Troops in Iraq Face Pay Cut

[Spence]

The Pentagon wants to give our troops in Iraq a pay cut (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/14paycut.html).
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

[TexSkin]

I dont agree wit many of your political posts Spence but this one just pisses me off. These men and women are risking their necks and they want't to cut their pay. Fricking politicians.

[Skinzaholic]

This sucks... perhaps our Congress should forego their pay raises as well.

[hail2skins]

We ration their water in Iraq and now we're taking their money away. Wow, that is really sad. This kind of stuff pisses me off too. How many have we lost since the official end of the war? What does that do for the morale of our troops who are servicing us.

[Spence]

This isn't a Congressional decision, it's an administration decision. Congress can block it, though. They had better.

[Skins57]

If they can give everyone a 400 bonus per kid but they can not pay our troops. WTF is that?

[Chief Seeway]

This happens EVERY year, come August, September. Final touches on the upcomming budget ALWAYS come last minute. In the late 90's there was a year, I remember being told that we may go a couple weeks without pay/allowances.

One more thing, the military in the Gulf region including Afganistan are NOT PAYING TAXES. They are not hurting for money one bit.

Also, I have contact with three shipmates in Iraq, two in the south one in the north. When I asked, they were unaware of water shortages or rations. But then again they do not write for the Army Times.

[NamVet4]

Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.

Seeway is correct............ this has NOT changed since my time on active service.
This kind of political maneuvering, horseshit IMHO, goes on when it is time for the appropriations to be acted upon in the Congress. Every legislator has to cut himself and/or herself in for a piece of the pie and try and wrangle whatever they can for their favorite pet project. And, the military is their favorite target.
Remember, as it is now, they are threatening to stop a pay increase, not reduce current pay!

[TexSkin]

It still pisses me off..it should not be nothing new...These guys should be paid by the Iraqis for feeing there ungrateful asses from a Tirant. Uggh I better stop before I burst a vien. Sorry when it comes to military men and women I just feel they should be treated fairly at every turn.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Skins57
If they can give everyone a 400 bonus per kid but they can not pay our troops. WTF is that?

That is terrible to begin with. Because someone chooses to have kids they are taxed LESS???? What is that? I don't have kids, why am I taxed more?
Be responsible and don't have kids if you can't afford them.
Anywho...

This cut might not be a bad idea. I've heard from whispers of others that the military personel make too much anyway...I do not know if this is true or not.
Does anyone know how much the average military person makes? (this may better help us understand why cuts are being made, or it will piss us off more...we'll see)

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
This isn't a Congressional decision, it's an administration decision. Congress can block it, though. They had better.



They wont... history proves that...

[dalpumpkin]

Well isn't this just grand?
A anti military guy bitching about military pay?

Lets blame the admin?

Right Spence , that make since. In the 93 budget a Tax increase was passed along with massive cuts in military spending. That is fact, also what is fact is 1/3rd of the military was on welfare untill the hikes in military pay a couple of yEARS AGO.

I love to always see a leftest like Spence use the military for his need for a point.

How bout this Spence! Why don't you tell us how your canidate is going to help the military and the country. If you can

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin


How bout this Spence! Why don't you tell us how your canidate is going to help the military and the country. If you can

:lol1:
I'd like to hear that too. hehe

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
Well isn't this just grand?
A anti military guy bitching about military pay?

Lets blame the admin?

Right Spence , that make since. In the 93 budget a Tax increase was passed along with massive cuts in military spending. That is fact, also what is fact is 1/3rd of the military was on welfare untill the hikes in military pay a couple of yEARS AGO.

I love to always see a leftest like Spence use the military for his need for a point.

How bout this Spence! Why don't you tell us how your canidate is going to help the military and the country. If you can

How about finally, once and for all, scrapping anything but the most basic research funding for the Missile Defense SHield, and pumping it into salaries. The same could be said for any number of bloated, duplicitios weapons systems.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by seeway
This happens EVERY year, come August, September. Final touches on the upcomming budget ALWAYS come last minute. In the late 90's there was a year, I rememebr being told that we may go a couple weeks without pay/allowances.

One more thing, the military in the Gulf region including Afganistan are NOT PAYING TAXES. They are not hurting for money one bit.

Also, I have contact with three shipmates in Iraq, two in the south one in the north. When I asked, they were unaware of water shortages or rations. But then again they do not write for the Army Times.

SHipmates you say? As in sitting in a ship? Perhaps becuase they have a hundred thousand ton storage facility (the ship) they are a little better supplied with food and water than the troops in the desert. Think so?

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by jsarno
I've heard from whispers of others that the military personel make too much anyway...I do not know if this is true or not.
Does anyone know how much the average military person makes? (this may better help us understand why cuts are being made, or it will piss us off more...we'll see)

I'm not sure what an "average military person" is but it is my guess that the majority of those in the military hold a rank between E-3 and E-5 , the average base pay is roughly $1,500 per month or about $18,000 per year.

There are numerous other pay and allowances that come from the difference in location of duty, type of duty and level of hazards involved with duty that increase that monthly total [sometimes, significantly].

I've never heard of the military getting overpaid, actually the opposite. But for most, those who serve in the military don't do it for the money.

What is interesting about the military pay system is that the above mentioned $1,500/month could be payed to a person who is responsible for maintaining a nuclear power plant or it could be payed to a person who sweeps floors for most of the day.

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by dukeuch
SHipmates you say? As in sitting in a ship? Perhaps becuase they have a hundred thousand ton storage facility (the ship) they are a little better supplied with food and water than the troops in the desert. Think so?


LOL! the term shipmate has many meanings [to me and others like me] and "sitting in a ship" is not one of them. LMAO. Thats new and I'm gonna have to remember it.

My friends in Iraq I mentioned, are in Iraq.

[jsarno]

I don't think that's low pay. It's not as high as was implied to me, but you have to remember, they are not "employed" by the USA. They CHOOSE to go in, plus they get benefits from being in for life (assuming they aren't dishonorably discharged).

The guy "maintaining a power plant" will make quite a hefty salary when out of the military, but had NO EXPERIENCE going in. The experience military personel get going in is worth the 18k a year.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by jsarno
I don't think that's low pay. It's not as high as was implied to me, but you have to remember, they are not "employed" by the USA. They CHOOSE to go in, plus they get benefits from being in for life (assuming they aren't dishonorably discharged).

The guy "maintaining a power plant" will make quite a hefty salary when out of the military, but had NO EXPERIENCE going in. The experience military personel get going in is worth the 18k a year.

I don't think this in entirely accurate. I know for a fact that if you get out before 20 years of service, whether dishonorably discharged or not, you get no pension or even a pat on the back. I work with a guy who was in the infantry during Desert Storm and he got out after 12 years. The only thing he got was a dress uniform and his knife for "using" it in Desert Storm.

Oh by the way, he decided to get out because Clinton was, in his terms, not mine, "destroying the military" and making it so that you couldn't have a career.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by seeway
LOL! the term shipmate has many meanings [to me and others like me] and "sitting in a ship" is not one of them. LMAO. Thats new and I'm gonna have to remember it.

My friends in Iraq I mentioned, are in Iraq.


Hey, I'm not implying that the sailors on a ship are just sitting around, living the life of Reilly. I respect their contributions and sacrifices. It's just tht I have read a lot of info which seems to indicate that soldiers on the ground are doing without a lot of stuff that they are supposed to have, and thought that sailors, by virtue of having a ship (which i assume does not encounter many of the logisital difficulties concerning the maintanence of supply lines to Iraq's interior), with power, air conditioneing, bathrooms, etc, may have a different perspective on how well supported they are.

If the guys you are conversing with are on the front lines, away from ports, points of disembarkeant, etc. then perhaps the voices of the soldiers I read about are spouting BS.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I don't think that's low pay. It's not as high as was implied to me, but you have to remember, they are not "employed" by the USA. They CHOOSE to go in, plus they get benefits from being in for life (assuming they aren't dishonorably discharged).

The guy "maintaining a power plant" will make quite a hefty salary when out of the military, but had NO EXPERIENCE going in. The experience military personel get going in is worth the 18k a year.

I think that is abysmal pay for the chance to get shot at and leave a family behind if you get killed. Is the $18K taxed? Lets assume it is not. Guy has a wife and two kids, needs at least a two bedroom house/apartment. Call it $500/month (where, a decent two bedroom for that price is, I do not know). Food, think $100/week is enough (that's about $4.70/day/person)? Ok, so after food and shelter, you have $6,800 left, or around $560/month for a car, auto insurance, gas, electricity, telephone, clothes, diapers, toys, EVERYTHING else.

Just does not sound like much to me.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I think that is abysmal pay for the chance to get shot at and leave a family behind if you get killed. Is the $18K taxed? Lets assume it is not. Guy has a wife and two kids, needs at least a two bedroom house/apartment. Call it $500/month (where, a decent two bedroom for that price is, I do not know). Food, think $100/week is enough (that's about $4.70/day/person)? Ok, so after food and shelter, you have $6,800 left, or around $560/month for a car, auto insurance, gas, electricity, telephone, clothes, diapers, toys, EVERYTHING else.

Just does not sound like much to me.

Umm what? You REALLY think food and shelter is not taken care of. I'm not sure about all levels in the military, but I know a few from this town that are in the military, and room and board and food are paid for.
Makes 18k a lot more than it looks.
I have one friend that is head of the water department, and got it OUT OF THE MILITARY about 5 or 6 years ago. He got the experience in the military which he joined straight out of high school. (he was in the military for 4 years I believe). He now makes 85k a year with at least 3% raises each year. OUCH. That's quality experience they learn in the military. Why else do you think people join? Do you really think people will risk their life for no future? People join because they get something out of it. (which is the way it should be) If they didn't, we'd have no military (or a very small one, because i do realize that some join to "straighten up" and some others join because they are crazy and want to legally shoot people. Majority join because they get something out of it.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by robert11273
I don't think this in entirely accurate. I know for a fact that if you get out before 20 years of service, whether dishonorably discharged or not, you get no pension or even a pat on the back. I work with a guy who was in the infantry during Desert Storm and he got out after 12 years. The only thing he got was a dress uniform and his knife for "using" it in Desert Storm.

I'm not talking about a pension though, I only know of one man (my uncle) that was in the military for 20+ years, but we have never discussed a pension.
I'm speaking of the valuable experience. Go down to the department of labor and if you're a vet you get hired on before any else (and that's not a specialty job...just regular.) This is a fact that people hire vets over regular population. I have no problem with this since they did fight for my freedom...even if they didn't fight, they would have been ready to do so. I appreciate that.
But you can't tell me they get nothing. (maybe back in Vietnam that happened) but now-a-days people with military experience are treated very kindly, and if they did a job in the military (a specific one) they can easily get paid bunches to do it as a civilian!

Oh by the way, he decided to get out because Clinton was, in his terms, not mine, "destroying the military" and making it so that you couldn't have a career.

