Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Wry Catcher]

OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.

Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.

DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.

What did the Republicans in Congress get?

They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.

BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.

Tax cuts on the rich, huh? Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them? Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?

We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.

You're very ignorant.

"hroughout the 1990s the U.S. government has expended some $200 billion annually, or between 2 and 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, through more than 20 million contracts to procure goods and services from private-sector firms. Slightly more than half of this amount (around 55 percent) has gone for services, with the rest going to acquire products. All of this buying is done through a highly decentralized, and often confusing, procurement structure. In addition, each year state and local governments collectively spend about the same amount as the federal government. Government contracts range in value from a few thousand dollars each to a billion or more dollars; likewise, contractors range in size from small businesses to major corporations.

Government contracts spell out precisely the goods or services that the government needs and the exact terms of payment. Therefore a contract is not the same as a grant, which is an outright award of money that the government makes to a grantee, with no expectation of a particular product or service in return. A government contract for a sum smaller than $25,000, moreover, is issued by means of a purchase order and is much less onerous to apply for than a large contract. Purchase orders are so common in government that their exact amount has not been determined, making aggregate procurement statistics only approximate.

Despite the occasional revelations of grossly overpriced goods that a government agency may have bought, or mistaken payments to vendors who had never sold the government anything, these are exceptional incidents. Government procurement is guided by a few basic principles: contracts are generally awarded to the lowest bidder; in addition, they are open to all qualified bidders; and there are prohibitions against favoritism. Moreover, the government is required by law to set aside contracts for small, disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by women and minorities."



Read more: Government Contracts - expenses

"prohibitions against favoritism" Really?
USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:

Gee Ernie, I suspect you should ask Burt to do your research - he's the brighter puppet.

 

[Ernie S.]

I blew your post out of the water and that's all you got?
Yup. You're arrogant with absolutely no reason to be. I believe I know why you're no longer in law enforcement.

Read the link

 

[frigidweirdo]

OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.

Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.

DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.

What did the Republicans in Congress get?

They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.

BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.

Tax cuts on the rich, huh? Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them? Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?

We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.

Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.

So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.

You're insane. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.

And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country. It's been posted on this site countless times.

And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I blew your post out of the water and that's all you got?
Yup. You're arrogant with absolutely no reason to be. I believe I know why you're no longer in law enforcement.

Read the link

I did. And I'm mindful of the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton and KBR; both Obama's EO and (supposedly) Bush/Cheney felt there were extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such contracts.

BTW, I'm retired. Safety Retirement is quite nice.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.

You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.

The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.

For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger. I would watch your own extinction if I were you.

If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.

I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage. You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.

Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.

Wry spent 32 years guarding young black and Hispanic men. Much of that time he was on his knees in front of them in the men's room. He has a "different perspective" on lawbreakers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.

DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.

What did the Republicans in Congress get?

They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.

BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.

Tax cuts on the rich, huh? Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them? Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?

We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.

Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.

So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.

You're insane. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.

And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country. It's been posted on this site countless times.

And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?

They do? They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?

No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them. It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.

The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.

For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger. I would watch your own extinction if I were you.

If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.

I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage. You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.

Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.

I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree; "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.

CA PC 422 Et Seq.

422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.

Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously. Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.

You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement? You don't know the first thing about law. Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.

 

[The Rabbi]

The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.

For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger. I would watch your own extinction if I were you.

If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.

I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage. You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.

Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.

I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree; "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.

CA PC 422 Et Seq.

422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.

Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously. Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.

You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement? You don't know the first thing about law. Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.

He was responsible for collecting the payoffs and distributing dope in the joint. He knows all about it. Ask him how do you toss a salad.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger. I would watch your own extinction if I were you.

If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.

I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage. You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.

Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.

I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree; "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.

CA PC 422 Et Seq.

422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.

Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously. Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.

You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement? You don't know the first thing about law. Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.

He was responsible for collecting the payoffs and distributing dope in the joint. He knows all about it. Ask him how do you toss a salad.

He's a phony. I know people in law enforcement, and they don't talk like this guy. As another member pointed out, he struggles to find these ten-dollar words to unnecessarily to use in his replies. And what really gives him away is that he also claims to have a business, but is pro tax the wealthy. It just doesn't add up.

