just waiting to see how Burt spins this




http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/mai...ce_isnt_bliss/

 

That article IS spin....a waste of my time to read.

Example:

"Just four months after the president signed another massive tax cut for the wealthy,..."




The tax cut was for everyone that pays federal income taxes, not just for the wealthy. In fact, a lot of not-wealthy people no longer pay federal income taxes thanks to that every same tax cut.

Do you really expect us to think that if Bush hadn't cut taxes, a few thousand units of body army would have magically appeared on the backs of our troops and saved a few hundred lives? Excuse the hell out of me, but saying Bush's tax cuts cost lives in the middle east is a real stretch. Bill Clinton was president for eight years. Why don't you blame him for not buying enough body armor on his watch?

Our military is the best in the world. Our economy is the best in the world. Under George W. Bush, our nation is leading the fight against terrorism, and is liberating oppressed peoples around the world.

Really pisses off you liberals, but that's the way it is. Deal with it.

 

Speaking of body armor, guess who was one of those that helped vote down that bill?

You got it, John Kerry. He's so against war that he's helping to kill our troops to try and get them home.

Oh, and then the two faced bastard slams Bush for not supplying the body armor. This definitely makes you go hmmmmm.

 

 

Typical liberal article, not much to say about it…


Here is the thing and is the truth and FACT and not spin whatsoever. All liberals have to do to help control spending, reduce the deficit is to CUT SOCIALITST SPENDING, it’s as simple as that.

There is no reason to screw the average working American by jacking up their taxes. The big problem with socialist liberals is they NEVER LEARN from history…

Here is a FACT:

Every time taxes are reduced (cut) it creates jobs, grows the economy and INCREASES the revenue to the federal government, MORE then any and all tax HIKES put together.

President Kennedy proved that and then President Reagan proved that. NO! the deficits of the 80’s were NOT due to tax cuts and they were NOT due to the increased spending in the military. The deficits of the 80’s as with the current deficits are directly due to CONGRESS and their inability to CUT SPENDING ON SOCIALIST PROGRAMS…

Now, every time taxes are increased it SCREWS the economy, slows down growth, puts working Americans in the streets and causes deficits. The last lesson we had in that was with President Clinton, remember the Clinton recession we just got done with and over 2 million jobs loss due to Clinton failed policies of screwing the normal working American?

Tax cuts and tax hikes “general” take years to have any real effects. Like now about 1 – 1 ˝ years after President Bush’s tax cuts the economy is taking off like a rocket, BIG TIME and another reason for higher gas prices because of demand, but its not just America but China, Japan and a few other countries who’s economies are starting to take off.

Anyway it is very simple:

Tax cuts = Growth, jobs, MORE federal revenue
Tax hikes = Flat or declining economy, unemployment, LESS federal revenue

Socialist programs = Federal DEFICITS
CUT socialist programs = Federal SURPLUS
CUT taxes = Federal SURPLUS

So the article you refer to is full of myths, doom and gloom, the thing that loses elections for liberals and cause’s nut case wackos like Algore to need major medication while he watches his party destroy themselves….

Kerry is done, toast, DOA, he might as well pack up the tent, back the truck up because he is going the wrong direction…

Whining, Doom and Gloom = DEFEAT (Kerry)
Positive, uplifting and optimistic = WINNER (Bush)

 

Kerry didn't vote against body armor. He voted against what he felt was a bloated budget for many things. When your town want's $50 million for a new school, when a $25 million school will work, do you just go ahead and say yes? No, you vote it down and the town always comes back with something more reasonable. You're more than welcome to hate Kerry, but don't let your hate blind you.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

 

What tax cut is that? That crappy extra $600 per year for a child? My taxes haven't gone down.

We have a pretty big deficit now, not attribited to socialist programs, but to a war debt. Now that GW has gone back to the UN, they have concerns over our finances.