I don't doubt that...it's a shame really. I don't think the leader of our military forces should have no military experience. If the president hasn't fought in the military, then the duties of "CHIEF" should go down to the person with the highest rank with military experience.
That's like one of us becoming commish of the NFL (on a smaller scale of course)...would we REALLY know what we're doing?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Umm what? You REALLY think food and shelter is not taken care of. I'm not sure about all levels in the military, but I know a few from this town that are in the military, and room and board and food are paid for.
Makes 18k a lot more than it looks.
I have one friend that is head of the water department, and got it OUT OF THE MILITARY about 5 or 6 years ago. He got the experience in the military which he joined straight out of high school. (he was in the military for 4 years I believe). He now makes 85k a year with at least 3% raises each year. OUCH. That's quality experience they learn in the military. Why else do you think people join? Do you really think people will risk their life for no future? People join because they get something out of it. (which is the way it should be) If they didn't, we'd have no military (or a very small one, because i do realize that some join to "straighten up" and some others join because they are crazy and want to legally shoot people. Majority join because they get something out of it.

You may be right, admittedly I do not know how many families live on bases (is that how food and shelter are paid for?). I doubt, however, that all food and shelter are obtained outside of that salary. My old man was a non-commisioned officer, got the right to buy food at pretty good prices at the commissary, but paid none the less. Paid rent as well.

Seeway, Namvet, we need an expert here. What does a family get and under what conditions, if any?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
You may be right, admittedly I do not know how many families live on bases (is that how food and shelter are paid for?). I doubt, however, that all food and shelter are obtained outside of that salary. My old man was a non-commisioned officer, got the right to buy food at pretty good prices at the commissary, but paid none the less. Paid rent as well.

Seeway, Namvet, we need an expert here. What does a family get and under what conditions, if any?

I had an ex girlfreind who's father was in the air force, and I remember them goingto the commissary as well, but I know they did not pay any rent.
I'm uncertain how each branch does it, but I know he was WELL compensated from the government, they always had money, and his wife NEVER worked.
I hear military food sucks anyway, so they would spend a chunk buying food elsewhere I am sure.
It makes me wonder if each person has a different scenario.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno

I don't doubt that...it's a shame really. I don't think the leader of our military forces should have no military experience. If the president hasn't fought in the military, then the duties of "CHIEF" should go down to the person with the highest rank with military experience.
That's like one of us becoming commish of the NFL (on a smaller scale of course)...would we REALLY know what we're doing?

Can't remember who said it, but the quote is "War is too important to leave to generals." I could not agree more. If war happens, I want an SOB general out there, but I don't want him making the decision to go to war. I believe it is dangerous to leave that decision to someone who has dedicated his life to learning how to resolve issues by fighting effectively, rather than diplomacy until there is no other option.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Can't remember who said it, but the quote is "War is too important to leave to generals." I could not agree more. If war happens, I want an SOB general out there, but I don't want him making the decision to go to war. I believe it is dangerous to leave that decision to someone who has dedicated his life to learning how to resolve issues by fighting effectively, rather than diplomacy until there is no other option.

I wasn't referring to someone IN the military though. Someone in the ranks of politics. Like Vice President, or speaker of the house...something like that. Someone away from the action, but understands what being in the military is all about.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I wasn't referring to someone IN the military though. Someone in the ranks of politics. Like Vice President, or speaker of the house...something like that. Someone away from the action, but understands what being in the military is all about.

How do you propose to make this happen, require that whoever is the prez's running mate have military experience? What if the public doens not want to elect a military guy? C'mon, you got to propose something which is at least plasible.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
How do you propose to make this happen, require that whoever is the prez's running mate have military experience? What if the public doens not want to elect a military guy? C'mon, you got to propose something which is at least plasible.

no, no, no...you weren't listening. The job goes to that who is of highest rank with military experience (I don't know exactly how ranks go...for instance if the pres and vice pres were killed, who takes over as pres???). It might be a senator with highest tenure gets the job. I just don't believe that someone without any military experience should run the military.

[NamVet4]

Originally posted by jsarno
Go down to the department of labor and if you're a vet you get hired on before any else (and that's not a specialty job...just regular.) This is a fact that people hire vets over regular population. I have no problem with this since they did fight for my freedom...even if they didn't fight, they would have been ready to do so. I appreciate that.
But you can't tell me they get nothing. (maybe back in Vietnam that happened).....

And now the Truth!
Veteran's Preference - is the term applied to enabling Veterans the ability to find and be offered jobs in NJ. And it is pure horse$h!T!!!!!
I know, for over 15 years I have fought along with my brother veterans to enable the rights stated in Veterans Preference. Here, I can only speak for NJ, a veteran receives a “score” increase on civil service exams; and after that not much more! Private enterprise has absolutely no obligation to follow “Veteran’s Preference – except if they are direct recipients of Government funding in excess of $10,000.00

As far as what the current military pay situation, I will defer to someone who is on active duty or active reserve status for an up-to-date analysis.

[NamVet4]

After a little research, I located an article, 1999 issue, on the pay of the military.
If you want, here is the government link (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1354&sequence=6) for your review. Remember this is from a .gov website!

:banghead:

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Seeway, Namvet, we need an expert here. What does a family get and under what conditions, if any?

Like I said in my first post, base pay is just that, base. There are many other pay and allowances . One of which is an allowance for housing. Another is an allowance for sustenance. These allowances [which are not taxed] vary depending on where one lives. Example, rent/mortgage in the San Diego area is a lot more then rent/mortgage in the Norfolk/VaBeach area. So those who live in San Diego get more "allowances" for shelter/eating then someone would of the exact same pay grade if he/she lived in Norfolk/VaBeach. These allowances increase as one advances through the ranks, whether enlisted or officer.

robert11273, I agree with your buddy, the 90's were really rough on the military. The mind set of "more with less" was dangerous not only to personnel but to the tanks, planes, ships that us the tax payers payed for.

[jsarno]

so I guess it would be impossible to lump everyone together since each case seems so unique.

[jsarno]

Thanks for the pay scale namvet...that's helps understand it.

How do you become and officer?

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by jsarno
so I guess it would be impossible to lump everyone together since each case seems so unique.

Thats exactly right jsarno.

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by jsarno
How do you become and officer?

Just like the pay system, there are a number of different "ways" to become an officer. Probably the most common is to attend one of the service acadamy's. West Point, Annapolis, etc... or attend another university and go through an "officer boot camp" OCS, Officer Canidate School. Both of these result in a "commision" in the military. There are a few ways enlisted can become commisioned officers, even without a 4 year degree.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by seeway
Just like the pay system, there are a number of different "ways" to become an officer. Probably the most common is to attend one of the service acadamy's. West Point, Annapolis, etc... or attend another university and go through an "officer boot camp" OCS, Officer Canidate School. Both of these result in a "commision" in the military. There are a few ways enlisted can become commisioned officers, even without a 4 year degree.

It doesn't seem tough with your description. I know if I went into the military, I'd want to be an officer.
Theoretically, how would I (no experience) be able to do that? Just apply to West point or something?

[jsarno]

is officer boot camp offered only at universities?

[dalpumpkin]

Dukeuch

Whats next? Missle shield? How much do they spend on that ? Money well worth it.

And don't even act like you think they don't have it anyway. They just brought it public a two years ago.

Just like all those other nice weapons that they have.

Point is the D budget was shifted to raises for the military people and that is fact.

Hey Dukeuch, I will say one thing, for me I have bad grammer. I say that up front and am honest. At least I don't pretend I have good grammer. So you do the same, you may not have done your homework on the issues you discuss. If you can't role facts, from study. Then just say who you are.

Simple enough for you? If you want a demecrate in the white just say it. And since you are so concerned for the military and there pay, then exsplain to use in your words what canidate you can ask us to look at.

And I am not being harsh here, if you haven't noticed the Dem party has lost there hind parts as they stay divided and have only fringe speaking there words.

What happened to the party for the working man? Or is there idea to campaign on know idea exsept Bush is cutting pay in the military and he will burn your house down? That take may gain a few votes from bumbs who will buy that for a pack of smokes.

Whatever, we shall see who wins. But lets see what you are for first. After all if your party wins, it will take ideas for good.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
Dukeuch

Whats next? Missle shield? How much do they spend on that ? Money well worth it.

And don't even act like you think they don't have it anyway. They just brought it public a two years ago.

Just like all those other nice weapons that they have.

Point is the D budget was shifted to raises for the military people and that is fact.

Hey Dukeuch, I will say one thing, for me I have bad grammer. I say that up front and am honest. At least I don't pretend I have good grammer. So you do the same, you may not have done your homework on the issues you discuss. If you can't role facts, from study. Then just say who you are.

Simple enough for you? If you want a demecrate in the white just say it. And since you are so concerned for the military and there pay, then exsplain to use in your words what canidate you can ask us to look at.

And I am not being harsh here, if you haven't noticed the Dem party has lost there hind parts as they stay divided and have only fringe speaking there words.

What happened to the party for the working man? Or is there idea to campaign on know idea exsept Bush is cutting pay in the military and he will burn your house down? That take may gain a few votes from bumbs who will buy that for a pack of smokes.

Whatever, we shall see who wins. But lets see what you are for first. After all if your party wins, it will take ideas for good.

Hey, my grammer is pretty good, although perhaps not when pounding out emails. Did I criticize someones grammar here?

I am a Democrat, pretty obvious. Unfortunately, the pickings are pretty slim. Who would I vote for instead of Bush? Any Democrat who wins the nomination. Party of the working man? You bet. Notice how bad unemployment has gotten since Bush became president? I think it is at a two or three decade high.

As far a a missile shield, I'd be right up front for it, if there was ANY evidence it would work. There have been NO succesful tests of a missile intercepting ANYTHING in spce. That includes tests where the location of the dummy target is known, the dummy is "tricked up" to emit more light, heat, whatever the interceptor reads to find the dummy, etc. Every computer scientist which does not have a stake ($) in the program bascially says the software, for the forseable future, to run the program is unwritable. Point is, the money is going down a hole. And if you think one is in place and we have not told anyone, you understand NOTHING aobut nuclear deterrance. The whole point is to let people know it is in place so they don't attack in the first place.

But if you really think the missle defense sheild is already in place, sorry, but you are really ignorant. Stop spending so much time searching the skies for black helicopters.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch

I am a Democrat, pretty obvious. Unfortunately, the pickings are pretty slim. Who would I vote for instead of Bush? Any Democrat who wins the nomination. Party of the working man? You bet. Notice how bad unemployment has gotten since Bush became president? I think it is at a two or three decade high.



You would be thinking incorrectly then! I'm really getting tired of having to prove you guys wrong with searches since it wastes my time, but I think it was time to put this incorrect theory to bed.