These posers just don't realize how obvious they are in most cases.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.

BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.

Tax cuts on the rich, huh? Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them? Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?

We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.

Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.

So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.

You're insane. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.

And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country. It's been posted on this site countless times.

And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?

They do? They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?

No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them. It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.

I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.

Here's the federal budget.

17% goes on defense.

How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.

So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.

Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.

But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.

Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.

But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe social spending via our "warfare-State" regime should be reflected under defense spending; our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, should be listed as "defense" spending.

 

[Ernie S.]

I blew your post out of the water and that's all you got?
Yup. You're arrogant with absolutely no reason to be. I believe I know why you're no longer in law enforcement.

Read the link

I did. And I'm mindful of the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton and KBR; both Obama's EO and (supposedly) Bush/Cheney felt there were extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such contracts.

BTW, I'm retired. Safety Retirement is quite nice.

Yup, extraordinary circumstances that require union labor..... You a funny dude.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.

For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger. I would watch your own extinction if I were you.

If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.

I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage. You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.

Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.

I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree; "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.

CA PC 422 Et Seq.

422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.

Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously. Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.

You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement? You don't know the first thing about law. Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.

Sure I do, I watched Leno, but preferred Letterman.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.

I've made my case over and over

This is a lie.
You've stated what you want to do, over and over
-You have not soundly illustrated the necessity of doing those those things
-You have not soundly demonstrated the efficacy of doing those things
-You have not soundly explained how those things do not violate the constitution.
-You HAVE run away from every challenge for you to fill the obligations noted above.
And thus, you have not even begun to make your case.

it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.

The truth... that you only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution? I fully acknowledge that truth.
YOU fully acknowledge the truth that you understand your lack of capacity to soundly address issues noted above

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.

I've made my case over and over

This is a lie.
You've stated what you want to do, over and over
-You have not soundly illustrated the necessity of doing those those things
-You have not soundly demonstrated the efficacy of doing those things
-You have not soundly explained how those things do not violate the constitution.
-You HAVE run away from every challenge for you to fill the obligations noted above.
And thus, you have not even begun to make your case.

it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.

The truth... that you only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution? I fully acknowledge that truth.
YOU fully acknowledge the truth that you understand your lack of capacity to soundly address issues noted above

Thanks so much for sharing your ... opinions. My thoughts on the issue really push your buttons, and those of the others who are emotionally attached to an inanimate object.

That too I find to pathological.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.

I've made my case over and over

This is a lie.
You've stated what you want to do, over and over
-You have not soundly illustrated the necessity of doing those those things
-You have not soundly demonstrated the efficacy of doing those things
-You have not soundly explained how those things do not violate the constitution.
-You HAVE run away from every challenge for you to fill the obligations noted above.
And thus, you have not even begun to make your case.

it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.

The truth... that you only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution? I fully acknowledge that truth.
YOU fully acknowledge the truth that you understand your lack of capacity to soundly address issues noted above

Thanks so much for sharing your ... opinions.

You mean facts.
You only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution.
Like all the other anti-gun loons.
Nothing more, nothing less..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tax cuts on the rich, huh? Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them? Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?

We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.

Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.

So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.

You're insane. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.

And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country. It's been posted on this site countless times.

And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?

They do? They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?

No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them. It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.

I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.

Here's the federal budget.

17% goes on defense.

How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.

So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.

Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.

But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.

Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.

But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.

No. For one, our military protects all of us equally. Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.

Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others. It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not. Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare. It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.

Social Security? The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back. Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.

So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people?

Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job. That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms. Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.

So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.

You're insane. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.

And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country. It's been posted on this site countless times.

And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?

They do? They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?

No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them. It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.

I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.

Here's the federal budget.

17% goes on defense.

How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.

So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.

Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.

But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.

Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.

But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.

No. For one, our military protects all of us equally. Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.

Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others. It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not. Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare. It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.

Social Security? The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back. Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.

So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people?

Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job. That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms. Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

Who benefits from cheaper oil? A lot of companies that are using a lot of oil. Transport companies for example, those who use transport companies to transport their goods and so on.

