Florida....soon it'll be your state. 

This is why they keep voting in extensions to unemployment benefits......because they know that for the next couple of years their actions will cost you your job as well as millions of other jobs. I figure they won't be happy til 40% of us are sucking on the government tit.

They keep you stupid and keep you broke and dependent on them and they figure that statistically you'll vote for them......even if they caused you to be in that state in the first place.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



What makes you think Obama has that in mind?

He wants to spread our wealth around the world community. That's what he's planning on doing in Copenhagen in a week or two. What purpose would enriching Americans do for him in the first place. As long as we're poor he can tell us what to do....he can control our lives. If we're independent then he can't lead us around by the nose.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



Hard to believe you have something to bitch where Bush is concerned and yet since Obama took over the debt has doubled. 

You're lying your ass off. Bush signed into law the TARP fund which was $700 billion...not 800....and only $400 of it was allocated to be spent during his final days. The rest was allocated by Obama....plus he signed another $900 billion a few months later. And now he wants to sign into law another bill with initial costs projected at around $900 billion just for startup costs after only a couple of months of debate yet won't go into effect for another 4 years....and all of it because he claims people are dying without it. So I guess they'll have to hang on for another 4 years I guess.

Personally I don't know where you're getting your numbers because they look like you just pulled them out of your ass.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 30, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Mud all anyone has to do is look at your TOTALLY BS cost of the war at $180 billion. After seeing that guttershit come our of your head NOBODY will EVER beleive anything you spew.



What a small mind. You don't agree with one thing so everything else is bullshit.

The actual costs of the war are not a matter of record because any money the DOD got also went to normal operating expenses....maintenance of stateside facilities and equipment most of which would have been spent whether there was a war or not. 

During the Clinton years as with all Democrat Presidents....our posts were left to rot...our equipment allowed to rust.....hundreds of thousands of G.I.s were forced out of the service for the most ridiculous reasons. Even I was allowed to leave because Clinton was gutting our military to get his surplus. That's how they all do it. Then a Republican gets in the White House and they have to almost totally rebuild the armed forces to even get it back to it's former self. Our capabilities were decimated from the levels they were at during Desert Storm. Reagan and Bush Sr. spent 12 years rebuilding it and Clinton spent 8 years cutting it back. Now Obama is doing the same.....during two wars no less.

I figure if we had 12 or 16 years of Democrats in the White House we would be a 3rd rate world power soon enough. China, Russia, Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, Iran...and anyone that feels spunky will thumb their noses at us because we soon won't be able to defend our interests abroad...much less defend our homeland.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 30, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...







A $TRILLION to rebuild INFRASTRUCTURE so we don't have bridges FALLING into rivers.......Yeah I will take that all fucking day long.......Spending $HUNDREDS of BILLIONS rebuilding what Bush destroyed with his "Shock and AWE" against a militry that could have been terrified by a fucking Roman Candle? Yeah just as long as HALLIBURTON gets the "NO BID" "COST PLUS" sweetheart deals at the cost of the American people and our deficit that went up by $5,000,000,000,000.00 part of which happened during Rep controlled Congress and WH. Even the "Bridge to NOWHERE that was vetoed on MULTIPLE occasions by his most Godliness RONALD REAGAN. You guys fucked up so massively that Obama had to take MASSIVE IMMEDIATE action to avoid a DOW at 2,000 so shut the fuck up and economy recover by REPEALING tax breaks for the ULTRA-WEALTHY who SHAMELESLY send jobs and bank accounts over seas!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 30, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





Let's see universal health care for AMERICANS or KILL other people around the world with money we NEVER had? I will vote for taking care of our own.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 30, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...








Bush added $2.5 TRILLION through 2008......Flat our Bush ass kissing LIE! You guys should know by now that LIES like this and Mud's $180 Billion for the war will NOT go unchallenged and you will be made to look rather foolish for trying to float those numbers.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 30, 2009)

Hey MuddieBuddie still would like you to comment on this...............