The unemployment rate is down to 4.9 for males over 20 as of July. (in january it wasn't looking good, but Bush has worked hard to bring that down, and he's been VERY successful)
But the Bush tenure has an average (annually) of only 3.73. Meanwhile, your stud perjerer Clinton's rate for his tenure was 4.1 (including a whopping 5.7 in 93).
For women over 20, Bush tenure averages 3.7, while Mr. Pig skrewer, averaged 4.09. (a high of 5.2 in 93)

To me these numbers aren't that far off to be blaming Bush or Clinton. These are average figures...but the fact remains that Clinton's unemployment rates were higher. Wasn't he supposed to be "for the little people" being a democrat?

There are also stats on those who don't look for jobs since they do not believe they can find one...those stats are at an all time high. Also, the stats of teenagers are high mainly because of parents supporting the teenagers in college. The amount of college tennagers being supported by parents but are counted as "unemployed" are at an all time high (making the unemployment rates SEEM higher when they are in fact not higher at all).

You REALLY need to stop listening to democratic propoganda. I can understand your willingness to listen to whoever is slamming the republicans, but your ideas are not based in fact. This is why I hate this time of year, all sorts of muck starts to be flung all in the name of election.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch


I am a Democrat, pretty obvious. Unfortunately, the pickings are pretty slim. Who would I vote for instead of Bush? Any Democrat who wins the nomination. Party of the working man?


I wanted to comment on this before but forgot.
The pickings ARE slim. There is no good canidate...I'm glad you don't seem to care about teh country enough to put party bias aside and pick the correct candidate.

I laugh at the "party for the working man" comment. Fact is, republicans have done more for the working man, while the democrats have made it easier for the lazy people to still get paid. Welfare / food stamps send a terrible message to the people, but who is responsible for this? The democrats. The democrats are the ones who believe in Robin Hood (steal from the rich to give to the poor) Doesn't matter who works harder. I don't have the figures and there probably aren't any, but i bet our national deficit is directly relatedto the dems giving stuff away for nothing.
Republicans are for the hard working back bone of this country, while the democrats are for the lazy baby producers that suck off the country. (IMO)
I'm all for charity, but the dems take it too far.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Doesn't matter who works harder. I don't have the figures and there probably aren't any, but i bet our national deficit is directly relatedto the dems giving stuff away for nothing.
Republicans are for the hard working back bone of this country, while the democrats are for the lazy baby producers that suck off the country. (IMO)
I'm all for charity, but the dems take it too far.

God, you are ignorant. Had to comment on this little nugget seperately. Reagan TRIPLED the national debt. Think it was because he was "giving away stuff for nothing" (I mean, besides to defense contractors)?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
You would be thinking incorrectly then! I'm really getting tired of having to prove you guys wrong with searches since it wastes my time, but I think it was time to put this incorrect theory to bed.

The unemployment rate is down to 4.9 for males over 20 as of July. (in january it wasn't looking good, but Bush has worked hard to bring that down, and he's been VERY successful)
But the Bush tenure has an average (annually) of only 3.73. Meanwhile, your stud perjerer Clinton's rate for his tenure was 4.1 (including a whopping 5.7 in 93).
For women over 20, Bush tenure averages 3.7, while Mr. Pig skrewer, averaged 4.09. (a high of 5.2 in 93)

To me these numbers aren't that far off to be blaming Bush or Clinton. These are average figures...but the fact remains that Clinton's unemployment rates were higher. Wasn't he supposed to be "for the little people" being a democrat?

There are also stats on those who don't look for jobs since they do not believe they can find one...those stats are at an all time high. Also, the stats of teenagers are high mainly because of parents supporting the teenagers in college. The amount of college tennagers being supported by parents but are counted as "unemployed" are at an all time high (making the unemployment rates SEEM higher when they are in fact not higher at all).

You REALLY need to stop listening to democratic propoganda. I can understand your willingness to listen to whoever is slamming the republicans, but your ideas are not based in fact. This is why I hate this time of year, all sorts of muck starts to be flung all in the name of election.

Did you used to be a fact checker for Rush? Of course, you are wrong. Don't know where you are getting your statistic, mine come from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Let's simplify and look at full time workers over 20 (believe me, if you look at workers 16 and up, or include part timers, it looks worse for you). I'd also suggest lumping men and women together for this little execise, women do work, you know. Just there your arguement that "things looked pretty bad in jan, but look better now" is blown out of the water. Unemployment in Jan (full-timers over 20) was 5.1%. In July, it was 5.6%. Perhaps you meant the dip since June, when it was 5.7%. Wohoo! Economic recovery, here we come!

You know, you are partially right, I should have said that unemployment under Bush Jr. was worse than any Democrat in the past two-three decades, because the Republicans since then (Reagan and Bush Sr) had periods worse than W. And then, I would have been wrong still, because under Carter, the highest unemployment was 6.7 (it was 6.3 when he entered office) as opposed to 5.6 now. Of course, when Bush took over, unemployment was 3.6 (Thanks, Bill!). Interesting to note that between January '01 (W inaugurated) and 9/11/01, unemployment increased from 3.6 to 4.4, no month experiencing a decrease.
Gosh, wonder how other presidents have done:

Carter: Start; 6.3%, End 6.4% High Mo; 6.7 % Low Mo; 4.6%
Reagan: 6.4%, 4.7%, 9.8% (yikes), 4.7%
Bush (H); 4.7%, 6.5%, 6.9%, 4.4%
Clinton; 6.5%, 3.6%, 6.5%, 3.3% (Working man's champ?)
Bush (W); 3.6%, 5.6% (7/03), 5.7%, 3.6% (Thanks again, Bill!).

SO, I guess if we look at Clinton v. W, Bill inherited 12 years of mostly high unemployment from Ron and George H, worked it down and passed it on at a rate lower than any single month in the previous three adminstrations, and it has steadily risen since W took over.

Wanna reconsider?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno

There are also stats on those who don't look for jobs since they do not believe they can find one...those stats are at an all time high. Also, the stats of teenagers are high mainly because of parents supporting the teenagers in college. The amount of college tennagers being supported by parents but are counted as "unemployed" are at an all time high (making the unemployment rates SEEM higher when they are in fact not higher at all).



You are not even consistent in your own reasoning. You are right, standard unemployment figures only include folks activley looking for jobs. Teenagers in college have NOTHING to do with unemployment statistics. THEY ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED. I am not sure you are even correct when you say that college teenagers being supported by their parents is at an all time high. I seem to think I have read somewhere that colleges are scrambling to keep enrollment up?

[jsarno]

dukeuch, here you go bud: http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

ps- it's the US department of Labor stats since 1993.

You said that GW had the highest unemployment rate in 3 decades, did you not? Or do I need to quote you. You were DEAD wrong. I proved it as usual. Don't try to sugar coat how badly you were off with dumb comments like "Reagan tripled the debt." It has been widely known that democrats and their "have this for free" attitude has made the national debt outstandingly high.

So read em and weep.

[jsarno]

you can apologize for you ignorant comments now.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Notice how bad unemployment has gotten since Bush became president? I think it is at a two or three decade high.


I quoted this again, just to make sure you don't make anotehr assinine comment like you did.
First you talk about how Bush doesn't care about military, when he brought the pensions back up to 50% (your buddy had it at only 30%...bush dropped 10 years...10 YEARS off. Then you say it's Bush lieing about WMD, but then you TOTALLY ignore your other buddy Powell saying the exact same thing, and continue to say Bush lies, I'm sure you'll ignore Paul Harvery's PROOF of WMD too. Then you flap about worst rate in 3 decades. Do you get tired of being proven wrong then grasping at straws. I know I get tired of proving you wrong constantly.
Don't dilute yourself into thinking it's ok to bring out reagan etc...that wasn't the point...stick to the subject at hand. (oh wait, if you do that, you'llsee how off the wall your comments are.)

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
dukeuch, here you go bud: http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

ps- it's the US department of Labor stats since 1993.

You said that GW had the highest unemployment rate in 3 decades, did you not? Or do I need to quote you. You were DEAD wrong. I proved it as usual. Don't try to sugar coat how badly you were off with dumb comments like "Reagan tripled the debt." It has been widely known that democrats and their "have this for free" attitude has made the national debt outstandingly high.

So read em and weep.

I already admitted I was wrong about the three-decades stuff, other republicans were MUCH worse. Even Carter was a little worse (but as I mentioned before, unemployment was 6.3% when he took over for full-timers over 20, the highest it ever got was 6.7, .4 above where he started. W started at 3.6%, now it is 5.6%, an increase of 2%). We are looking at the same data source (the Bureau of Labor Statistics is part of the Department of Labor. Look at the top of the web page you cite). Again, I am looking at full-time workers, male and female, over 20. Try again.

Reagan did not triple the national debt? Let's see, FY 1981 (three months before he started, debt was about $910,000 million, FY 1989 (three months before he left) it was $2,860,000 million. Looks like about 3X to me. Clinton increased the debt less in terms of whole dollars, and a LOT less in terms of percentage, than Reagan (same 8 years in office), or Bush I, who did his damge in only 4 years.

And please, stop with the "it's widely known" crap. It may be widely known among conservative republicans, but that does not (usually does not) mean it is a fact.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I already admitted I was wrong about the three-decades stuff, other republicans were MUCH worse.

That was the whole point...thank you pointing that out.

Reagan did not triple the national debt? Let's see, FY 1981 (three months before he started, debt was about $910,000 million, FY 1989 (three months before he left) it was $2,860,000 million. Looks like about 3X to me. Clinton increased the debt less in terms of whole dollars, and a LOT less in terms of percentage, than Reagan (same 8 years in office), or Bush I, who did his damge in only 4 years.

Do you have proof of this? Forgive me if i'm skeptical. I have never looked at the numbers, you could be right...I'm not doubting it, but how is the national debt in the billions etc.

And please, stop with the "it's widely known" crap. It may be widely known among conservative republicans, but that does not (usually does not) mean it is a fact.

Well it is widely known...I'm not a republican and I've heard that MANY times.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Then you say it's Bush lieing about WMD, but then you TOTALLY ignore your other buddy Powell saying the exact same thing, and continue to say Bush lies, I'm sure you'll ignore Paul Harvery's PROOF of WMD too.

Don't dilute yourself into thinking it's ok to bring out reagan etc...that wasn't the point...stick to the subject at hand. (oh wait, if you do that, you'llsee how off the wall your comments are.)

1) POWELL WORKS FOR BUSH. He's not my budd, although I respect him more than most in the admin. (BTW, did'nt you notice that in his speech immediately after the SOU he did not mention the "yellowcake" issue? Tha was one of the reasons everyone started looking into the whole matter, ie "why didn't Powell also mention the British Intelligence "yellowcake"?).

2) If something that kills 20 people is classified as a WMD, than an AK47 is one too. Car bombs are clearly terrorist instruments capable of killing scores of people, but ARE NOT what is usually meant by a WMD.

3) Fine, compare Bush and Clinton, look at the website you cite for unemployment statistics, and try again to say that unemployment did not go down under Clinton, then go up under Bush, even before 9/11.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno

Do you have proof of this? Forgive me if i'm skeptical. I have never looked at the numbers, you could be right...I'm not doubting it, but how is the national debt in the billions etc.



