Surprise, surprise, surprise

[Lady.hawke]

Great. Another illiterate.

 

LOL. Iliterate? You do not know what the word means.

[bushwacked]

Bring on the next Ron Regan.

 

 

It won't be long now, her name is Michelle LadyHawke Palin.

Edited September 18, 2011 by bushwacked

[Azazello1313]

I usually make it a rule not to reply to you for obvious reasons. Pubic employees also known as government workers do NOT contribute a dime to their retirement funds. It is OUR money funding them and it is FREE to them. FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. You should get your money back from whatever law school you went to.

 

you are just plain wrong in so many ways here. federal employees (who you were talking about, after all) contribute to their own 401k (which they MUST do to take advantage of the government match, of up to 4% on a 5% employee contribution); plus they contribute to the small defined benefit pension fund they end up pulling from; plus they pay SS and medicare taxes.

 

oh and ursa certainly never went to law school.

 

you should really just quit. you sound like a shrill fool with zero command of the facts, which, unfortunately, is par for the course. some folks just aren't cut out for arguing on the innernets and you are one of them.

[Ursa Majoris]

I usually make it a rule not to reply to you for obvious reasons. Pubic employees also known as government workers do NOT contribute a dime to their retirement funds. It is OUR money funding them and it is FREE to them. FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. You should get your money back from whatever law school you went to.

 

 

LOL. Iliterate? You do not know what the word means.

 

I thought I'd capture these for hilarity and posterity.

[Ursa Majoris]

oh and ursa certainly never went to law school.

I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a few weeks back though.

[bushwacked]

People have claimed this is the most preposterous political time and we should be disgusted. Me, myself, I find things immensely entertaining in a moth to the flame sort of way. Like HST said “Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.”

[Lady.hawke]

you are just plain wrong in so many ways here. federal employees (who you were talking about, after all) contribute to their own 401k (which they MUST do to take advantage of the government match, of up to 4% on a 5% employee contribution); plus they contribute to the small defined benefit pension fund they end up pulling from; plus they pay SS and medicare taxes.

 

oh and ursa certainly never went to law school.

 

you should really just quit. you sound like a shrill fool with zero command of the facts, which, unfortunately, is par for the course. some folks just aren't cut out for arguing on the innernets and you are one of them.

 

Perhaps you should learn to use spell check. I thought you were a Constitutional patriot, I was obviously wrong. I was never specifically talking about federal workers. I was talking, on the average, about all government workers. What do you think the brouhaha that happened in Wisconsin was all about? It was a protest that government workers should should contribute a small amount to their pensions.

 

Az, et al, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

Who, here is realizing that the USA is hanging by a thread? We need to fight to save our country.

[bushwacked]

Az, et al, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

Edited September 19, 2011 by bushwacked

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Perhaps you should learn to use spell check. I thought you were a Constitutional patriot, I was obviously wrong. I was never specifically talking about federal workers. I was talking, on the average, about all government workers. What do you think the brouhaha that happened in Wisconsin was all about? It was a protest that government workers should should contribute a small amount to their pensions.

 

Az, et al, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

Who, here is realizing that the USA is hanging by a thread? We need to fight to save our country.

 

I hear the top secret solution is written in invisible ink on the back of Obama's birth certificate!

[tonorator]

some folks just aren't cut out for arguing on the innernets and you are one of them.

 

i believe you, however, were spawned from some lab where they are genetically formulating the innernets arguers of the future. you, my friend, are one of the best i've ever seen ...

 

[WaterMan]

Who, here is realizing that the USA is hanging by a thread? We need to fight to save our country.

 

No, we've done enough fighting/bombing since Vietnam. It's time to chill out.

[SEC=UGA]

What a crock of sh!t. Smoke and mirrors and nothing really gets accomplished...

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama will unveil a plan on Monday to cut the national debt by roughly $3 trillion over the next decade.

 

Obama's plan reflects his vision for how best to put the country on a more fiscally sustainable course, so it is different in nature than the kind of legislative compromise he was trying to broker this summer during the debt-ceiling debate, a senior administration official said.

 

3578PrintA driving principle behind the proposal is that high-income individuals and corporations should pay more in taxes than they do currently so that they will bear some of the burden of debt reduction going forward.