Under Bush and the REPUBLICAN congress there was MORE pork both by #s and by $s. But you are still the stupid fucker who thinks that the war cost $180 billion. And you are soooo honest as to ignore the $800 BILLION Bush signed into law bringing HIS last year deficit spending to $1,080,000,000,000.00 but I'm sure you just want to IGNORE or flat out LIE to try to hide that FACT!


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 1, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



That's not the choices. We've got kids over there at risk. We have to support them.....but you want to make sure that healthy folks in this country have health insurance instead.

You would rather fill body bags then let people who don't really need government health insurance get it.

I just don't understand that kind of thinking. 

Maybe if they get back here alive get out of the service and apply for treatment for whatever ails them you'll go along with taking care of them. But as long as they are forced to hunker down in a bunker and continue to get mortared....well according to you they can go fuck themselves.

I just wanted to put your stupid beliefs in proper prospective.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 1, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey MuddieBuddie still would like you to comment on this...............
> 
> Under Bush and the REPUBLICAN congress there was MORE pork both by #s and by $s. But you are still the stupid fucker who thinks that the war cost $180 billion. And you are soooo honest as to ignore the $800 BILLION Bush signed into law bringing HIS last year deficit spending to $1,080,000,000,000.00 but I'm sure you just want to IGNORE or flat out LIE to try to hide that FACT!



This looks like a copy of another post.

You're full of shit. Bush didn't have a $1.08 trillion deficit. The deficit was $500 billion. 

However Obama currently has a deficit around $1.4 trillion and is planning on adding another $1 trillion to that with this health care reform bill. Then there's Cap & Trade, immunity for illegals, and something he's not talking about but will soon hit us hard....his Copenhagen agreement which will end up sending another $900 billion overseas.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 1, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey MuddieBuddie still would like you to comment on this...............
> ...







Bring the military HOME then we don't have to pay to kill people in other countries.


As for ANY # you EVER post your #s are HIGHLY suspect.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 1, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey MuddieBuddie still would like you to comment on this...............
> ...





So you are CLAIMING that Bush, in FACT, had a $300,000,000,000 SURPLUS before he signed the $800,000,000,000 stimulus into law.


EVERY ONE of your #s are just made up BULLSHIT!


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 1, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Obama won't bring them back until enough of them get killed to justify it.

Right now if he does he'll look extremely weak and the GOP will blast all over the place that his indecisive-ass lost the war because he couldn't make up his fucken mind what to do.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 1, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Listen you asshole. I never said he had a surplus. Stop putting words in my mouth like the typical lying assed Liberal you are. Personally I don't think you would know the truth about this if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts.

The deficit was around $500 billion when Bush left office. And I REPEAT.......THE TARP BILL WASN'T ANY GOD DAMNED $800 BILLION....IT WAS $750 BILLION.....AND MUCH OF IT WAS SPENT DURING THE OBAMA ADMIINSTRATION. WHEN BUSH LEFT OFFICE THE NATIONAL DEBT WAS $9 TRILLION AND NOW IT'S $12 TRILLION. 

IT TOOK 8 YEARS OF WARS AND NATURAL DISSASTERS FOR IT TO GO FROM $5 TRILLION TO $9 TRILLION *AND OBAMA RAISED IT IN LESS THEN A YEAR ANOTHER 25%*. I figure at the rate he and the Democrats are going we'll have a deficit of around $2.5 trillion and a National Debt of around $24 trillion in only a few years....right around the time Obama goes for reelection.

Everyone knows the Dems planned on raising taxes and spending like crazy....they've just taken the last 8 years trying to figure out a way to make it seem like it was a good thing....paying to stop a crisis. A crisis of their own making. The trick was to not make it so obvious.

Whats fucken amazing that any of you lousy lying fucks would have the nerve to bitch about Bush spending when spending has gone through the roof since Obama took the oath. It just tells me and anyone else you shit for brains troofers, and Obama apologists don't believe in living in the real world but just make it up as you go.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 1, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Sorry douche but a few posts back it was $750,000,000,000 that Bush signed into law. And you may want to look at the DAY BY DAY national debt it was OVER $10,000,000,000,000.00 when Bush left office. But let me guess you are counting from when Obama was ELECTED another totally dishonest way you Neo-Cons try to cover for Bush's FAR LESS than conservative ways.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 2, 2009)

No one who voted for Ronald Reagan twice can possibly complain about deficit spending.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 2, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> No one who voted for Ronald Reagan twice can possibly complain about deficit spending.