US Treasury's website, pal. How does it get into the trillions (not billions). Most simply, this year's (and every years's) budget deficit gets added onto the national debt. Don't forget annual interest too! That $400 billion deficit projected for this year will go right on top.

By the way, have you figured out how to see, in the same website you cited earlier, that unemployment went down during CLinton's terms and up under W? Apology accepted.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
US Treasury's website, pal. How does it get into the trillions (not billions). Most simply, this year's (and every years's) budget deficit gets added onto the national debt. Don't forget annual interest too! That $400 billion deficit projected for this year will go right on top.

OK, if it was 2.7 mil in the reagan admin, and it's in the TRILLIONS now...CLinton might have had a large part to do with that you think?

By the way, have you figured out how to see, in the same website you cited earlier, that unemployment went down during CLinton's terms and up under W? Apology accepted.

DUDE, do you listen at all???? Follow along...YOU SAID BUSH AND UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT 3 DECADE HIGH. That was the point. If you would like to make another point, then do so...but YOU and ONLY you were wrong with the points.
(apology accepted).

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
OK, if it was 2.7 mil in the reagan admin, and it's in the TRILLIONS now...CLinton might have had a large part to do with that you think?

[b]

DUDE, do you listen at all???? Follow along...YOU SAID BUSH AND UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT 3 DECADE HIGH. That was the point. If you would like to make another point, then do so...but YOU and ONLY you were wrong with the points.
(apology accepted).

Fiorst - Duuuuude, I said when Reagan left, the deficit was around $2,860,000 million (look back). Don't you know how much that is? RIght: Trillions.

Second, I was wrong abou the three decade thing, but when you said "Don't dilute yourself into thinking it's ok to bring out reagan etc...that wasn't the point...stick to the subject at hand." I thought you meant one of my original points; that Bush is not so great for the working man, see unemployment. You are correct that when compared to the last two Republican administrations his record is not so bad, but compared to Clinton, it does look pretty bad.
Are you still not admitting that unemployment went to the lowest point in 30 years under Clinton, and in fact was much lower than at any point before Clinton's term going back to Carter, adn it has risen over 2% since Bush took over?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Fiorst - Duuuuude, I said when Reagan left, the deficit was around $2,860,000 million (look back). Don't you know how much that is? RIght: Trillions.

Second, I was wrong abou the three decade thing, but when you said "Don't dilute yourself into thinking it's ok to bring out reagan etc...that wasn't the point...stick to the subject at hand." I thought you meant one of my original points; that Bush is not so great for the working man, see unemployment. You are correct that when compared to the last two Republican administrations his record is not so bad, but compared to Clinton, it does look pretty bad.
Are you still not admitting that unemployment went to the lowest point in 30 years under Clinton, and in fact was much lower than at any point before Clinton's term going back to Carter, adn it has risen over 2% since Bush took over?

Sorry, I meant back 'til 1977, not 30 years.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Fiorst - Duuuuude, I said when Reagan left, the deficit was around $2,860,000 million (look back). Don't you know how much that is? RIght: Trillions.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
If Reagan left with a deficit (hasn't been proven yet, just your word) at 2,860,000 (that's 2.86 mil, only 160 thousand off from what I said...sorry I was going by memory) and it's in the TRILLIONS now how did it get that way without Clinton adding a huge chunk to it?
So yes, I do know how much 2.86 mil is, I also know that it's a far cry, chump change away from the trillions it is now. I'm failing to see your point here.
I would like you to answer why it is so high AFTER the reagan admin.

You are correct that when compared to the last two Republican administrations his record is not so bad, but compared to Clinton, it does look pretty bad.

It's not THAT bad. I do wish it would be a little better...but unemployment changes with the wind, and often doesn't reflect the government. When Enron went down that hurt the unemployment rate...had nothing to do with Bush. The figures will always fluxuate. I do not like the idea that it has gone up (of course I noticed that) since Bush's first day in office. Oh well...Clinton had 8 years, give Bush 8 years and we'll see what happens.
Personally I'd rather have a world free of terrorism than an unemployment rate being a percentage point down.

Are you still not admitting that unemployment went to the lowest point in 30 years under Clinton, and in fact was much lower than at any point before Clinton's term going back to Carter, adn it has risen over 2% since Bush took over?

I never doubted it, had nothing to do with admitting. Clinton did do a good job keeping the unemployment low by the end of his term. He also started this recession for Bush to clean up.

For the record, why does the unemployment rate matter so much anyway? Is this because I showed you that Bush's promise of "no child left behind" had actually come true. Bush's focus isn't on unemployment like Clinton's was.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
If Reagan left with a deficit (hasn't been proven yet, just your word) at 2,860,000 (that's 2.86 mil, only 160 thousand off from what I said...sorry I was going by memory) and it's in the TRILLIONS now how did it get that way without Clinton adding a huge chunk to it?
So yes, I do know how much 2.86 mil is, I also know that it's a far cry, chump change away from the trillions it is now. I'm failing to see your point here.
I would like you to answer why it is so high AFTER the reagan admin.

[b]

Clinton had 8 years, give Bush 8 years and we'll see what happens.
Personally I'd rather have a world free of terrorism than an unemployment rate being a percentage point down.

[b]

I never doubted it, had nothing to do with admitting. Clinton did do a good job keeping the unemployment low by the end of his term. He also started this recession for Bush to clean up.

For the record, why does the unemployment rate matter so much anyway? Is this because I showed you that Bush's promise of "no child left behind" had actually come true. Bush's focus isn't on unemployment like Clinton's was.

At this point, I must just assume that you are purposely writing in an ignorant fashion for fun. It took me a while to figure it out, I've done it every once in a while just to stir things up. But in case you are being serious, let's at least clear up the numbers, because you seem seriously inept in being able to identify the value/nomenclature of numbers. Saying that the numbers which I had provided (from the Department of Labor, the website you asked me to look at) indicate that you were off by 160 thousand from what I said, is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Let's begin:

When a number is expressed in millions, that means that if you were to write it out with all the zeros (ie, as a whole numer), you would add six zeros to the number. So if someone were to say "$1 million", the actual number written out is $1,000,000. So, when someone (in this case the Treasury Department) says the defict in 1989 was $2,860,000 million, the number written out is $2,860,000,000,000. So you were not off by 160 million, you were off by 160 billion. Do you know the difference between millions, billions and trillions? I'll give you a hand:

1 = one
10 = ten
100 = one hundred
1,000 = one thousand
1,000,000 = one million (or, 1 million)
1,000,000,000 = one billion (or, 1,000 million)
1,000,000,000,000 = one trillion (or 1,000,000 million)

Got it yet?

Why is the def so high after Reagan? Because deficit spending continued, until Clinton eventually wiped out the annual budget deficits. Even with a balanced budget (remember, oh forgetful one, the annual budget is different from the total national debt) interest is paid on the deficit; 1.7 billion a day at present. Of course, the annual budget deficits are back, actually at a record $455 billion ($455,000,000,000) with Bush's current budget. Ooops, that doesn't include the $4 billion ($4,000,000,000)/month Iraq is costing us. Oh well, cutting taxes will surely clear that up(?).

Clinton fueled the recession? How? Please, don't say with addiitonal spending. First of all, he didn't run budget deficits. Secondly, big deficit spending usually cures a recession, at the risk of inflation. Tell me how. Even Bush acknowledged the good shape of the economy when he took over by forecasting a budget surplus his first year.

As far as "let's see where Bush ends up" with unemployment, fine. All I know is that in his first 31 months, employment went down or stayed steady every month, from 6.5% to 4.9%. With Bush, it has gone up or stayed steady every one of his first 31 months , going from 3.6 to 5.6, except for five months, where there were very slight reductions (biggest monthly drop was .3%, three-tenths of one percent).

Why does the unemployment rate matter? Well, besides the fact that 1.66 million more people lost their permanent jobs last month as opposed to when Bush took over (how does that compare to the size of your home town?) you seemed to take issue with the fact that I used employment as a measure of how "friendly" Bush was to the common man/worker.

No child left behind? Just read an article in our local paper that ALL after school programs in one nearby district, (plays, chorus, music lessons, math clubs, etc.) and most sports were cut. Are you aware that Portland public schools are going to cut three weeks from the school year to meet budget? That's 90,000 students. There are many anecdotal stories supporting both sides of this debate, but I think the preponderace of data shows that spending on schools (at teh fedral level) is not keeping up with inflation, not by a long shot, and probably going down in whole dollar terms.

I know you will respond, but please, at least show me that you know how to read numbers correctly.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
At this point, I must just assume that you are purposely writing in an ignorant fashion for fun. It took me a while to figure it out, I've done it every once in a while just to stir things up. But in case you are being serious, let's at least clear up the numbers, because you seem seriously inept in being able to identify the value/nomenclature of numbers. Saying that the numbers which I had provided (from the Department of Labor, the website you asked me to look at) indicate that you were off by 160 thousand from what I said, is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Let's begin:

When a number is expressed in millions, that means that if you were to write it out with all the zeros (ie, as a whole numer), you would add six zeros to the number. So if someone were to say "$1 million", the actual number written out is $1,000,000. So, when someone (in this case the Treasury Department) says the defict in 1989 was $2,860,000 million, the number written out is $2,860,000,000,000. So you were not off by 160 million, you were off by 160 billion. Do you know the difference between millions, billions and trillions? I'll give you a hand:

1 = one
10 = ten
100 = one hundred
1,000 = one thousand
1,000,000 = one million (or, 1 million)
1,000,000,000 = one billion (or, 1,000 million)
1,000,000,000,000 = one trillion (or 1,000,000 million)

Got it yet?

I have actually NEVER heard it like that. I do not appreciate your sarcasm on this either, is this how you treat everyone that doesn't understand what you're getting at?
I guess I was just taught to say what you mean. If it's 2.86 trillion, then you say so.
So how would you actually "SAY" that? Two Million eight hundred sixty thousand, million dollars? Sounds pretty stupid if you ask me. If this is actually accepted lingo, then whatever floats your boat. That is why I didn't believe you when you said it was only 2.86 million that reagan put us in the hole.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I know you will respond, but please, at least show me that you know how to read numbers correctly.


I tell you what...why don't I start typing in spanish, or maybe start whipping off subsections of laws that you've never read or learned.
I asked people in my office here if they ever talked or heard it that way, and not a one has ever done it like that. That is not a "common" way of doing that. Not saying it's not being taught, or not known to people, just that it's not "common". The way you responded is quite offensive. I was enjoying my conversations with you up to this point, even though I did not agree with you. And from here I will take a break from you. I do not try to belittle you, and believe me I can, with an IQ ranging from 135-142 (at it's highest point), I'm sure I could have no problem showing your errors in your thoughts. I've refrained from any such actions on these posts because of a respect. I've stuck to the points instead of attacking your lack of knowledge as being completely ignorant.
I obviously don't know everything, I admit when I don't know something which I have done quite often here while others never admit when they are wrong. You never gave me the chance to tell you I have never spoken in that manner and did not understand what you were saying.
I have no need to debate with someone that can not show a level of respect.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I have actually NEVER heard it like that. I do not appreciate your sarcasm on this either, is this how you treat everyone that doesn't understand what you're getting at?
I guess I was just taught to say what you mean. If it's 2.86 trillion, then you say so.
So how would you actually "SAY" that? Two Million eight hundred sixty thousand, million dollars? Sounds pretty stupid if you ask me. If this is actually accepted lingo, then whatever floats your boat. That is why I didn't believe you when you said it was only 2.86 million that reagan put us in the hole.

