Well sure, so could anyone. But it’s a matter of eliminating the deficit and maintaining some sort of social order/cohesion. End Medicare and Social Security tomorrow and there’s no more deficit and a much much much more manageable debt. But, alas, that isn’t practical.

Warren looking a lot older since his Bonnie and Clyde days .

Speaking of the deficit, here was Paul Ryan hard at work sharing two bottles of wine that cost $350 a bottle. Hopefully those two supposed “economists” will be identified soon.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/rep-paul-ryans-pricey-pinot-noir.php?ref=fpa

Pubicthesock219 said:
Well sure, so could anyone.

anyone but obama?

Fokker News said:
Speaking of the deficit, here was Paul Ryan hard at work sharing two bottles of wine that cost $350 a bottle. Hopefully those two supposed “economists” will be identified soon.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/rep-paul-ryans-pricey-pinot-noir.php?ref=fpa

how is it any of YOUR M*THER F*CKING BUSINESS WHAT HE SPENDS HIS MONEY ON?!!

“I Could End The Deficit In Five Minutes”
How, by shipping everyone off to Margaritaville?
Oh, that’s Jimmy Buffet, sorry.

jddoubleu said:
how is it any of YOUR M*THER F*CKING BUSINESS WHAT HE SPENDS HIS MONEY ON?!!

If he is being courted by lobbyists, related to his negotiations on the deficit, then it is my business.

Colby, this guy continually engages in threatening and stalking behavior of posters on this board. Would you please ban him?

Fokker News said:
If he is being courted by lobbyists, related to his negotiations on the deficit, then it is my business.

Colby, this guy continually engages in threatening and stalking behavior of posters on this board. Would you please ban him?

cry more little b*tch…

jddoubleu said:
how is it any of YOUR M*THER F*CKING BUSINESS WHAT HE SPENDS HIS MONEY ON?!!

stfu moron

the guy spends what ppl make in a week on 1 bottle of wine and he wants to cut THEIR benefits/social security/medicare while not wanting to raise his taxes

Fokker News said:
Colby, this guy continually engages in threatening and stalking behavior of posters on this board. Would you please ban him?

Want some cheese with that whine?

jddoubleu said:
how is it any of YOUR M*THER F*CKING BUSINESS WHAT HE SPENDS HIS MONEY ON?!!

I wonder if fukker minds that obama went on yet another vacation?

jddoubleu said:
cry more little b*tch…

You’re just sore because Fokker had to point out to you why it IS our business. You don’t like to be reminded of your intellectual shortcomings. But really, you could stand to tone it down a little.

A.R. said:
stfu moron

the guy spends what ppl make in a week on 1 bottle of wine and he wants to cut THEIR benefits/social security/medicare while not wanting to raise his taxes

oh look another welfare baby…

Fukker News said:
Colby, this guy continually engages in threatening and stalking behavior of posters on this board.

Prove it.

jddoubleu said:
oh look another welfare baby…

welfare is what ur mom was on before she started swallowing bitch

Fokker News said:
Speaking of the deficit, here was Paul Ryan hard at work sharing two bottles of wine that cost $350 a bottle.

President Obama’s favorite La Raza group has teamed up with a federal agency to promote one of the administration’s many government cash giveaways with Spanish ads encouraging Latinos—possibly illegal immigrants—to apply for free U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The new campaign warns Hispanics that time is running out to get up to “$50,000 in help” from Uncle Sam to pay their mortgage, past due charges, taxes, insurance and even legal fees associated with their home. The money is being disbursed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a billion-dollar Emergency Homeowner Loan Program (EHLP).

In 2008 the agency revealed that some 5 million fraudulent or defaulted home mortgages were in the hands of illegal immigrants, who obtained the loans from banks that were pressured by the government to offer them. In fact, the agency in charge of preserving and promoting public confidence in the nation’s financial system, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), began pushing banks to offer services to illegal aliens years earlier and many still do today.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/jul/la-raza-group-teams-feds-push-govt-aid-spanish

“5 million fraudulent or defaulted home mortgages were in the hands of illegal immigrants,” and some d*ckhead is worried about a $350 bottle of wine. LOL

Publius219 said:
Well sure, so could anyone. But it’s a matter of eliminating the deficit and maintaining some sort of social order/cohesion. End Medicare and Social Security tomorrow and there’s no more deficit and a much much much more manageable debt. But, alas, that isn’t practical.