And anyone that is such an incredibly gullible fuck who was stupid enough to vote for Obama once has even less to complain about.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 2, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





No I would like to not see DEATHLY ILL people in this country die for GREED!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 2, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Oh and Mr DRAMA QUEEN..........The servicemen in Iraq/Afghanistan have the BEST military hardware in the WORLD so don't give me this "But as long as they are forced to hunker down in a bunker and continue to get mortared" BS you know that is a GD well that is a fucking LIE!


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 2, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



They can get treatment. Obama's health insurance isn't gonna make sure they're taken care of.

I have just as much compassion as the next Liberal...but I also know that the line of Bullshit you've been fed is JUST THAT....BULLSHIT. The form of health care reform the Democrats are proposing isn't gonna make anything better for the terminally ill. Everything is geared to-wards shoring up their base and buying votes. It's not gonna make anything better.

However...our troops are dying every day....115 since Obama started deliberating on what to do next. So I think their needs are alot more important then people who are already being taken care of.


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 2, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...


Well, I'll try this one more time.

Any use of the military for any purpose is already paid for.  Our government collects trillions in taxes.  The defense of this country is the ONLY authorized expenditure by the US Federal Government.

The war is already paid for.  You use the tax money collected to pay the military FIRST!

What is left over goes to the other stuff.  Just how hard is that to understand?


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



The Iraq and A-Stan war expenses have always been attached to the Defense budget as supplementals, so no, the war hasn't "already" been paid for.  I mean, your post sounds all warm and fuzzy and maybe once upon at time it was true in theory, but in reality it's a load of crap.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 3, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



It's difficult to understand because it's bullshit.


----------



## Zona (Dec 3, 2009)

If you are pro war, then dont bitch about paying money for the war.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> 
> In effect, they want to charge us extra for defending our troops....charge extra to send the troops Generals on the ground are requesting.
> 
> ...



C'mon now....the Democrats are just looking at taking more money away from America so they can get the huge deficit Obama's running up back down to Bush's levels.  Right now Obama is set to double the National Debt and the 2010 budget deficit is the most of any President in history all added together.

Their re-election campaign will be run on "See???  We balanced the budget." after they raise taxes on EVERYONE IN THE U.S.A.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 3, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Has it EVER occured to you that people being able to get preventitive treatment/early treatment that it would SAVE money AND lives? Also has it occured to you that when people have no other option than the ER that YOU, I, and EVERY other taxpayer PAYS for that treatment? We pay in higher cost for services, we pay for lost productivity, and we pay with higher taxes. Who do you THINK pays for medical services for those who can't afford them?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 3, 2009)

One more thing Mud......The OP is Dems telling us we have to pay MORE. Well if our troops are "HUNKERING DOWN" as you said then it would seem they need MORE equip and ammunition.....How EXACTLEY do you propose we PAY for that?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 3, 2009)

Darkwind said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...





And let bridges fall into rivers......Let our electrical grids go down leaving TENS of millions w/o power let our flight control system deteriorate to the point that people DIE......Yeah REALLY bright call there.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 3, 2009)

Let's see we could also let our borders CONTINUE to be easily crossed. We could CONTINUE to let our Coast Guard go WOEFULLY underfunded and tasked with Thousands of miles of coast to both guard and patrol for people in distress. We could CONTINUE to allow our ports to hit and miss for finding contraband to enter our country, contaband that could result in a terrorist attack. 


So you tell me........Is asking SOMEONE to pay for the wars out of line? Should those LEAST able to pay more....Those living UNDER the poverty level, those living paycheck to paycheck, those who can BARELY pay their bills and afford medical care pay more? Or should those MOST able, the ULTRA WEALTHY who got the MOST from Bush's tax cuts step up and pay for the war costs? Cause you KNOW they aren't going to make any jobs for AMERICANS, they have PROVEN that since Reagan's trickle down economics. MASSIVE TAX BREAKS FOR business and the ULTRA WEALTHY and MASSIVE loss of our manufacturing base.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 3, 2009)

Zona said:


> If you are pro war, then dont bitch about paying money for the war.