First, if it is a stupid way of expressing it, take it up with the Treasury Department, who expresses the figures in "millions". I was just trying to represent the data as presented by the experts.

Regarding sarcasm, sorry, but I tried to explain it in many ways, and you kept saying that Reaga increased the debt by only 160 mil (160,000,000). Ultimately you compared the 160 million to the trillions under Clinton, and concluded that someone else must have acted much worse than Reagan in this reagrd.

And to then say, as you do above, that the disagreement was because you questioned my assertion that it was only 2.86 million Reagan put us in the whole is BS.. You questioned that there was ANY deficit under Reagan, not that it was "so small". At on point you said "Do you have proof of this, forgive me if I'm skeptical..I'm not doubting it, but how is the national debt in the billions etc.". How in the world would anybody interpret that as saying that you thought 2.86 million was too low an estimate?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I tell you what...why don't I start typing in spanish, or maybe start whipping off subsections of laws that you've never read or learned.
I asked people in my office here if they ever talked or heard it that way, and not a one has ever done it like that. That is not a "common" way of doing that. Not saying it's not being taught, or not known to people, just that it's not "common". The way you responded is quite offensive. I was enjoying my conversations with you up to this point, even though I did not agree with you. And from here I will take a break from you. I do not try to belittle you, and believe me I can, with an IQ ranging from 135-142 (at it's highest point), I'm sure I could have no problem showing your errors in your thoughts. I've refrained from any such actions on these posts because of a respect. I've stuck to the points instead of attacking your lack of knowledge as being completely ignorant.
I obviously don't know everything, I admit when I don't know something which I have done quite often here while others never admit when they are wrong. You never gave me the chance to tell you I have never spoken in that manner and did not understand what you were saying.
I have no need to debate with someone that can not show a level of respect.

Fine with me. Let's stick to the 'Skins.

[jsarno]

See below for comment...i had to edit.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
First, if it is a stupid way of expressing it, take it up with the Treasury Department, who expresses the figures in "millions". I was just trying to represent the data as presented by the experts.

What? I can't think that's it's stupid. It is in my opinion. Oh well. In case you didn't notice, you don't deal with "EXPERTS" here. In fact, not only do I come here to share opinions, I come here to learn. I try to learn with everything I do. It does not appear you try to learn anything, but just force your opinions on others. This is clear with the fact that I've spent much time coming up with web site links to prove you wrong, and you ignore them.

Regarding sarcasm, sorry, but I tried to explain it in many ways,

Umm what? You just kept saying the same thing over again. Get a clue if someone isn't understanding what you're saying, change it up so they can understand. Don't just assume.

and you kept saying that Reaga increased the debt by only 160 mil (160,000,000). Ultimately you compared the 160 million to the trillions under Clinton, and concluded that someone else must have acted much worse than Reagan in this reagrd.

This is what I said...maybe you should re-read it:
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
If Reagan left with a deficit (hasn't been proven yet, just your word) at 2,860,000 (that's 2.86 mil, only 160 thousand off from what I said...sorry I was going by memory) and it's in the TRILLIONS now how did it get that way without Clinton adding a huge chunk to it?
So yes, I do know how much 2.86 mil is, I also know that it's a far cry, chump change away from the trillions it is now. I'm failing to see your point here.
I would like you to answer why it is so high AFTER the reagan admin.

Note the "maybe I'm just misunderstanding you"
also, I clearly say 160 thousand, not the 160 million that you just said.
Now follow me here. If I think you're sayign that the deficit was 2.86 million dollars after reagan left, and it's in the trillions now, what would be the logical conclusion? That Clinton would have a lot to do with it gettign that way wouldn't he. My problem was that I wasn't understanding you, your problem is that you're failing to read.

And to then say, as you do above, that the disagreement was because you questioned my assertion that it was only 2.86 million Reagan put us in the whole is BS.. You questioned that there was ANY deficit under Reagan, not that it was "so small". At on point you said "Do you have proof of this, forgive me if I'm skeptical..I'm not doubting it, but how is the national debt in the billions etc.". How in the world would anybody interpret that as saying that you thought 2.86 million was too low an estimate?

See above. What I was questioning was your figure.
(please read that last sentence again, sicne you seem to not be understanding it) I was also questioning your authenticity. You quite often just ramble comments with no proof. I was basically asking for proof which you still have not provided.
It does not surprise me that Reagan put us in a hole. If you noticed, not once did I defend reagan (of course you didn't notice that, you for some reason still think I'm a republican, therefore must defend ALL republicans). For the record, I think Reagan skrewed up the country, and left daddy bush to fix it.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Fine with me. Let's stick to the 'Skins.

I don't think you got what I just said. (not that you care) I am taking a break from you in all aspects. Just because you show no level of respect in a political thread, doesn't mean you'll show any level of respect in the skins threads. I'm sure this is a trait of yours. You have never admitted where you've been wrong to this point without adding a "BUT YOU blah, blah, blah." meaning you're right anyway. You have not listen to fact, and even when you've been told you've offended someone and shown no respect, you say "FINE WITH ME...".
You are one of those people who think they are constantly correct don't you? Really focused on yourself aren't you? I would wager that you've been divorced, or never really found "love". (no need to respond to that, just an ASSUMPTION)
You have similar views to spence, but the difference between you two is that Spence will admit he was off on something, and Spence has a level of respect for others.
At one point (even posted this to you) I told you I respected your opinion, and it was a pleasure debating with you. I no longer believe that. You show some level of intellegence, so instead of passing this off, just listen to it and let it soak in.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
What? I can't think that's it's stupid. It is in my opinion. Oh well. In case you didn't notice, you don't deal with "EXPERTS" here. In fact, not only do I come here to share opinions, I come here to learn. I try to learn with everything I do. It does not appear you try to learn anything, but just force your opinions on others. This is clear with the fact that I've spent much time coming up with web site links to prove you wrong, and you ignore them.



Umm what? You just kept saying the same thing over again. Get a clue if someone isn't understanding what you're saying, change it up so they can understand. Don't just assume.

[b]

This is what I said...maybe you should re-read it:
[b]Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
If Reagan left with a deficit (hasn't been proven yet, just your word) at 2,860,000 (that's 2.86 mil, only 160 thousand off from what I said...sorry I was going by memory) and it's in the TRILLIONS now how did it get that way without Clinton adding a huge chunk to it?
So yes, I do know how much 2.86 mil is, I also know that it's a far cry, chump change away from the trillions it is now. I'm failing to see your point here.
I would like you to answer why it is so high AFTER the reagan admin.

Note the "maybe I'm just misunderstanding you"
also, I clearly say 160 thousand, not the 160 million that you just said.
Now follow me here. If I think you're sayign that the deficit was 2.86 million dollars after reagan left, and it's in the trillions now, what would be the logical conclusion? That Clinton would have a lot to do with it gettign that way wouldn't he. My problem was that I wasn't understanding you, your problem is that you're failing to read.



See above. [b]What I was questioning was your figure.
(please read that last sentence again, sicne you seem to not be understanding it) I was also questioning your authenticity. You quite often just ramble comments with no proof. I was basically asking for proof which you still have not provided.
It does not surprise me that Reagan put us in a hole. If you noticed, not once did I defend reagan (of course you didn't notice that, you for some reason still think I'm a republican, therefore must defend ALL republicans). For the record, I think Reagan skrewed up the country, and left daddy bush to fix it.


look, there is too much wrong to comment on everything, here is a direct quote from you:

Don't try to sugar coat how badly you were off with dumb comments like "Reagan tripled the debt."

I think you understand now that it actually was $2.8 trillion when he left, and $909 million when he started (those are Treasury Department numbers), so; did the deficit triple under Reagan? How dumb was my comment about Reagan tripling the debt?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
look, there is too much wrong to comment on everything, here is a direct quote from you:

Don't try to sugar coat how badly you were off with dumb comments like "Reagan tripled the debt."

I think you understand now that it actually was $2.8 trillion when he left, and $909 million when he started (those are Treasury Department numbers), so; did the deficit triple under Reagan? How dumb was my comment about Reagan tripling the debt?

Damn you are dense. Can you follow along with arguments / discussions? That comment was directed at you changing the subject about how "bush has the worst unemployment rate in 3 decades." (which then turned into another argument because you were dead wrong...I was out to prove that wrong and I did, you kept going with all sorts of BS.)
Now read this again:
Don't try to sugar coat how badly you were off with dumb comments like "Reagan tripled the debt."
No one was talkign about reagan, you pulled him out of your ass. We were talkign about Bush, and Clinton, so why did it matter about reagan? I didn't say "reagan didn't triple the debt". You were trying to justify your being wrong about Bush by pulling in another republican. Thus sugar coating your comments. Just saying that sentence was dumb in relation to the subject at hand. Pay attention.
This is what I am talking about when I said about being able to make you look foolish. But I have more respect than that. You clearly can't stick to a subject and you go off the wall to try to prove some sort of point which usually makes no sense in the argument. The fact that you just quoted me there WAAAY out of context is proof. You've been doing this for many pages / threads. Your analogies from previous threads never match either.
So I guess the real question is, how old are you? I've been nice to this point letting you ramble without a cause and not pin pointing how you can't follow along, but get real buddy. It's absurd that YOU insult me. All you had to do was make a simple apology. But you insist on being an ass.
There is no point in saying anything further to you. It's useless. You can't follow along, and don't care about what you say. Have a nice day.

[Keino]

Originally posted by Skins57
If they can give everyone a 400 bonus per kid but they can not pay our troops. WTF is that?

Skinz...that 400 bucks is not a GIFT. It's your Money.

Not to mention that it's an ADVANCE that you will need to claim as income when you file your taxes for 2003. Another BS Tax releif initiative, similar to the one in 2000

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Keino
Skinz...that 400 bucks is not a GIFT. It's your Money.