Exxon makes the most gross revenue of all oil companies in Iraq right now. They have 60% of the West Qurna Field.

Second is BP. While officially British its shares are owned by a lot of Americans.

Occidental also makes a lot of money.

Shell is a large player there too. It might be officially Dutch but the largest shareholder is Capital Research Global Investors, founded by some guy in Alabama, and the chairman is David I. Fisher, who I'm assuming is American, though I can't find the information with a quick search.

The point being that rich people are able to make profit from such wars. The war itself was designed to stop OPEC making a strong cartel again, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya have all been targeted, as well as Iran with sanctions (sanctions also aganst Venezuela) in order to weaken their ability to set oil prices where they wish to set oil prices.

Halliburton. Do I need to say much about the former VP's interest in this company?

Before they got into the White House they were running on between $10 and $13 billion, this jumped to $18billion, meaning the Iraq War was making them at least $5 billion a year, which was, compared to 2002, an increase of $7.5 billion, nearly doubling their revenue.

Lockheed Martin stock prices.

I could go on.There's a lot of profit made by defense contractors. They made money because the US govt was buying their stuff for their war in Iraq which cost the US people a lot of money. Who funded this war? Well, people who pay taxes. Question is, did these companies pay more in taxes or did they receive more in profits? I'd go for the latter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're insane. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.

And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country. It's been posted on this site countless times.

And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?

They do? They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?

No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them. It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.

I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.

Here's the federal budget.

17% goes on defense.

How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.

So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.

Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.

But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.

Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.

But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.

No. For one, our military protects all of us equally. Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.

Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others. It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not. Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare. It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.

Social Security? The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back. Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.

So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people?

Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job. That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms. Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

Who benefits from cheaper oil? A lot of companies that are using a lot of oil. Transport companies for example, those who use transport companies to transport their goods and so on.

Exxon makes the most gross revenue of all oil companies in Iraq right now. They have 60% of the West Qurna Field.

Second is BP. While officially British its shares are owned by a lot of Americans.

Occidental also makes a lot of money.

Shell is a large player there too. It might be officially Dutch but the largest shareholder is Capital Research Global Investors, founded by some guy in Alabama, and the chairman is David I. Fisher, who I'm assuming is American, though I can't find the information with a quick search.

The point being that rich people are able to make profit from such wars. The war itself was designed to stop OPEC making a strong cartel again, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya have all been targeted, as well as Iran with sanctions (sanctions also aganst Venezuela) in order to weaken their ability to set oil prices where they wish to set oil prices.

Halliburton. Do I need to say much about the former VP's interest in this company?

Before they got into the White House they were running on between $10 and $13 billion, this jumped to $18billion, meaning the Iraq War was making them at least $5 billion a year, which was, compared to 2002, an increase of $7.5 billion, nearly doubling their revenue.

Lockheed Martin stock prices.

I could go on.There's a lot of profit made by defense contractors. They made money because the US govt was buying their stuff for their war in Iraq which cost the US people a lot of money. Who funded this war? Well, people who pay taxes. Question is, did these companies pay more in taxes or did they receive more in profits? I'd go for the latter.

You might have a point had Cheney not sold all interests in Halliburton to run for VP.

Who denied Halliburton made money? Of course they made money. What business that you are aware of operates without making money?

Haliburton is the company used in nearly every one of our rebuilding projects since Vietnam.

So where is all this oil from Iraq that you speak of? Need I post our imported oil showing that Iraq is way down the list? Before fracking, we got most of our oil from Mexico and Canada. Thanks to fracking (which liberals were always against) we are now independent of much foreign oil.

And who benefits most from lower oil prices? Did you notice that our economy has improved slightly since the price of our fuel has dropped? No, it wasn't the fake stimulus package or Commie Care. It was because of lower fuel prices.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?

They do? They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?

No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them. It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.

I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.

Here's the federal budget.

17% goes on defense.

How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.

So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.

Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.

But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.

Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.

But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.

No. For one, our military protects all of us equally. Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.

Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others. It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not. Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare. It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.

Social Security? The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back. Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.

So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people?

Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job. That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms. Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

Who benefits from cheaper oil? A lot of companies that are using a lot of oil. Transport companies for example, those who use transport companies to transport their goods and so on.

Exxon makes the most gross revenue of all oil companies in Iraq right now. They have 60% of the West Qurna Field.

Second is BP. While officially British its shares are owned by a lot of Americans.

Occidental also makes a lot of money.

Shell is a large player there too. It might be officially Dutch but the largest shareholder is Capital Research Global Investors, founded by some guy in Alabama, and the chairman is David I. Fisher, who I'm assuming is American, though I can't find the information with a quick search.

The point being that rich people are able to make profit from such wars. The war itself was designed to stop OPEC making a strong cartel again, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya have all been targeted, as well as Iran with sanctions (sanctions also aganst Venezuela) in order to weaken their ability to set oil prices where they wish to set oil prices.

Halliburton. Do I need to say much about the former VP's interest in this company?

Before they got into the White House they were running on between $10 and $13 billion, this jumped to $18billion, meaning the Iraq War was making them at least $5 billion a year, which was, compared to 2002, an increase of $7.5 billion, nearly doubling their revenue.

Lockheed Martin stock prices.

I could go on.There's a lot of profit made by defense contractors. They made money because the US govt was buying their stuff for their war in Iraq which cost the US people a lot of money. Who funded this war? Well, people who pay taxes. Question is, did these companies pay more in taxes or did they receive more in profits? I'd go for the latter.

You might have a point had Cheney not sold all interests in Halliburton to run for VP.

Who denied Halliburton made money? Of course they made money. What business that you are aware of operates without making money?

Haliburton is the company used in nearly every one of our rebuilding projects since Vietnam.

So where is all this oil from Iraq that you speak of? Need I post our imported oil showing that Iraq is way down the list? Before fracking, we got most of our oil from Mexico and Canada. Thanks to fracking (which liberals were always against) we are now independent of much foreign oil.

And who benefits most from lower oil prices? Did you notice that our economy has improved slightly since the price of our fuel has dropped? No, it wasn't the fake stimulus package or Commie Care. It was because of lower fuel prices.

Firstly Cheney "sold" his shares with a buy back option at the same price he sold them for.
Secondly, just because you sell shares doesn't mean you aren't going to profit from this in the future. "Advisory" roles and such like which mean the person is paid huge sums of money for minimal or no work,

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

"
Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain"

This from 2003.
"Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity."

The point here is this. Halliburton made money from the US govt spending tax money on a war. Not only Halliburton, many companies made lots of money from the US spending tax dollars.

Now, if they're making money and paying LESS back then they're benefiting for US govt policies. They should be the ones paying for such policies, right? They should be the ones paying for the wars, not the normal people. I mean, what benefits did the normal person in the street get? Some did, from jobs in the defense industry or whatever, but no where near as much as the big companies made.

Now, ask yourself why so many people want to go to war in Iran. Put the lives of soldiers at risk for profit? I'd say this is sick, but they just see the $$$$$.

As for the oil from Iraq. This is the wrong question to ask.
As I said, it wasn't about getting money from Iraq. It was about reducing the impact of OPEC's cartelling policies. With Iraq pumping oil out, Libya doing the same, OPEC finds it harder (not impossible by any means) to set oil prices.

The argument about "where is the oil?" ignores the fact that the Chinese economy has grown MASSIVELY since 2000.

In 2000 China was consuming less than 5,000,000 barrels a day. In 2012 it had doubled. Supply and demand, you increase the demand for oil by five million barrels of oil a day, prices are going to go up.

IF China hadn't increased consumption, then perhaps the prices would be even lower than they are now.

Yes, I noticed that oil prices dropped and the economy has got better.

I also see a correlation between beef consumption and deaths caused by lightning.

Margarine consumption and the divorce rate in Maine.

Seriously, the economy is getting better because, hell, that's what economies do, they go into recession and they get better as long as there isn't a leader who is preventing the economy from getting better.
Oil prices have dropped because of the Saudi's using their production to decrease prices to try and harm US fracking operations.

Two separate things that have seen the economy increase and oil prices decrease and you're claiming they're cause and effect.