Having been in a couple....I can say I'm definently not PRO-War.

However I am pro-military and National Defense.

There's a slight difference.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 3, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't believe this.....but after years of witnessing a party that really doesn't seem to care about how they look I wasn't really surprised when it was reported that Congressional Democrats want to start a *War Tax* to pay for Afghanistan.
> ...



They've already spent so much they can't balance the budget.

I don't think that's their goal. It would take a Republican Congress to do that.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 3, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



All valid issues....but the goal here isn't to do what you claim. They want to control us through health care....not take care of us. They can't possibly take care of all of us nor take care of all of our needs....or wants. The Senate bill only covers 30 million of us. There's still millions that won't be covered. They want to control what we eat, how much we can weigh, you name it.

I think they want to treat those they consider to be their base ignoring the rest of us. If you're over a certain age you'll be left out in the cold. Socialized medicine is notorious for treating the symptoms and not the causes....because treating the causes is too expensive.

None of this legislation is intended to lower costs but instead will drastically raise costs to all of us in the form of fines and penalties not to mention increases in obligations for businesses. If they want to remain in business they will have to pass the extra costs Obama will impose on to the consumer. It will cause a massive tsunami of layoffs because the costs of keeping employees will increase drastically.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 3, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...






Oh please say it ain't so Mud....You have had a couple of points that I consider reasonable but please oh PLEASE don't tell me you are an unplug Grandma type. They want to treat their BASE........That boarders on PARANOIA. The other point I think you get wrong here is that if EVERYONE in America went to the same doctor once a year so he will know if anything has changed year to year and it is easier to talk to a person you know then we COULD treat the CAUSE........That is my whole point!! If illness is treated early on it is NOT only cheaper but MUCH MORE effective. One of my professors is from Canada, her mother was diagnosed with colon cancer, she went into surgury THAT VERY SAME day. Choices WILL need to be made. Treat a rotator cuff injury or a compound fracture? But to say that people being able to get treated BEFORE they are igravely ill is a bad thing and will NOT save money is to me an absurd notion.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 4, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Maybe you would make more sense if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

There are panels in the bill that are there to decide if this person gets treatment paid for and another doesn't. This is nothing like Canada's health system. The only thing preventative in this bill will be what you can eat, drink, or smoke.

The people that are gonna suffer the most in this "reform" is the elderly. They lose their Medicare, and they have to refile in a government program that they haven't even worked out the details on so efficiency will be a major problem. 

Also, folks who know nothing about medicine will be deciding whether or not the costs for a procedure are worth it. So you and I will be at their mercy. The costs must be kept under control so people's needs will be secondary to the bottom-line.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 4, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





You think the adjuster at Medifarm (TM) has a Doctors licesne? You think the ONLY thing that factors into whether or not you get treatment is his yearly bonus? I DO! The adjuster couldn't care LESS for you and I and will deny coverage for ANY reason they can come up with. You need to understand they get BONUSES for keeping costs DOWN i.e. deny coverage.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 4, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > If you are pro war, then dont bitch about paying money for the war.
> ...






Now the way THIS is worded I can agree WHOLE HEARTEDLY. But WHERE does the money come from? Have you looked into how poorly funded the Coast Guard is? As much as our military needs to rebuild do to the extended war we should also consider the CG a priority. If you look into it I think you will be TERIFIED by the state of our CG and the state of our ports......Mark my words if the terrorists choose to bring the battle back to us they would not have a hard time doing so. They are the scum of the Earth but do NOT underestimate how driven, intelligent, and adaptable they are. The more we squeeze our defenses the more they will find the weak spots in our defenses. Our border with Canada is the LONGEST undefended border in the WORLD. We have THOUSANDS of miles of coast line. We have a Southern border that is a joke, if Coyotes can get PEOPLE across the border then they can get a terrorist across.



We are SOOOOOOOO DAMN vulnerable it is CRIMINAL(on both sides of the aisle).


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 4, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



You and I seem to be in agreement about several things....but going about doing what it takes to get the job done is where we differ.