 

Indeed, in remarks on Monday morning, the president will make clear he'll veto any debt-reduction legislation that takes "one dime away from Medicare benefits without asking the wealthy to pay their fair share," the official said.

 

Obama will even introduce the "Buffett Rule" for millionaires -- named after investor Warren Buffett, who has frequently argued that the very rich are not taxed enough.

 

The president's debt reduction proposal is likely to placate -- at least a little -- those in his Democratic base who have been adamant that they want the rich to pay more and they don't want Medicare or Social Security benefits hit. (Read: National debt: What you need to know)

 

The White House said last week the president's plan will not include any Social Security reform proposals. And another senior administration official noted Sunday that the plan will not call for raising the Medicare eligibility age, which fiscal experts have recommended.

 

But the Obama plan is unlikely to draw much support from Republicans, who have been adamant about not wanting to raise anyone's taxes. (Read: Where left and right actually agree)

 

The plan Obama will release includes some $3 trillion in savings on top of the approximately $1 trillion called for under the debt ceiling deal enacted in August.

 

Of that, however, close to $500 billion would have to be used to pay for the American Jobs Act, which Obama proposed last week. (Read: Cutting now could hurt economy, CBO says)

 

Here's how his proposed savings break down.

 

Mandatory spending cuts: $580 billion. $58 billion a year... wow, that's some HUGE cost cutting

 

Of the total cuts in mandatory spending, $248 billion will come out of Medicare. And about 90% of those savings will come from reducing overpayments in the system, a senior administration official said. He added that any changes to Medicare benefits won't kick in before 2017. Seriously...

 

Another $72 billion will come from Medicaid and other health programs.

 

It's not clear yet where the other $260 billion in remaining savings will come from. Smaller mandatory programs such as farm subsidies and federal worker pension benefits have often been included in fiscal experts' recommendations.

 

Tax revenue: $1.5 trillion.

 

Of the total revenue raised by tax changes, $800 billion would be realized by letting some of the Bush-era tax cuts expire for high-income households -- something Obama has called for repeatedly.

 

Another $400 billion would result from capping the value of itemized deductions and other exemptions for high-income households.

 

The remaining $300 billion would come from closing various tax loopholes, a senior administration official said.

 

In addition, the official said, the president will offer guiding principles for future tax reform.

 

Any reform plan should lower tax rates, eliminate wasteful loopholes, boost job creation and economic growth, and be consistent with the Buffett Rule.

 

Typically, the wealthiest Americans derive a lot of income from investments, which are often taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income such as wages. As a result, they can end up owing a lower percentage of their income in federal taxes than someone who makes far less money, especially once payroll taxes are factored in.

 

The concept of the Buffett Rule is that those earning more than $1 million should not be allowed to pay a lesser percent of their income in federal taxes than Americans lower down the income scale.

 

War savings: $1.1 trillion. Thought we were going to end the wars in Iraq and Afcrapistan.... We should have pulled out of Afghanistan the day we killed Osama. Good work Mr. Nobel Peace Man. Remind me, how much are these wars costing us per year?

 

The administration is counting the reduction in spending in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next decade that will result from the planned drawdown of troops and the changing nature of the operations in those countries.

 

In addition, the admininstration is counting savings that would result from spending caps it has proposed on future overseas contingency operations.

 

Interest savings: $430 billion. ROFLMAO

 

Whenever policies are changed to lower future deficits, those deficits are reduced in part because of the interest costs that will be saved from less borrowing.

[Azazello1313]

i believe you, however, were spawned from some lab where they are genetically formulating the innernets arguers of the future. you, my friend, are one of the best i've ever seen ...

 

 

I don't argue. I rip out souls.

[Azazello1313]

I was never specifically talking about federal workers. I was talking, on the average, about all government workers.

 

you were not speaking "on average", you were speaking in absolutes. "Pubic employees also known as government workers do NOT contribute a dime to their retirement funds." absolutes that have no basis in fact. slightly closer to being true on the state level than the federal level, but still wildly incorrect as stated. you were making these absolute statements and accusations in response to jetsfan, a federal employee. and you started out this rant talking about the federal deficit and social security.

 

if you come out swinging with a loose grasp of the facts, it's probably going to end badly. this is what you don't seem to ever understand, and end up taking it as a personal affront, thinking everyone is out to get you.