Um, you do know that social security and medicare makes up a very tiny portion of the deficit. Any adjustments or even any cuts on those two programs will not drop the deficit by very much. It’s an ideological battle, not an actual deficit solving one.

A.R. said:
welfare is what ur mom was on before she started swallowing bitch

if you only make 350 a week, you ARE a welfare baby. lolololol

fail more loser…

jddoubleu said:
oh look another welfare baby…

Do you bring this much substance and sophistication to your discourse in real life? I hope for your sake that this is just an outlet for you; if it helps keep our streets safer, then please continue to stay in your basement and flame away.

Am I the only one that noticed that Buffet was making a joke about the state of government and not actually having a plan to solve the deficit problem? Read it again. Sure, he’s no Jon Stewart, but I don’t think he was being serious.

A.R. said:
welfare is what ur mom was on before she started swallowing bitch

Do you bring this much substance and sophistication to your discourse in real life?

AmericaSucks said:
Do you bring this much substance and sophistication to your discourse in real life? I hope for your sake that this is just an outlet for you; if it helps keep our streets safer, then please continue to stay in your basement and flame away.

the majority of us here, ask the same of you pussy…

do you have an “america sucks” bumper sticker on your yugo?

Fokker News said:
If he is being courted by lobbyists, related to his negotiations on the deficit, then it is my business.

Colby, this guy continually engages in threatening and stalking behavior of posters on this board. Would you please ban him?

Stop being a baby. You’re not better.

jddoubleu said:
the majority of us here, ask the same of you pussy…

do you have an “america sucks” bumper sticker on your yugo?

Hmmm…. Can you run that first thought by me again? The great education that now enables me to line my pockets has rendered me unable to read ungrammatical prose.

Please correct it and try again.

jddoubleu said:
do you have an “america sucks” bumper sticker on your yugo?

have skyfet translate for you…

Actually I thought he had a great idea. ALL politicians want to be re-elected. After all, what other job can you vote in your own pay raise and get life time benefits?

“…You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Buffet is truly delusional. Just who does he think the “You” would be in his plan ??? Best that I know, the ONLY people who could pass such a law are the same incompetent ruling-class establishment bozos in CONgress that are ones destroying our country with the out-of-control spending. And he thinks that THEY will pass such a law affecting their cushy careers. Let, me rephrase my previous remark – buffet is NUTS.

Congress is trying to do the will of the people. Buffet’s comment is rather over-simplified if you ask me, but I get his meaning. Unfortunately, there are some idiot voters out there who couldn’t care less what the GDP is as long as they’re getting their hand outs at the expense of some “rich” guy. They’re called democrats and they keep voting for the numbskulls who don’t care about our GDP either.

jddoubleu said:
have skyfet translate for you…

Uh-oh. I asked about your *first* thought, not your second. So now I have to teach you remedial math as well as grammar?

Sorry, miss, but I have better things to do.

lol..when the job numbers were better at the beginning of the year Republicans said “Thank us”.

Now of course they are back to “Blame Obama”.

“You just pass a law that says…..”

And who would be passing that law Mr. Buffett? How you going to get that through Congress? So well thought out, sigh.

About Congressman Ryan’s wine, no need to worry your little heads about big bad lobbyists like Trumpka or some of the other characters that make their way to the OO, he was discussing the economy with………two economists.

The Wisconsin Republican was spotted out to dinner at Bistro Bis, a fancy restaurant near Union Station, drinking a glass of $350 wine. Ryan was dining with two economists, and not one, but two bottles of the pricey pinot noir were ordered to the table, Talking Points Memo reports.

At a nearby table, Susan Feinberg, a professor of business at Rutgers who was dining out with her husband for her birthday, was outraged by the expensive order. “We were just stunned,” she told TPM. “I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week.”

After her meal, Feinberg marched over to Ryan’s table, asking the congressman “how he could live with himself,” drinking high-priced wine while proposing cuts to programs for the poor and elderly. One of Paul’s fellow diners spoke up and said he had ordered the wine. Upon hearing the price per bottle, Paul remarked, “Is that how much it was?”