Any good soldier knows the best way to fight a war is as far away from the homefront as possible...that way you can keep the effects of the war out of the minds of your country's population. 

We chose the battlefield that suited us and we almost destroyed Al Qaeda in the process. 

Now, we're fighting on their home turf. The same turf they used to defeat the Russians.

Not very bright if you ask me.


----------



## Zona (Dec 4, 2009)

I say, everyone who got a Tax cut from Bush....and you know who you are...should pay back America and fund this war since you want it to go on indefinitely.  

Thank you very much.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 4, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





Fighting in the moutains of Afghanistan is pure madness. All we have to do is look at what they did to the Soviets. Don't get me wrong we are better and have equip the Sovs could only DREAM of but in the end I don't think it will be enough. 

Your problem with US choosing the battlefield is that the terrorists are JUST if not MORE able than us to fight on multiple fronts. You don't think the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 has anything to do with Iraq/Afghanistan do you? If so then how would you explain the time between WTC I attack and WTC II attack? You know as well as I that the elements we are fighting don't attack every day they bide their time find their target research it's weaknesses and THEN attack........They are SCUM but we should NEVER underestimate them.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 4, 2009)

Zona said:


> I say, everyone who got a Tax cut from Bush....and you know who you are...should pay back America and fund this war since you want it to go on indefinitely.
> 
> Thank you very much.



Strange that you would say that.

If you paid taxes of any kind the last 9 years you got a tax-cut or a rebate.

So why don't you start with yourself.

The Treasury will take checks.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 4, 2009)

I would be interested in your response to a thread I started and I REALLY wanted military men to give their take. My take on Afghanistan is we need MORE special forces vs standard troops. We need the kind of troops who can get those cockraoches where they live.....In the mountains.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 4, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



True....true....notice the simple fact that no other attacks succeeded during the Bush years after 9/11....but for some strange reason political correctness allowed a major to get promoted months before he decided to waste a bunch of our kids at Ft Hood....even though several people raised red-flags about him.

I just wonder if he would have been able during the Bush years to get away with it. I don't think it's a coincidence that he was able to kill so many while Obama was president. Obama policies were in place when it happened. I think he should share some of the blame. Don't you think? After all, Bubba seemed to be more of a threat to the Obama White House then any Muhammed or Hasan. That would be profiling after all in this new world of political correctness in the war on terror....whoops....Overseas Contingency Operation.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 4, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I would be interested in your response to a thread I started and I REALLY wanted military men to give their take. My take on Afghanistan is we need MORE special forces vs standard troops. We need the kind of troops who can get those cockraoches where they live.....In the mountains.



Funny, but nobody in the media is asking them.

Special Forces have limitations.

My suggestion is carpet-bombing them in their caves.

Do it for a few months and they'll be totally bonkers.

Sending in Special Forces will only get people killed. Why do I say this? Because the UDT Seals have been fighting that war for years and not getting anywhere.


----------



## Zona (Dec 4, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > I say, everyone who got a Tax cut from Bush....and you know who you are...should pay back America and fund this war since you want it to go on indefinitely.
> ...



I mean on the scale of when Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy during Iraq...those guys.  We have to start with them.

Since Bush gave those cuts and pretty much helped destroy our economy....they should give some back and fund the war they want us to fight forever.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 4, 2009)

Zona said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



That's funny.

The people responsible for destroying the economy....Barney Frank...Chris Dodd....Nancy Pelosi.....Harry Reid....they should be the first to pay.

Bush doesn't spend the money nor does he make up the rules on banks that set all of this in motion back in Jan. of 07'.


----------



## Zona (Dec 4, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



So bush had nothing to do with the tax cuts HE gave to the wealthy.  You know, the cuts that cost us billions?  THOSE CUTS....


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 4, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





This is a VERY odd connection. I don't think it had ANYTHING to do with Obama but if you want to make a case that someone f'ed up then I would say that military members with his speciality are at such short supply and are DESPERATELY needed to treat the MASSIVE # coming home who need psycohlogical treatment. Perhaps THAT is why he was overlooked I don't know but try to stay real and not try to plant this on Obama.