[Ursa Majoris]

Remind me, how much are these wars costing us per year?

 

Am I the only one that finds these complaints hughly ironic now that they are being made by supporters of the Warmonger Party, previously only too happy to launch wars willy-nilly (as long as someone else was doing the dying)?

[WaterMan]

Am I the only one that finds these complaints hughly ironic now that they are being made by supporters of the Warmonger Party, previously only too happy to launch wars willy-nilly (as long as someone else was doing the dying)?

 

You forgot someone else paying for it.

[SEC=UGA]

Am I the only one that finds these complaints hughly ironic now that they are being made by supporters of the Warmonger Party, previously only too happy to launch wars willy-nilly (as long as someone else was doing the dying)?

 

Soooo... You're for the war after you were against it? Is that what yer saying, huh, is that it, is it, is it!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

But seriously. Your boy ran on getting us out of these wars, but now it doesn't seem like it is in the cards.

 

We do need to stay in Iraq, no getting out til that place is rebuilt.

 

Afghanistan, as far as I'm concerned, Obama achieved the goal of killing OBL and now it is long past time we leave. That place is a quagmire.

 

You must remember as well, Democrats voted for action in Iraq, not just Republicans. It was a bad idea from the start, but we're there and we have to see it through.

[bushwacked]

Your boy ran on getting us out of these wars, but now it doesn't seem like it is in the cards.

 

 

WASHINGTON, Sep 15, 2011 (IPS) - A familiar group of mainly neo-conservative hawks – many of whom championed the 2003 invasion of Iraq –released an open letter to President Barack Obama Thursday urging him to retain a substantial military force in that Middle East country beyond this year.

 

Released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) – the successor organisation of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that championed the 2003 U.S. invasion – the letter warns against reported plans by the administration to reduce Washington's troop presence to 4,000 after Dec. 31, the date by which, according to a 2008 U.S.- Iraqi agreement, all U.S. forces are to be withdrawn.

Washington currently has about 45,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from an all-time high of 170,000 in late 2007 when they were used to tamp down sectarian violence that brought the country to the edge of all- out civil war.

 

Also, Obama ran on putting more troops in Afghanistan. I see you're basically filling in for LadyHawke today.

[SEC=UGA]

 

 

 

Also, Obama ran on putting more troops in Afghanistan. I see you're basically filling in for LadyHawke today.

 

Have you read the plan... The 2014 Draw down from Afghanistan (I will say "ran on" may not have been the best phrase)? I'm talking about a three trillion dollar deficit reduction plan over the next decade. He is removing 1.1 trillion for this over the next decade. That is why I asked the question... How much are these wars costing us?

 

To date, the two wars have cost us 1.29 trillion. With the current draw downs in Iraq and the future draw downs in Afghanistan, where is he coming up with the 1.1 trillion number? Since we have lowered the troop levels in Iraq and will be reducing our forces in Afghanistan, how are the wars going to cost the US this much money. I guess what he is calcuating in the amorphous cost caps being placed on "future overseas contingency operations."

[Ursa Majoris]

How much are these wars costing us?

Should have thought of that at the time instead of swallowing Cheney and Rumsfeld's BS hook line and sinker.

[bushwacked]

Should have thought of that at the time instead of swallowing Cheney and Rumsfeld's BS hook line and sinker.

 

And then whining about "class warfare" when it's time to pay for them.

[WaterMan]

You must remember as well, Democrats voted for action in Iraq, not just Republicans. It was a bad idea from the start, but we're there and we have to see it through.

 

Congress and America was lied to about Iraq, so I wouldn't use that in an argument.

[WaterMan]

And then whining about "class warfare" when it's time to pay for them.

 

I don't think it's wise for the rich to be telling the poor they are at war with each other.

[Pope Flick]

 

 

 

Also, Obama ran on putting more troops in Afghanistan. I see you're basically filling in for LadyHawke today.

 

 

Amazing how people think just the opposite. He ran on putting more troops and focus there because this guy named bin Laden was running around there and needed to be brought to justice. Or something like that.

[WaterMan]

Amazing how people think just the opposite. He ran on putting more troops and focus there because this guy named bin Laden was running around there and needed to be brought to justice. Or something like that.

 

Obama said less troops in Iraq and more in Afghanistan.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi..._afghanist.html