Not to mention that it's an ADVANCE that you will need to claim as income when you file your taxes for 2003. Another BS Tax releif initiative, similar to the one in 2000

It may be that you have to pay State Income tax on the $400, but not Federal.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Damn you are dense. Can you follow along with arguments / discussions? That comment was directed at you changing the subject about how "bush has the worst unemployment rate in 3 decades." (which then turned into another argument because you were dead wrong...I was out to prove that wrong and I did, you kept going with all sorts of BS.)
Now read this again:
Don't try to sugar coat how badly you were off with dumb comments like "Reagan tripled the debt."
No one was talkign about reagan, you pulled him out of your ass. We were talkign about Bush, and Clinton, so why did it matter about reagan? I didn't say "reagan didn't triple the debt". You were trying to justify your being wrong about Bush by pulling in another republican. Thus sugar coating your comments. Just saying that sentence was dumb in relation to the subject at hand. Pay attention.
This is what I am talking about when I said about being able to make you look foolish. But I have more respect than that. You clearly can't stick to a subject and you go off the wall to try to prove some sort of point which usually makes no sense in the argument. The fact that you just quoted me there WAAAY out of context is proof. You've been doing this for many pages / threads. Your analogies from previous threads never match either.
So I guess the real question is, how old are you? I've been nice to this point letting you ramble without a cause and not pin pointing how you can't follow along, but get real buddy. It's absurd that YOU insult me. All you had to do was make a simple apology. But you insist on being an ass.
There is no point in saying anything further to you. It's useless. You can't follow along, and don't care about what you say. Have a nice day.

You know what, I give up to. You have not refferred to one source of data, except the Department of Labor, which you read wrong. All your proof is of the "every knows", "people say" or "[put conservative editorialists name here]" says so. You proved that you can't keep up with numbers, or actual data, when you could not figure out what a trillion is. The fact that you could even possibly think that the deficit could have been as low as $2.86 million around Reagan's time (and I quote you "If Reagan left with a deficit (hasn't been proven yet, just your word) at 2,860,000 (that's 2.86 mil, only 160 thousand off from what I said...sorry I was going by memory) and it's in the TRILLIONS now how did it get that way without Clinton adding a huge chunk to it?" This is not out of context. Clearly, you thought that if there was ANY deficit, it was in the millions, you could not have been clearer in your opinion) shows how clueless you are regarding federal spending. Know when the last time the federal deficit wasat 2.86 million or lower? 1837, when it was $336,957.00. How could such a smart guy as yourself, with such a high IQ, supposedly up on current affairs, be sooooo far off?

Easy, you do stuff like that all the time. We all make mistakes, but yours are whoppers.

[Keino]

No doubt. I was just saying you have to claim it as income...there will be a separate line item for it.

We had to do the same thing in 2000. The IRS will be sending us all a nice 1099.

I was tempted to send it back, so that I could take full advatnage of the credit when I filed, but I figured $400 buck wouldn't do anything significant either way to my tax liability.......

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Keino
No doubt. I was just saying you have to claim it as income...there will be a separate line item for it.

We had to do the same thing in 2000. The IRS will be sending us all a nice 1099.

I was tempted to send it back, so that I could take full advatnage of the credit when I filed, but I figured $400 buck wouldn't do anything significant either way to my tax liability.......

Yeah, but the point is that from the State's viewpoint, your taxable income went up because of the $400, that's why they tax you after you get the refund.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
You know what, I give up to. You have not refferred to one source of data, except the Department of Labor, which you read wrong. All your proof is of the "every knows", "people say" or "[put conservative editorialists name here]" says so. You proved that you can't keep up with numbers, or actual data, when you could not figure out what a trillion is. The fact that you could even possibly think that the deficit could have been as low as $2.86 million around Reagan's time (and I quote you "If Reagan left with a deficit (hasn't been proven yet, just your word) at 2,860,000 (that's 2.86 mil, only 160 thousand off from what I said...sorry I was going by memory) and it's in the TRILLIONS now how did it get that way without Clinton adding a huge chunk to it?" This is not out of context. Clearly, you thought that if there was ANY deficit, it was in the millions, you could not have been clearer in your opinion) shows how clueless you are regarding federal spending. Know when the last time the federal deficit wasat 2.86 million or lower? 1837, when it was $336,957.00. How could such a smart guy as yourself, with such a high IQ, supposedly up on current affairs, be sooooo far off?

Easy, you do stuff like that all the time. We all make mistakes, but yours are whoppers.

I wasn't going to quote on this, but damn you make me laugh with your ineptitude.
Do you recall me saying (might have been another thread) about what's the big deal with the deficit anyway, it's not like it truely matters sicne we've been in a hole for decades, and decades and decades, and decades? Uh oh...it that a bell ringing in your head? I was working to prove your point wrong adn that's why I said "hasn't been proven yet, just your word", that's saying, I don't believe you that that number is correct. Or are you sooooo dense that you can't read / understand even that which you quote? Seriously, this is getting borderline hilarious.

Here is a quote from a PM that I got regarding you here:
WOW. I did not know Dukuch could not keep up with a discussion like he has in the troops in iraq thread. I find it hard to understand what he's getting at since he's always jumping around and making no sense.
I would go on, but you get the picture.
PS- so far it's 9 for 9 that people I've asked about this, two million eight hundred and sixty thousand million dollars. NOT A ONE speaks like that, or heard it used like that. (one is the ass. District Attorney that I asked as well, probably the most intellegent woman I know) I don't think I was out there not understanding what you were saying. Point still remains you were an ass about it.
So say this with me...come on I know you can do it...
TWO POINT EIGHT SIX TRILLION. I know that might be tough for you, but give it a shot like we were taught in GRADE SCHOOL. You have your hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, then trillions...or did they just make up those words last night?

Not one peice of data huh? The department of labor stats TOTALLY proved your "3 decade high" comment was pulled from your ass, then there was the "Bush is the only guy saying this comment" proved with a quote from Powell and some others. Then there was the ENGLISH PAPER quotes that I gave you as well. there was something else not coming to mind...but ALL were direct links to web sites with the info, meanwhile you sit back and ignore them and NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER supply me with a web site to prove anything I am saying wrong. I suppose we should just take your word for it.
Seriously, you're making me laugh. This is too easy. You're showing yourself to be a complete boob. I thought you were better than this, but I guessed wrong.
So what are you going to say now to make you look foolish, because every, and I do mean every retort I've made has made you look like you have no clue what you're talking about. I hesitated to say that before, but the PM to me solidified that you are crazy. :lol1: You FUNNY guy.

[jsarno]

I posted this on another thread, but it may be better served here for all those interested:
There are some points I'd like to make to the "Bush haters" here.
First off, do you remember BEFORE Bush took office he made a speech about how the country is in a recession and he would do his best to help it, but it would be tough to reverse it at that point???? If Clinton did such a good job, how come the country went into a recession BEFORE bush took office ???(or was Bush a psychic). This clearly shows Clinton as the problem to this economy. What he did I am uncertain of, no one probably knows exactly what he did to skrew up the economy, but none the less, Clinton is responsible.
Second, most of you seem to forget that the stock market was plummeting at the end of Clinton's term. The economy sucked before Bush took over. The stock market proves this, Bush was handed a mess and He's done a damn good job trying to clean it up.
Third. Those who talk about this "war", did you know that 42 of 55 most wanted men have been captured and or killed by the "Bush administration"? That clearly shows me that the world is a safer place, and this country is a safer place. So what was that you were saying about our great president?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I wasn't going to quote on this, but damn you make me laugh with your ineptitude.
Do you recall me saying (might have been another thread) about what's the big deal with the deficit anyway, it's not like it truely matters sicne we've been in a hole for decades, and decades and decades, and decades? Uh oh...it that a bell ringing in your head? I was working to prove your point wrong adn that's why I said "hasn't been proven yet, just your word", that's saying, I don't believe you that that number is correct. Or are you sooooo dense that you can't read / understand even that which you quote? Seriously, this is getting borderline hilarious.

Here is a quote from a PM that I got regarding you here:
WOW. I did not know Dukuch could not keep up with a discussion like he has in the troops in iraq thread. I find it hard to understand what he's getting at since he's always jumping around and making no sense.
I would go on, but you get the picture.
PS- so far it's 9 for 9 that people I've asked about this, two million eight hundred and sixty thousand million dollars. NOT A ONE speaks like that, or heard it used like that. (one is the ass. District Attorney that I asked as well, probably the most intellegent woman I know) I don't think I was out there not understanding what you were saying. Point still remains you were an ass about it.
So say this with me...come on I know you can do it...
TWO POINT EIGHT SIX TRILLION. I know that might be tough for you, but give it a shot like we were taught in GRADE SCHOOL. You have your hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, then trillions...or did they just make up those words last night?

Not one peice of data huh? The department of labor stats TOTALLY proved your "3 decade high" comment was pulled from your ass, then there was the "Bush is the only guy saying this comment" proved with a quote from Powell and some others. Then there was the ENGLISH PAPER quotes that I gave you as well. there was something else not coming to mind...but ALL were direct links to web sites with the info, meanwhile you sit back and ignore them and NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER supply me with a web site to prove anything I am saying wrong. I suppose we should just take your word for it.
Seriously, you're making me laugh. This is too easy. You're showing yourself to be a complete boob. I thought you were better than this, but I guessed wrong.
So what are you going to say now to make you look foolish, because every, and I do mean every retort I've made has made you look like you have no clue what you're talking about. I hesitated to say that before, but the PM to me solidified that you are crazy. :lol1: You FUNNY guy.

You dope. I admitted I was wrong about "the three decade high" thing when you first called me on it. I was making a point about unemployment as a measure of how "freindly" Bush is v CLinton regarding the working man. That point is true, are you still denying that unemployment is higher, by a lot, under Bush than Clinton? Why do you focus on "how I said the 2.86 trillion" number. I simply quoted the Treasury Department. You are right, nobody "says" it like that, they just write it like that. Have you never read an annual report? Figures (money especially) are usually listed in thousand, or millions (sometimes on the top of a table, it will say ($000) meaning the figure below are in thousands, etc.)

Don't want to comment on your ignnorance regarding public debt, huh? In another thread I had to explain to you the difference between the annual budget and the national debt! That's 9th grade social studies stuff! Ask those same nine people which one of them thought that the public debt could possibly be as low as 2.8 mill, when it has not been that low in OVER 150 YEARS.

Never supplied you with a website? You numbskull, I quoted the Department of Labor website YOU SUPPLIED ME! Remember, I had to explain to you that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is part of the Department of Labor? Why not address the issue which was raised there, if unemployment is higher under Bush, what makes him freindlier to the working man?

Fine, call me a boob. From you, that's a compliment. And oh yeah, you have an IQ as high as 135.

[Chief Seeway]

You two sound like best friends who have spent way too much time together! :smash:

I'm joking ofcourse, but some of the posts are very interesting. One thing I'd like to remind people of concerning Reagan.

He won the Cold War period!

The money he spent on defense had to be matched by the USSR. From nukes, star wars, nuclear ballistic subs, mobile nukes in western europe, hundreds of naval vessels, B-52's, etc... The "enemy" had to spend the same to keep up and in the end communism imploded into itself because they could not keep up with the financial stress. I think all of us would rather have debt then millions upon millions of dead americans from a possible WW3. Just my 2 cents.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by seeway
You two sound like best friends who have spent way too much time together! :smash:

I'm joking ofcourse, but some of the posts are very interesting. One thing I'd like to remind people of concerning Reagan.

He won the Cold War period!