As much as I, at times, LOATHED Bush I NEVER thought he was trying to bring our country down the way Beck and Libaugh accuse Obama of doing. I beleive that Obama LOVES his country just like you, I, and virtually EVERYBODY else and is doing what he feels is RIGHT. Whether like Iraq was or will end up being the right decision (I don't think so) it was what Bush THOUGHT was right. I think he had some VERY hawkish advisors and I think he FAILED to listen to his MILITARY advisors but I think he did what he felt was right.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 4, 2009)

I don't think carpet bombing will drive them out of those caves they are GREAT bomb shelters.


----------



## Meister (Dec 4, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I don't think carpet bombing will drive them out of those caves they are GREAT bomb shelters.



Bunker Buster?


----------



## rdean (Dec 5, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Oh man, I pity you.  Seriously, you're delusional.  

Iraq "picked" a fight with us?  Just that one statement qualifies you for the "boob of the year" award.  You seem to be saying that countries will attack the US in the hopes of after being blasted by us we "rebuild".  Did you proof read first?  Maybe say it out loud so it doesn't sound completely retarded?

As far as the gays, they are the sons and daughters of American families who have done nothing wrong, except fall in love with the "wrong" person.  No straight marriage has ever ended because of some gay people they don't know.  Ironic is the fact of the 50% divorce rate and those that scream the loudest about the "sanctity" of marriage get married three or four times.  I guess "sanctity" must be fun.  We know there is at least a thousand laws that protect the married.  Someone on this site even posted them ALL once.

And Obama sent money OUT of the country?  You get "boob" award number two.  Bush was the first President in American history who started two wars and cut taxes for the rich at the same time.  

Check this out:

How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian

The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee.

Yea, that was three hundred and sixty three tons of hundred dollar bills that Bush and the Republicans just tossed out the window.

And that was only one time out of many.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you even think that women are better off now and Christians are free to practice their religion, like they were since before Muslims even moved into Iraq.

You absolutely have to be a Republican.  Democrats just aren't normally that dumb.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 5, 2009)

Zona said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Economics 101 is that tax incentives spur the economy. Obama has been floating the idea of giving tax incentives to businesses. This is another way of giving tax-cuts to the wealthy. It all depends on how you want to describe it.

Tax cuts do not cost us anything because they allow investors and consumers to keep more of their own money thus they spend more. That means they feel free to buy those high dollar items they've been putting off. Or hire more workers because they're feeling good about the future. And what happens when more people are working? That's right....more people are paying taxes. 

The job losses we've experienced in the last year are a direct result of Obama policies...even the threat of which causes fear in the private sector. Enough to double unemployment, decreased productivity, and lower consumption. All of which has resulted in a recession. 

People are worried about the future. An administration that tells you that your family has to learn to expect less in the future tends to slow the transfer of cash in any economy. And because of that....the lack of exchanging money...less taxes are paid in the process. Less profit means less revenue. 

Getting even with the rich only assures that the Middle-class ends up paying more taxes eventually to make up for the loss in revenue. Raising taxes during a recession is a serious mistake. Obama is learning this....personally his actions up until now makes me think he's screwing up the economy on purpose....you can't blame me for thinking this after hearing over a year of rhetoric that would give any smart business owner the impression the government is out to ruin them.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 5, 2009)

It's difficult for a president that was raised on socialist and communist principles to run a capitalist economy. All of his beliefs go against the grain in the US. The Democrats aren't Liberals in the pure sense. Too many of them are progressives or communists. They aren't the friend to the little guy but instead are the ones keeping them from realizing their dreams. 

Some of the czars Obama has chosen believe in tweaking regulations forcing up costs of goods and services thus reducing consumption. This alone will cause a recession. Some of the nut-cases Obama has working for him believe that mankind is a disease that needs to be eradicated from the Earth. Mankind is a plague on this planet according to some of them. Animals need lawyers to protect themselves from man's abuse and habit of polluting their surroundings. 

Some of them even think that getting rid of excess populations is the key to any great society. The old and the sick need not bother us with their presence. This is a communist belief from way back. Get rid of the generations that preceded the new order. Raise our kids to be mindless zombies while they're cutting off the elderly who remember when this country was great. 

