Tax Rebate deal reached

What am I gonna do with my $600.00. Hmmmmm--I think I will use it to pay for some of the penalties---to pull my mutual funds and IRA out to help the economy.

I want change--and I am running for president.
 
Southern Man said:
That's just so wrong, man. What's with you and the gay insults, anyway?
Click to expand...


PITIFUL FLAMER. They have to come out of the closet by ripping the closet door off---and smacking every hetro that opressed him with it. All the hetros look the same to him---just like daddy, who never loved him.

Yea man---that is deep root liberialism. It is a mental disorder. This is the typical liberial lobbying force. Are ya scared? I am.
 
I enjoy doing the gay insinuation stuff on those I expect to lean towards homophobia.
ie right wingers.

You can see how seriously I take it when someone calls me gay. Yep I am a pretty happy guy.
 
RStringfield said:
No, you have it backwards. Government spending is a euphamism for government consumption. That's what they are doing, consuming the resources produced by the people.
Click to expand...

Some of it yes, IE the war, but the entitlements route some back to the people.
and infrastructure improvements are also back to the people stuff.
 
uscitizen said:
Some of it yes, IE the war, but the entitlements route some back to the people.
and infrastructure improvements are also back to the people stuff.
Click to expand...

Some of it, BS. Most of it.

Entitlements and infrastructure go back to SOME people and rarely the same who produced the resources.

At least with infrastructure it is an investment in assets that can lead to increases productivity. But then it is usually done so poorly and at such inflated cost it tends to be barely worth it if at all.

And infrastructure is a tiny part of the federal budget.
 
RStringfield said:
Some of it, BS. Most of it.

Entitlements and infrastructure go back to SOME people and rarely the same who produced the resources.

At least with infrastructure it is an investment in assets that can lead to increases productivity. But then it is usually done so poorly and at such inflated cost it tends to be barely worth it if at all.

And infrastructure is a tiny part of the federal budget.
Click to expand...

I support some of the wealth being redistributed to thhose who actually need it.

I do not support the dissporportionate upward movement of the money though.

Balance is needed.
 
Fine usc, we can easily cut the shit out of spending while keeping entitlements for those that really need it.

The fact is, a huge portion of entitlements DO NOT go to those in need and lefties support extending benefits to middle and upper classes (e.g., schip) to ensure the continuation of the programs.

To claim the needy and infrastructure everytime someone talks about getting our spending in check is nothing but a fucking COPOUT and cover fire for the status quo.
 
RStringfield said:
Fine usc, we can easily cut the shit out of spending while keeping entitlements for those that really need it.

The fact is, a huge portion of entitlements DO NOT go to those in need and lefties support extending benefits to middle and upper classes (e.g., schip) to ensure the continuation of the programs.

To claim the needy and infrastructure everytime someone talks about getting our spending in check is nothing but a fucking COPOUT and cover fire for the status quo.
Click to expand...

Yep I think we pretty much overall agree on this. I am sure we differ on many finer points though.


I am not sure where the line between pork and necessary infrastructure improvements lie. And the boundary between them is intentionally blurred by politics.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep I think we pretty much overall agree on this. I am sure we differ on many finer points though.


I am not sure where the line between pork and necessary infrastructure improvements lie. And the boundary between them is intentionally blurred by politics.
Click to expand...
Well, the road to nowhere would be over the line.... Just so you know.

Get those 50 people some boats and leave us out of this.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep I think we pretty much overall agree on this. I am sure we differ on many finer points though.


I am not sure where the line between pork and necessary infrastructure improvements lie. And the boundary between them is intentionally blurred by politics.
Click to expand...

The idea of eliminating pork to cut spending is a fairy tale offered up by charlatans like McCain. It's not going to reduce spending significantly and pork is an inherent part of government. We can certainly make efforts to reduce it but we cannot eliminate it. Most of the arguments on pork and earmarks are just about who gets to hand it out, the legislative or executive branches.

Infrastructure is a small part of the federal budget and it should be even smaller. Local and state governments are better suited to pay for it and since the benefits derived are nearly all local they are more likely to focus on it being cost effective. As long as California, New York, etc. are paying for the bridge in Alaska, the locals have little incentive to care about cost. However, if they are paying for it themselves they are going to care about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top