The money he spent on defense had to be matched by the USSR. From nukes, star wars, nuclear ballistic subs, mobile nukes in western europe, hundreds of naval vessels, B-52's, etc... The "enemy" had to spend the same to keep up and in the end communism imploded into itself because they could not keep up with the financial stress. I think all of us would rather have debt then millions upon millions of dead americans from a possible WW3. Just my 2 cents.

Are you inadvertantly implying that Reagan made the USA the dominant force it is with his spending?

I don't think "reagan won the cold war", but I totally see your point.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by seeway
You two sound like best friends who have spent way too much time together! :smash:

I'm joking ofcourse, but some of the posts are very interesting. One thing I'd like to remind people of concerning Reagan.

He won the Cold War period!

The money he spent on defense had to be matched by the USSR. From nukes, star wars, nuclear ballistic subs, mobile nukes in western europe, hundreds of naval vessels, B-52's, etc... The "enemy" had to spend the same to keep up and in the end communism imploded into itself because they could not keep up with the financial stress. I think all of us would rather have debt then millions upon millions of dead americans from a possible WW3. Just my 2 cents.

Seeway:

Don't agree entirely, although I recognize that a lot of intelligent people agree w/the Reagan/spending/cold war thing. I think the Soviet economy would have imploded anyway, maybe just taking a little longer. Unfortunately, one of the pots at the end of the military spending rainbow was supposed to be huge savings on the military (hardware, not salaries) after the Cold War, which did not really happen.

In addition, we were supposed to eventually reduce our (and Russia was too) nuclear warheads down to zero in exchange for other countries not developing their own nuclear programs. Unfortunately, we are not keeping our end of the bargain, and pissant dictators like in North Korea can point to our non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as an excuse to violate it themselves.

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by jsarno
:lol1:
I'd like to hear that too. hehe

You say lets pay them and cut something?

How bout this? Lets cut the 18% waste in Fed spending and pay them and keep the missle program.

How bout this? lets demand the 118 schools with NO credidation in this country have it since 25% of all tax dollars go to it.

How bout this my caring soul, Lets make sure are seniors get taken care of before illegal immigrants,for a minority vote.

How bout this my man? Why don't guys like you and Spence spend more time discussing the way things are instead of making up crap to act like you have a debate?

You both hate Bush! So what? What issue on fact have either of you reserched to beat him with a heart filled issue?

You two can bring study or thought from it at anytime. But if Spence can just make up things and you just qoute a guy in the Navy. I must ask what good are either of you doing for anyone? You can't even be open thinkers for your selves. If you can then show it with solid facts from your care on study on a issue.

We shall wait and see.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
You say lets pay them and cut something?

How bout this? Lets cut the 18% waste in Fed spending and pay them and keep the missle program.

How bout this? lets demand the 118 schools with NO credidation in this country have it since 25% of all tax dollars go to it.

How bout this my caring soul, Lets make sure are seniors get taken care of before illegal immigrants,for a minority vote.

How bout this my man? Why don't guys like you and Spence spend more time discussing the way things are instead of making up crap to act like you have a debate?

You both hate Bush! So what? What issue on fact have either of you reserched to beat him with a heart filled issue?

You two can bring study or thought from it at anytime. But if Spence can just make up things and you just qoute a guy in the Navy. I must ask what good are either of you doing for anyone? You can't even be open thinkers for your selves. If you can then show it with solid facts from your care on study on a issue.

We shall wait and see.

When you refer to "it", (in your statement "lets demand the 118 schools with NO credidation in this country have it since 25% of all tax dollars go to it", I'm not sure what "it" you are refering too, wasted military spending?

Irregardless, i am actuall in favor of some of what you say; I'd love for waste in federal spending to be cut, I'd love for the "118 schools without accredidation" to get some $. I'd love for senoior citizens to get a bigger piece of the pie (perhaps we should stop spending the current social security surplus as a budget gap measure).

And it is true, I think Bush is a Grade I SOB. Today in the paper I read about how the Inspector Genral at the EPA disclosed that the agency, at the behest of the White House, did not reveal the potential danger of the air quality in lower Manhattan in the days/weeks following 9/11. Apparently, on September 18, 2001, the EPA issued a report that declared that air safe to breath, after the National Security COuncil , which was working with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, "requested" that certain cautionary language be deleted, and more reassuring statemnts be emphasized. It's unknown if anyone was put at risk, but the point is that the White House strongarmend the EPA to put out misleading statements, adn withold warnings, to encourage people to go back to the downtown area by witholding info.

I find this stuff really disturbing.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin


You both hate Bush! So what?


Everything you said was fine and dandy...but this is why I say it's tough to follow you.
You obviously do rant. I have been defending bush sicne I've been here. How the hell did you think otherwise? I'd rather have a republican or independant in office than a democrat any day of the week.
If you've followed my other threads (judging by your WHOPPING 11 posts you haven't ventured very far) you'd notcie that I've quoted SEVERAL links against bush haters.

Can you believe that Spence? This guy lumped US together. Other than being redskins fans, that's the first time someone lumped us together.

Dalpumpkin, I think you need to do a little more research before making crazy statements.

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by Skins57
If they can give everyone a 400 bonus per kid but they can not pay our troops. WTF is that?

Who said our troops don't get paid? Who said many of those troops did not get the same tax credit as everyone else?

Hey lets ask this. Why are all the troops paying SS and getting statement on how it is broke in 2040, there age of retirment.
Why are the same people who complain about there money, also complaining about things like missle defence and so on that not only saves there lives, but the people back home also.

It is unreal how a over taxed people can get a tax cut, and find a way to twist it to hurting the military. Well that pay cuts came from a different time than now. And now they have got pay upgrades. Those are facts.

Tax cut is a crime? Someone is getting screwed from it? How so?

Look around my friend. Where does all that money go? Where is all that sin tax going? Where is all that gas tax going? Where is all that SS that 35 and younger won't get going? Where is that 8% prchase tax going? Where is that nice goverment claims over half when you die tax going? Tax,Tax.Tax.

But hey lets pretend the Goverment that on averg. has 18% waste needs to keep that 2% tax cut. Lets pretend all those city and stae taxes go to someone you know and trust. All that money paid and yet the people treat one man out of tousands like a king.

What is messed up is how a guy can judge anothers tax burden. What if you have kids you don't deserve a credit because you have non?

Yeah we should all pay accross the board a 10% flat tax, then that issue is over. Fair for everyone.

My house paid 10,067.32 in Fed tax alone last year. Two people working overtime and scraping to get buy. How much did you pay in Fed? Yeah it is not fair for some to pay more taxes for working overtime either.

My man, I don't mean to offend you, but you have know buissness with a no nothing committ like you pay more because they have kids and you don't. You go jump at those kids at burgerking living at home with mom and dad making something and don't pay crap. And Yeah, those young people should pay something. 200.00 bucks a year out of 6 thousand. Hell they are already being forced to pay a retierment fund that will be broke anyway.

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by jsarno
Everything you said was fine and dandy...but this is why I say it's tough to follow you.
You obviously do rant. I have been defending bush sicne I've been here. How the hell did you think otherwise? I'd rather have a republican or independant in office than a democrat any day of the week.
If you've followed my other threads (judging by your WHOPPING 11 posts you haven't ventured very far) you'd notcie that I've quoted SEVERAL links against bush haters.

Can you believe that Spence? This guy lumped US together. Other than being redskins fans, that's the first time someone lumped us together.

Dalpumpkin, I think you need to do a little more research before making crazy statements.

Well I'm sure he did lump us together. I'm not sure what post got you thinking i'm crazy, or disrespected you. But I'm sure it happened, and I do rant.

I know you defend Bush and you can tell I vote for him also. But we do have different ways of going about it.

I post my take in a manner of asking them to bring there thought on politics. At times you will see me say things like I don't dig this or that with Bush, but at the same time ask them to remove there blinders in a round about way.

I may have 11 post or whatever, but that is here. But on this subject of war that trickles into every post for a demecrate. I am not going to go back to Clinton to exsplain what is on the table. They make stuff up like it is free, and I have seen many always blast nonsence and then hide behind a article. I do feel everytime logic thinking people get into a spitting contest on there lack of facts and study with Clinton, we lose the point. They post more soundbites than anything because they are hopping Bush fails. Why? because they can't win on issues or facts because they have none.

I most likely ranted again, but it all comes down to this, they blast soundbites but can never answer a simple thing. And I am all over that. The only debate they have is to suck us into Clinton to argue him, and not the facts of 2003.

Man I do understand you, and you can come play with the libs on my board all day long. We are not both Skins fans.:) But we do agree on politics.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
Who said our troops don't get paid? Who said many of those troops did not get the same tax credit as everyone else?

Hey lets ask this. Why are all the troops paying SS and getting statement on how it is broke in 2040, there age of retirment.
Why are the same people who complain about there money, also complaining about things like missle defence and so on that not only saves there lives, but the people back home also.

It is unreal how a over taxed people can get a tax cut, and find a way to twist it to hurting the military. Well that pay cuts came from a different time than now. And now they have got pay upgrades. Those are facts.

Tax cut is a crime? Someone is getting screwed from it? How so?

Look around my friend. Where does all that money go? Where is all that sin tax going? Where is all that gas tax going? Where is all that SS that 35 and younger won't get going? Where is that 8% prchase tax going? Where is that nice goverment claims over half when you die tax going? Tax,Tax.Tax.

But hey lets pretend the Goverment that on averg. has 18% waste needs to keep that 2% tax cut. Lets pretend all those city and stae taxes go to someone you know and trust. All that money paid and yet the people treat one man out of tousands like a king.

What is messed up is how a guy can judge anothers tax burden. What if you have kids you don't deserve a credit because you have non?

Yeah we should all pay accross the board a 10% flat tax, then that issue is over. Fair for everyone.

My house paid 10,067.32 in Fed tax alone last year. Two people working overtime and scraping to get buy. How much did you pay in Fed? Yeah it is not fair for some to pay more taxes for working overtime either.

My man, I don't mean to offend you, but you have know buissness with a no nothing committ like you pay more because they have kids and you don't. You go jump at those kids at burgerking living at home with mom and dad making something and don't pay crap. And Yeah, those young people should pay something. 200.00 bucks a year out of 6 thousand. Hell they are already being forced to pay a retierment fund that will be broke anyway.

Can't answer all of the above, but I can answer, at least partially, the question about where all the SS $ are going: RIght now there is a surplus (the SS fund has more in it than is needed to pay benefits today) so, one would think that the smart thing to do is to hold onto the surplus for the future. BUT, that's not what is going on, the surplus is being spent to help offset the deficit. Not that the surplus would necessarily cover future shortfalls, but spending it does not help.

Also, the missile defense system protects no one, it is ot even deployed yet. The beef I have with it is that it is a great idea, but one that there is no evidence would work. The hardware has failed every test of intercepting dummy warheads (the dummies being much more "visible" than any real ICBM) and the software would need to be virtually infinate code-wise. The money is probably better spent elsewhere.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin

What is messed up is how a guy can judge anothers tax burden. What if you have kids you don't deserve a credit because you have non?