As these freaks continue to surface folks like Glenn Beck shine a light on them and they're soon ushered out of the White House and hidden away down the street at *the Center for American Progress*. Van Jones was just one of them.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 5, 2009)

rdean said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...







If your marriage is so weak that gays being able to LEGALLY say they are married threatens it then get divorced now because it WON'T last the test of time.......Personally though I don't think the gov't has ANY business getting involved in marriage. Give civil unions to EVERYONE and if you can find a priest to "Marry" you then you are "Married."


As for the $12 BILLION "lost" in Iraq I see shades of Iran/Contra and it scares me. Not ONLY was $12 BLLION "lost" but so were about a 100,000 small arms (ak-47s and handguns). I see someone's wet dream of a "shadow army". 

Once you figure in all the "REBUILDING" projects for KBR that were "cost plus" and ended up being so poorly built that they were WORTHLESS and you understand just how much money was "LOST" in Iraq.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 6, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...







Tell me what does Econ 101 tell you about LOSING our manufacturing base since the 80's when Reagan gave tax breaks based on "Trickle Down Economics"? Those ULTRA RICH and the CORPS made MILLIONS of jobs........OVERSEAS!!! Then they moved their corporate HQs to the Cayman Islands (little more than a P.O. box) to SCREW the US out of the taxes they SHOULD pay.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 6, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Let's assume you're correct....that all of those jobs went overseas during the Reagan years.

What was the primary cause of that? I'll tell you....government regulations....Capital Gains taxes....a high corperate tax rate [second highest in the world]....rising wages because of unions.....even higher health care requirements in those union jobs.

Seems everything the Dems push for....higher minimum-wage....more benefits for workers...costing the employer millions in benefits and workman's comp......jobs just started leaving because lower wage workers in other countries were becoming available.

No company can compete in the US market if they don't take advantage of what's out there and the trends were to ship manufacturing overseas. It continued into the Clinton years and the early part of the Bush years.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> It's difficult for a president that was raised on socialist and communist principles to run a capitalist economy. All of his beliefs go against the grain in the US. The Democrats aren't Liberals in the pure sense. Too many of them are progressives or communists. They aren't the friend to the little guy but instead are the ones keeping them from realizing their dreams.
> 
> Some of the czars Obama has chosen believe in tweaking regulations forcing up costs of goods and services thus reducing consumption. This alone will cause a recession. Some of the nut-cases Obama has working for him believe that mankind is a disease that needs to be eradicated from the Earth. Mankind is a plague on this planet according to some of them. Animals need lawyers to protect themselves from man's abuse and habit of polluting their surroundings.
> 
> ...






As far as population control Mother Nature will ALWAYS equalize the equation. The ability to have airline stops in three countries in one day will ENSURE that when (not if) the next major pandemic occures it will be global in days. Will it have a 100% mortality rate......Not likely but it could have a 70-90% mortality rate. We are the ONLY species on Earth that does so much damage to our surroundings. We Overpopulate, we Pollute, we Overhunt, and we wage war against out own species. You have to admit that we are becoming not MORE resistant to a Pandemic we are becoming LESS resistent. We OVERuse antibiotics we play Russian Roulette with our tampering with Viruses and diseases and it is only a matter of time whether man made or from nature that we are faced with some SERIOUS shit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > It's difficult for a president that was raised on socialist and communist principles to run a capitalist economy. All of his beliefs go against the grain in the US. The Democrats aren't Liberals in the pure sense. Too many of them are progressives or communists. They aren't the friend to the little guy but instead are the ones keeping them from realizing their dreams.
> ...



It's a wonder you can sleep at night thinking about all of this.

If animals with their habit of killing each other were to replace us I don't think things would be any better...purhaps worse.

At least some of us take the time to clean up after ourselves and have learned how to conserve.

Problem is folks like Obama and Al Gore waste our resources more then anyone yet they have the nerve to tell us to cut back. 