The economy was pretty good for eight years under Clinton. If GW can make it all better in a year and a half, surely Clinton could have screwed it up faster. Jobs, there were more jobs under Clinton. Also looks like the war on terrorism is going quite as well as GW would have you believe, looks like it actually went up since we invaded Iraq. Of course, I'm sure you'll blame all the bad stuff on those damned Democrats and give the credit for the good stuff to those nice sweet Republicans.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sedataonterror

 

You know, you guys can go through the same ole' arguments about Liberals and Conservatives, and throw stones at both, but what about a much deeper issue.
We are now burying a former President. A state funeral has been requested as is the familys' right. From a Liberal point of view: Do you know how many families on welfare we could feed with the money being spent on the funeral?
From a Conservative point of view: Do you know how much body armor we could buy with the money from the funeral?
The problems of government overspending are everyone's problem, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Northerners, Southerners, black, white, yellow and green! Either party can help solve the problem, neither party wants to solve the problem. The old adage, "cutting off your nose to spite your face", comes to mind. There is too much power, money, prestige to be gained by being in office. There is no longer a desire to work in public service because you are driven to make things better.

 

To be honest I don’t care how many more families on welfare we could feed with the money being spent on a funeral that is part of our nation’s traditions. No, I am not cold hearted but the fact is those on welfare eat MUCH better then most families where both parents, or single parents actually work for a living.

I think the welfare family and how much they could or can not eat is not a good argument. If we were to cut the money that those on welfare get to buy choice cuts of steaks and name brand snacks, of which are in no way needed, and made them buy the cheap brands of food and ONLY food that is absolutely necessary do you know how many MORE people we could help who REALLY need it and how much body armor we could buy?

To add to that if we did NOT allow those on welfare to put FREE braces on their children’s teeth that would buy a TON of body armor…

 

burt, you missed the whole point of serotta's post.

I usually give you a pass but, this time I'm disappointed.

 

I believe when you get down to it the argument can be framed basically as:

What do you believe people should have as basic essentials, necessities as compared to what people believe they “deserve”.

Those on welfare would generally tell you they “deserve” to have snacks and steaks and who are we to question how much MORE of OUR money we HAVE to give them so they can GET what they think they deserve. I am sorry but those on welfare do not deserve to have color TV’s, Play Stations, DVD players, computers, cable connections to the internet, the internet itself, more then one vehicle, a vehicle with a payment, pets, cell phones, digital cameras, clothes bought anywhere except from Wal-mart or K-mart and the list goes on.

My point is if someone is on welfare they are in MY house with MY money and it is MY rules. If they don’t like MY rules in MY house they can leave and make their own rules in their own house with their OWN money…

That answers their question of ”Who am I to question what they get” I am the one footing the bill so I have the RIGHT to question everything about anything they receive from MY money…

There are people who do really need help like those with medical conditions beyond their control, mental problems, the elder, the handicapped, veterans etc. I know this and I have NO problem giving up my money to help them and I would LOVE to see those people, those that REALLY need the help to have a decent life. I would NOT mind seeing those who really need help buying good food, snacks, having a color TV, air conditioning etc.

I am just tired of MY money going to more then 50% of free loaders on welfare and who are only on welfare because they are lazy and worthless. I would much rather see that approx. 50% of lazy and worthless stuck out on the street to fend for themselves and believe me they would find a job very quickly…

 

Burt just grabbed on part of a comment and commented on it, we all do it, it's how conversations change from one subject to another. Plus, it's hard to argue with "To add to that if we did NOT allow those on welfare to put FREE braces on their children’s teeth that would buy a TON of body armor…"

 

No I got his point which was basically that serving in government is a meal ticket to the big bucks rather then actually serving your country and countrymen…

I absolutely agree with his point as well it just saddens me beyond belief about how things work now days.

I think we need to rewrite the Constitution on how we select and elect a President and all other officials so NO money was involved except individual money. Public funds period would pay for all elections, no donations from any organization what so ever, no business, no unions, no nothing except maybe a maximum of $50 per person per election cycle.

Trust me I have thought about that for quite some time but basically useless to debate because there is no way in hell it would ever get changed in our lifetime or many lifetimes to come…

 

PERIOD

I cut out the unimportant hypothetical crap in the middle that 'wasn't intended for debate', merely included to show extremes.

 

Sorry.
I just hated to see a very eloquent post gutted by tirade on welfare reform. Especially after that was specifically used in his Guns or Butter example.