Yeah we should all pay accross the board a 10% flat tax, then that issue is over. Fair for everyone.

now you're sounding like me, which of course is NEVER a bad thing! ;)

My house paid 10,067.32 in Fed tax alone last year. Two people working overtime and scraping to get buy. How much did you pay in Fed? Yeah it is not fair for some to pay more taxes for working overtime either.

I beleive mine was in the range of $13,500 ish. While I have a friend that is divorced TWICE, has two kids (two different wives), makes what my wife and I make COMBINED and he paid LESS in taxes. How the hell did that happen?

Just for the record, I think your points are valid, and I enjoy reading most of them...my point was to say you are somtimes hard to follow. But this lastpost was easy to follow...so preach on! :D

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
Well I'm sure he did lump us together. I'm not sure what post got you thinking i'm crazy, or disrespected you. But I'm sure it happened, and I do rant.

Don't worry about it. Maybe I was just misunderstanding you.

I know you defend Bush and you can tell I vote for him also. But we do have different ways of going about it.

I post my take in a manner of asking them to bring there thought on politics. At times you will see me say things like I don't dig this or that with Bush, but at the same time ask them to remove there blinders in a round about way.

I understand that point. But you're barking up the wrong tree. See, some here are just flat out bush haters, and will scrutinize every move he makes. If they don't like it, they complain. It's their right, but it kills them to admit that someone they don't like is doing a good job...especially if it's a republican doing a good job. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's election time. Time to throw as much muck as possible and see if you can sway others to "your party".
Besides, I just don't know how much confidence people can have in a president that is too stupid to know how to inhale weed!!!!

I most likely ranted again, but it all comes down to this, they blast soundbites but can never answer a simple thing. And I am all over that. The only debate they have is to suck us into Clinton to argue him, and not the facts of 2003.

ps- watch for sites of opinionated democrats being posted here instead of facts. When it comes to politics, it is war.

Man I do understand you, and you can come play with the libs on my board all day long. We are not both Skins fans.:) But we do agree on politics.

What boards do you speak of?

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by jsarno
no, no, no...you weren't listening. The job goes to that who is of highest rank with military experience (I don't know exactly how ranks go...for instance if the pres and vice pres were killed, who takes over as pres???). It might be a senator with highest tenure gets the job. I just don't believe that someone without any military experience should run the military.

And what kind of person is striping you of your pay? I'll tell you who, the same people posting how the active people now make enough. The same people who only concern them selves with the service people when it fits. Trillions are payed in taxes a day in this Nation, but now the talk is over Military? Some people discuss the Vets and active servicemen for there own gain. Who do they support or what knowledge have they looked into to even try and do right by the Vets?

There may not be a answer my friend, but it is from people who argue without knowledge that screws us all. The same fool who pretends he knows someones pay, is the same fool who elects people who stand for nothing.

The working people pay the tax and 25% goes to military and is cut, and 25% goes to education with no results.

To bad the fool can't exsplain how many illegal people get the tax payers buck, as they say they think the military is over paid.

Sad some are my friend, and they are punks in the first order.

[Spence]

The notion that Reagan won the Cold War is absurd. The United States and its allies won the Cold War. Ronald Reagan followed a policy of containment of communism that began with President Truman and continued until the Berlin Wall fell. [Presidents Nixon and Ford briefly abandoned this policy during the ill-considered detente period, but containment was quickly reinstated by President Carter in 1977.]

Where Reagan departed from precendent was in his policy of arming Third World irregulars around the globe to fight communism. This policy was a spectacular failure. Whether it was arming cocaine smugglers in Central America [the Contras] or diamond smugglers and human rights violators in Angola [UNITA] or anti-American terrorists [Iran], President Reagan's policy of arming Third World thugs who claimed to be fighting communism [known as the Reagan Doctrine] accomplished nothing towards the extinction of communism. It did manage to increase the amount of cheap cocaine on American streets and inflict considerable agony in sub-Saharan Africa, but that's another matter.

To assert, as Reagan's admirers often do, that he won the Cold War does the greatest disservice and is most disrespectful to President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Carter, and President Bush--all of whom focused America's foreign policy attention on the policy of containment.

I would also point out that in 1980, BEFORE RONALD REAGAN BECAME PRESIDENT, KGB Chief Yuri Andropov commissioned a super-secret report on the state of Soviet society and economy. The report revealed the depths of pathology in the society and rot in the Soviet economy. The prediction was that the USSR would collapse within ten years if serious efforts to reform the country were not undertaken. Two years later, when Andropov was elevated to General Secretary of the Communist Party [the most powerful position in the USSR], he appointed Mikhail Gorbachev to the Politburo. The policy that would eventually become associated with Gorbachev's tenure as General Secretary was "Perestroika," which means "reform" in Russian. In November 1989 the Berlin Wall was torn down. On December 25, 1991 President Mikhail Gorbachev officially disbanded the USSR. Yuri Andropov's report, commissioned in 1980, was eerily accurate.

As you can see, the Soviet Union was destined to collapse long before Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. As long as the policy of containment was continued and the USSR was prevented from conquering western Europe and northeast Asia, the built-in inefficiencies of the command economy and groaning burden of the huge defense budget made the end of the USSR an inevitability. President Reagan was a part of that inevitability--as all previously listed American presidents were--but he did NOT win the Cold War.

[dukeuch]

Amen, Spence.

I never understood why Reagan became the icon he did. He first ran on eliminating the federal deficit and getting tough on terrorism. He tripled the debt, and the hostages held in Iran captured and held during his watch were not released for over 5 years. During that time, Reagan approved the sale of over 1500 missiles to Iran (despite an international arms embargo in place) but "not to free the hostages". Oh, by the way, over 1/2 of the money didn't quite make it back to the Defense Department coffers. Why? Becuase it went to Nicaragua to illegally fund the Contras.
Why is Reagan such an icon? Because as Larry Speakes once said in explaining a particularly fantastic (and innacurate) Reagan anecdote, "If you say it five times, it's true".

[jsarno]

Of course, most of you know I wasn't a reagan fan, however, how do you explain the "booming 80's" that is directly related to his tenure? (also an explanation of why he was so highly regarded) And how come you blame him for messing up the country, but don't see Bush Sr. as a scapegoat. Bush Sr. was handed a load of crap, and the only truely bad thing he did was not finish the job in Iraq.
(striking similarities in tenure from Reagan / Bush Sr., to Clinton / Bush Jr.)

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Of course, most of you know I wasn't a reagan fan, however, how do you explain the "booming 80's" that is directly related to his tenure? (also an explanation of why he was so highly regarded) And how come you blame him for messing up the country, but don't see Bush Sr. as a scapegoat. Bush Sr. was handed a load of crap, and the only truely bad thing he did was not finish the job in Iraq.
(striking similarities in tenure from Reagan / Bush Sr., to Clinton / Bush Jr.)

The "booming 80s" were probably a direct result of his irresponsible spending. Also, don't forge that the oil embargos lifted under his watch. Pumping tons of public funds into contracts (a lot of it defense spending) will give the economy a boost. The problem is, eventually you need to pay back the debt or else live with soaring inflation and the other ills of massive debt. You are right, Bush Sr. unfortunately had to clean up (partially) the mess, which probably cost him getting re-elected. Bush Jr. has learned his pappy's lesson well, and therefore will lobby against rescinding his "temporary" tax cuts until at least he is re-elected, and leave the budget mess for his succesor.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Of course, most of you know I wasn't a reagan fan, however, how do you explain the "booming 80's" that is directly related to his tenure? (also an explanation of why he was so highly regarded) And how come you blame him for messing up the country, but don't see Bush Sr. as a scapegoat. Bush Sr. was handed a load of crap, and the only truely bad thing he did was not finish the job in Iraq.
(striking similarities in tenure from Reagan / Bush Sr., to Clinton / Bush Jr.)
Those are some good questions, JSARNO. The prosperity of the 1980s was largely financed by massive deficit spending. That's why the deficit went up and the national debt exploded by 400% during President Reagan's tenure in office. This policy has very dangerous long-term consequences, but it produced jobs at the time and so people didn't pay any attention to the deficit. It took the candidacy of H. Ross Perot in 1992 to really focus the public on the deficit. By that time, the deficit had become the largest budget deficit in the history of the human race--$290 billion. [The current occupant of the White House has blown that record away, however. This year's budget deficit will be around $500 billion.]

Reagan's defenders say that Democrats in Congress were responsible for the deficit. They ignore, however, that for six of Reagan's eight years in office, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The Democrats controlled only the House. Last time I checked, the House could not force the Senate to spend a dime. Both parties bear the responsibility for reckless spending, but Reagan and the GOP bear full responsibility for the tax cuts which led to such drastic drops in federal revenue. As I noted above, the tax cuts were very popular at the time, but by 1992 people were not so happy with the consequences.

I tend to agree with you that President Bush [1989-1993] was handed a bad situation by Reagan. The budget was badly in deficit and the massive defense spending which had produced so many jobs in California and the Northeast was declining. After the Berlin Wall fell, the defense spending declined further and the jobs produced by them disappeared in many areas of the country. A recession followed, from which the country would not emerge until 1992.

However, President Bush made it harder on himself by vowing during the 1988 campaign that he would never raise taxes. ["Read my lips, no new taxes."] This was a dishonest promise and Bush knew he would have to break it. He said it anyway because it was what he needed to get elected. When it came time to do the inevitable and raise taxes to prevent the deficit from spinning utterly out of control, Bush found his Republican "allies" in Congress [led by Newt Gingrich] abandoning him and he had to rely on the support of Democrats to get the bill through.

So, you're right, JSARNO. Bush was handed a bad situation by the previous president, but he could have handled it better if he'd been honest in the first place. Instead, he decided to lie in order to get elected. Hell, he based his entire 1988 election campaign around that lie about taxes. People who do things like that usually pay for it and he did. He deserved it.

Also, I don't blame President Bush for not going to Baghdad in 1991. Why didn't he? Well, for precisely the reasons you see right now. He had no U.N. mandate to do it so he would have had to do it alone. Bush knew the Middle East far better than his son does and he understood it would be a mess trying to occupy and rebuild Iraq. So he didn't do it. I thought that was the correct decision. Bush Sr.'s mistake was in not protecting the Shiites in southern Iraq. He urged them to rebel against Saddam and they did, expecting U.S. support. However, Bush and Schwarzkopf refused to support the Shiite rebels and several hundred thousand of them were massacred. Hundreds of thousands more fled across the border into Iran. The entire slaughter occurred while U.S. troops, who could have stopped it, were just a few miles away and watching the entire thing happen. That was Bush's great failure in Iraq.

[jsarno]

very informative spence.

I will disagree about Bush's intent on "read my lips, no new taxes". I think he fully intended not to break that promise, but situations sometimes arise in 4 years, and things need to change. I don't think he knew up front he was going to have to raise taxes.