I say they can stick it up their asses. I don't need some prick from Harvard to tell me how important the environment is...having grown up in the mountains of Montana and being a free-lance herbalist as well. I don't hunt because I know I can go to a store and get what I need every day or grow it myself. However game is much more plentiful then it was when I did in my youth because of an excellent government sponsored nationwide hunting program that has been in place since the 70s.

I recycle and I try to conserve....much more then those assholes in Copenhagen are today.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Hey I will give a "THMBS UP" to Bush's Crawford ranch......Pretty cool.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

O.K. Mud I would like you to just CONSIDER this proposal.....Any new homes in Arizona must have solar panels installed during construction. Just CONSIDER for a moment how much energy that could save.....During the HOTTEST time of day when there is the GREATEST draw on the power grid these solar panels would create the MOST power.....Even if it was just enough to run the AC so you can come home to a house that isn't 110 degrees it would save MASSIVE amounts of power. Now let's throw in Nevada....I think they get a lot of sun.... Maybe parts of CA......Texas......FL......How MUCH power would that save?


Now I am SURE you don't like the idea of mandates but we MUST start SOMEWHERE!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

One other thing Mud in my Geology class there was a disturbing little post he showed us......How many years of copper do you think the world has?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

Copper is a diminishing resource. According to New Scientist (May 23, 2007) our world has an estimated 61 years supply of copper left.


I think this is a best case scenario based on current demand......What happens when we have no more copper?


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> O.K. Mud I would like you to just CONSIDER this proposal.....Any new homes in Arizona must have solar panels installed during construction. Just CONSIDER for a moment how much energy that could save.....During the HOTTEST time of day when there is the GREATEST draw on the power grid these solar panels would create the MOST power.....Even if it was just enough to run the AC so you can come home to a house that isn't 110 degrees it would save MASSIVE amounts of power. Now let's throw in Nevada....I think they get a lot of sun.... Maybe parts of CA......Texas......FL......How MUCH power would that save?
> 
> 
> Now I am SURE you don't like the idea of mandates but we MUST start SOMEWHERE!!!



Solar panels don't have the power to run an air-conditioner. You can save on heating water but the technology doesn't exist to run HVAC with solar. Also changing from R12 to R22 and now to R410a means a slow progression to less efficient refrigerants. R410a runs at higher pressures which causes more wear and tear on the systems used in HVAC. However the EPA in all it's wisdom has decided that HFCs are less damaging to the environment then CHFCs. But the change means higher costs. And option would be to switch everyone to Geo-Thermal HVAC. Uses less energy.

One way to save gas and electricity would be to get rid of traffic lights and put in traffic circles. No waiting for lights to change.  The savings would be enormous.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Copper is a diminishing resource. According to New Scientist (May 23, 2007) our world has an estimated 61 years supply of copper left.
> 
> 
> I think this is a best case scenario based on current demand......What happens when we have no more copper?



Switch to Silver...it's a much better conductor.

Ether that or melt down a bunch of pennies.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 7, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > We should not need a tax.  Shouldn't all those who support the war just contribute enough to pay for it?
> ...



I AM a US CITIZEN bud.

Are yall still whining over actually paying for a war you supported?

Piss poor personal responsibility if you ask me.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > O.K. Mud I would like you to just CONSIDER this proposal.....Any new homes in Arizona must have solar panels installed during construction. Just CONSIDER for a moment how much energy that could save.....During the HOTTEST time of day when there is the GREATEST draw on the power grid these solar panels would create the MOST power.....Even if it was just enough to run the AC so you can come home to a house that isn't 110 degrees it would save MASSIVE amounts of power. Now let's throw in Nevada....I think they get a lot of sun.... Maybe parts of CA......Texas......FL......How MUCH power would that save?
> ...






DUDE!!!! Have you seen how most of your fellow Americans drive!!!??? Just sounds a bit scary to me......The next county over is Canyon county........2C on the license plate.......2C drivers scare us here in 1A.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Dec 7, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Copper is a diminishing resource. According to New Scientist (May 23, 2007) our world has an estimated 61 years supply of copper left.
> ...






I am pretty sure your second option is a Federal offense.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Gotta do what you gotta do.

Pennies will be obsolete soon anyway because of all of the spending in Washington....inflation will make pennies worthless.


----------