Feinberg caused even more of a stir when she asked if Ryan’s fellow diners were lobbyists, at which point “the clash became especially heated,” according to TPM.

Addressing the incident, Ryan said that the two men were not lobbyists, but economists. Of the wine, he said: “A.) I didn’t order it. B.) I had no idea what it would cost, and C.) …I bought one of these bottles even though I drank a glass, and I always pull my own weight for my meals.”

The rep did concede, “I think it’s stupid to pick up that much for a bottle of wine under any circumstance.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/0711/Paul_Ryan_sips_expensive_wine.html

TeaPartyNation said:
“…You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Buffet is truly delusional. Just who does he think the “You” would be in his plan ??? Best that I know, the ONLY people who could pass such a law are the same incompetent ruling-class establishment bozos in CONgress that are ones destroying our country with the out-of-control spending. And he thinks that THEY will pass such a law affecting their cushy careers. Let, me rephrase my previous remark – buffet is NUTS.

He was being deliberately facetious, dummy. Get a sense of humor.

Fokker News said:
Speaking of the deficit, here was Paul Ryan hard at work sharing two bottles of wine that cost $350 a bottle. Hopefully those two supposed “economists” will be identified soon. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/rep-paul-ryans-pricey-pinot-noir.php?ref=fpa

Probably got it from Michelle Obama’s sommelier.

BFD said:
lol..when the job numbers were better at the beginning of the year Republicans said “Thank us”. Now of course they are back to “Blame Obama”.

Gawd your stoopid. When they got the Obama Tax cuts passed, business felt a slight sense of security going forward and responded briefly until Barry & Pals went right back into “let’s gut the economy” mode all over again.

Buffet is becoming the King of the Insane One Liners.

End it in five minutes by getting Congress to PASS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD END THEIR JOBS?

GOOD GRIEF. Buffet needs to just go to his room, count his money, and think about how all those relatives are going to P A R T Y on it when he is gone…no matter what his Will says.

timzank said:
Gawd your stoopid. When they got the Obama Tax cuts passed, business felt a slight sense of security going forward and responded briefly until Barry & Pals went right back into “let’s gut the economy” mode all over again.

Wow, I’m amazed that there’s any Kool-Aid left for anyone else to drink after how much you’ve apparently pounded back.

Rio said:
Susan Feinberg

She sounds like a real c*nt. Of course she wouldn’t say anything to Michelle Obama; she’d be too busy kissing her a@@.

Michelle Obama Wears $540 Sneakers To Food Bank

The first lady’s kicks are Lanvin cap toe sneakers, as ID’d by websites TalkingShopping.com and First Lady Of Style and the NY Daily News, and range between $540 and $565 at Barneys.com. The argyle sweater is from J. Crew, of course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/michelle-obama-wears-silv_n_193138.html

Azarkhan said:
She sounds like a real c*nt. Of course she wouldn’t say anything to Michelle Obama; she’d be too busy kissing her a@@.

Michelle Obama Wears $540 Sneakers To Food Bank

The first lady’s kicks are Lanvin cap toe sneakers, as ID’d by websites TalkingShopping.com and First Lady Of Style and the NY Daily News, and range between $540 and $565 at Barneys.com. The argyle sweater is from J. Crew, of course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/michelle-obama-wears-silv_n_193138.html

Mrs. Obama is not preaching austerity on the backs of the poor. Mr. Ryan is. That’s why some people are displeased with him.

TeaPartyNation said:
buffet is NUTS

Or joking.

Somebody should give Buffett pointers on product placement. The label on his Coke isn’t pointed square at the camera and at no point did he take a refreshing swig.

Otherwise, Quick comes off as something of a downer. She dutifully had a response from the other side to his every quip and I think she may have pushed a little too hard on the benefits of starving the elderly, survivors and orphans because by coming at it twice, she prompted people to think about which response Wall Street would prefer.

Azarkhan said:
She sounds like a real c*nt. Of course she wouldn’t say anything to Michelle Obama; she’d be too busy kissing her a@@.

