Have you HEARD the Iraqy occupation is over and the US is pulling out!

[Magyar]

Our country is falling appart http://www.asce.org/

According to the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/
The budget presented by bush puts us into an additional $1.6 Trillion (as opposed to doing nothing) Out of this $1.4 trill is directly associated with making the tax cuts permanent!

Of course this budget DOES NOT include a SINGLE shinny penny
for future expenditures for Iraq (thus the title of this post) Afga
or privatizing SS - I guess the tooth fairy will be paying for all this.

Bush is sticking the states with an additional $30 B for all the unfunded mandates like "no child".


And the Repugnican solution for all this??????























ANOTHER $70 BILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT FOR THE TOP 1%.
http://www.senate.gov/~budget/republican/

It's time to start taking the idea of secession serious consideration.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Magyar
Of course this budget DOES NOT include a SINGLE shinny penny
for future expenditures for Iraq (thus the title of this post) Afga
or privatizing SS - I guess the tooth fairy will be paying for all this.


Umm... are you trying to decieve, or are you just clueless?

Privatization of social security requires a change in the law, not just in spending. Which means that it must be passed by congress BEFORE they can spend any money on it, and that's not going to happen (if at all) without a LOT of debate and deal-making. Since that hasn't happened yet, well, OBVIOUSLY they can't put it in the budget. Duh.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, those have consistently been funded by separate congressional budget authorizations, called suplementals. This is not new, it's how they've always done it. You may not like this method of doing things, but to imagine that this means that we're not going to spend any money on Iraq and Afghanistan is the height of delusion.

It's time to start taking the idea of secession serious consideration.

Not from the likes of you. You're not even serious about your anti-Bush arguments, since you can't get your basic facts right.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Umm... are you trying to decieve, or are you just clueless? I'll take clueless for $500 Alex.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Magyar
Out of this $1.4 trill is directly associated with making the tax cuts permanent!


Revenues were up last year.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Umm... are you trying to decieve, or are you just clueless?

Privatization of social security requires a change in the law, not just in spending. Which means that it must be passed by congress BEFORE they can spend any money on it, and that's not going to happen (if at all) without a LOT of debate and deal-making. Since that hasn't happened yet, well, OBVIOUSLY they can't put it in the budget. Duh.

Yeah because someone has to figure out how to fix a 4 trillion dollar problem spread out over the next 40 years without costing 15 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

But it is true, as it is only being bandied about at present, it is not a budgetary consideration.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, those have consistently been funded by separate congressional budget authorizations, called suplementals. This is not new, it's how they've always done it. You may not like this method of doing things, but to imagine that this means that we're not going to spend any money on Iraq and Afghanistan is the height of delusion.

The purpose of a supplemental budget is to allow for those unexpected expenses. Iraq and Afghanistan are not unexpected expenses. They are a fact and thereby should be included in the regular budget. Any other behavior is just playing with the numbers to say, "Look, I am doing something about the budget shortfall! Look at my budget! It is lower than the last budget!" It is a political game. Unfortunately, it is a game that we, the people of the USA, will be paying a stiff price. My understanding is that using a supplementary budget for ongoing, known military engagements is not 'how they've always done it'.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Not from the likes of you. You're not even serious about your anti-Bush arguments, since you can't get your basic facts right.

Wow, nasty.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Revenues were up last year.

Up 1.4 trillion dollars? Up enough to justify these tax cuts? Enough enough to cover trillions of dollars of national debt?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
My understanding is that using a supplementary budget for ongoing, known military engagements is not 'how they've always done it'.

Let me clarify: that's how spending for Iraq and Afghanistan have been done, and for several years now. Which means (rather obviously) that the absence of this money from the normal budget gives no indication of any sort about what the spending for those missions will actually be. This is, of course, a separate question of what the ideal method for funding such missions should be, and I don't actually have much of an opinion on that. Had Magyar made that his point, I wouldn't have attacked him for it.

Wow, nasty.

I guess so. But the kind of tired, illogical, knee-jerk argument Magyar made doesn't deserve respect. You've laid out some criticisms in your post of what the administration is doing, and there's a factual basis in there. And I kind of agree with much of it, and I don't mind having debates with people over substantive differences on real issues. But Magyar was just spouting idiocy, so I called him on it.

[RussDill]

What always confuses me, is people complaining about tax cuts for the rich. In an economy, taxes go up and down as times/economic needs change, lets take two hypothetical situations:

Taxes need to be raised:

How do you raise them? An even percentage across the board? The increase of the poor is the same percent as the increase of the rich?

Taxes need to be lowered:

How do you lower them? An even percentage across the board? The rich, since they are paying a much larger percentage of the taxes, get a larger dollar amount cut. Or do you target the cut to the lower income groups.

Over time, the effect of given the raises primarily to the rich, and the cuts primarily to lower income groups should be odvious, the rich end up paying all the taxes, the economic incentive for productivity, inovation, risk, is gone. People with a high income potential will move somewhere else.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'll take clueless for $500 Alex.

Since he managed to misspell "Iraqi" in the thread title as well, I'd say you're right.

[gnome]

Originally posted by RussDill
What always confuses me, is people complaining about tax cuts for the rich. In an economy, taxes go up and down as times/economic needs change, lets take two hypothetical situations:

Taxes need to be raised:

How do you raise them? An even percentage across the board? The increase of the poor is the same percent as the increase of the rich?

Taxes need to be lowered:

How do you lower them? An even percentage across the board? The rich, since they are paying a much larger percentage of the taxes, get a larger dollar amount cut. Or do you target the cut to the lower income groups.

Over time, the effect of given the raises primarily to the rich, and the cuts primarily to lower income groups should be odvious, the rich end up paying all the taxes, the economic incentive for productivity, inovation, risk, is gone. People with a high income potential will move somewhere else.

I'm in favor of something resembling even percentages across the board for tax cuts...and when comparing I prefer to talk percentages than dollars. It keeps it all in proportion.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RussDill
Over time, the effect of given the raises primarily to the rich, and the cuts primarily to lower income groups should be odvious, the rich end up paying all the taxes, the economic incentive for productivity, inovation, risk, is gone. People with a high income potential will move somewhere else.

Yeah, but the money has to come from somewhere, and the poor don't have it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'll take clueless for $500 Alex.
Speaking of clueless, there haven't been $500 clues on Jeopardy for many years. Get with the times, RandFan!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Since he managed to misspell "Iraqi" in the thread title as well, I'd say you're right.

I've leaned not to take cheep shots at peple over typos, speling etc.....know why?

maybe these thread titles of yours will give you a clue.

Palestinian Stick to the "Stage Plan" for Israel's Destruction

I either havea weird sense of humor, or I need serious help...

Hooray for the Freedom of Seech on the JREF Forum

Shimn Peres or Cosmo Cramer?

Why Paper Hesitate to Use the "T" Word ("Terrorist")

The "Genesis" Capsule Crashed after a Parachute Manfunction...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by The Fool
The "Genesis" Capsule Crashed after a Parachute Manfunction...


"Manfunction" would make a great name for a gay pride party.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
"Manfunction" would make a great name for a gay pride party.

Apparently, Viagra was created to treat the manfunction malfunction.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Apparently, Viagra was created to treat the manfunction malfunction.

It would probably be served in bowls on the buffet, next to the crackers and cheese.