This blog said she had been drinking and thought it was Tuesday on Wednesday. Hmmm, one might think a professor of econ would know what day her birthday fell on. Stupid nutter caused all this ink.

http://amerpundit.com/2011/07/08/libs-attack-paul-ryan-for-drinking-wine-tipping-waiter/

Well then Buffet, you liberal dickhole (as are most), get out your effimg checkbook and DO IT !

AmericaSucks said:
Mrs. Obama is not preaching austerity on the backs of the poor. Mr. Ryan is. That’s why some people are displeased with him.

No she preaches about food, an obvious hypocrisy.

Had you read both sources about Ryan’s meal you would have found that he did not order the wine, he did not know the cost of the wine, he drank one glass of it, paid for one bottle because of the uproar and tipped the waiter $80.

All this started by a loony liberal that stuck her nose in Ryan’s private dinner with two economists. She got it all blown out of proportion and you, without having any facts, pass judgement on the congressman.

AmericaSucks said:
Mrs. Obama is not preaching austerity on the backs of the poor.

Mrs. Obama doesn’t give a sh*t about the poor. If she did, she wouldn’t be wearing super expensive clothes or taking super expensive vacations during a recession.

Furthermore, it’s none of Feinberg’s business what anyone orders at a restaurant. Ryan didn’t order the wine and didn’t even know what it cost. If that b*tch had done that to me, I would have spit in her face and told her to mind her own f*cking business.

Laddy Go-Rod said:
Well then Buffet, you liberal dickhole (as are most), get out your effimg checkbook and DO IT !

Well look at this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h2411:

Democrats just introduced legislation that would enable any wage earner to have money withdrawn from their checks to specifically go to pay down the debt. If this passes all the liberals calling for tax increases can just put their money where their mouth is and fork over their cash to the thrifty government.

Buffet is right as is this article.http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2011/06/st-louis-post-dispatch-this-is-not-your-fathers-gop.html

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2011/06/st-louis-post-dispatch-this-is-not-your-fathers-gop.html

Azarkhan said:
Mrs. Obama doesn’t give a sh*t about the poor. If she did, she wouldn’t be wearing super expensive clothes or taking super expensive vacations during a recession.

Furthermore, it’s none of Feinberg’s business what anyone orders at a restaurant. Ryan didn’t order the wine and didn’t even know what it cost. If that b*tch had done that to me, I would have spit in her face and told her to mind her own f*cking business.

Well, that’s because you’re an ignorant lout. Clearly Ryan and his dinner companions are made of better stuff than you.

Well that’s sure not going to fly seeing that many in and out of Washington want to increase irrational spending, not reduce the deficit.

Warren Buffet has disappointed me with a couple of his statements lately, but this is pure gold. I can’t imagine how all these self serving politicians could ever pass such a bill, but I love the fantasy. Oh, and by the way…he’s right.

Azarkhan said:
Mrs. Obama doesn’t give a sh*t about the poor. If she did, she wouldn’t be wearing super expensive clothes or taking super expensive vacations during a recession.

Furthermore, it’s none of Feinberg’s business what anyone orders at a restaurant. Ryan didn’t order the wine and didn’t even know what it cost. If that b*tch had done that to me, I would have spit in her face and told her to mind her own f*cking business.

looks like you inadvertently made the case for……(oops!)…….government taking care
of the poor.

i mean, you’re criticizing mrs. obama for spending money on herself, yet presumably not on those who
are less well-off, as if that’s her……responsibility as the first lady?

i thought it wasn’t government’s role to assist the needy? i thought that the was the role
of private charities and private individuals?

now, suddenly, you’re going to pile on a public citizen ATTENDING A FOOD BANK in expensive
shoes? good grief, your argument is a transparently pathetic contradiction.

let me ask you something: does government have at least some responsibility to take care
of the poor?

if they do, what does it matter if mrs. obama wears expensive shoes and takes nice vacations?

she is clearly a dedicated first lady. nevermind mr. obama, he’s the one who could probably care
less based on his:

a) extension of tax cuts for the wealthy

b) continuing of the wars

c) slashing funds for critical programs

d) offering to discuss the possibility of slashing mediare/social security

AmericaSucks says:
Do you bring this much substance and sophistication to your discourse in real life? I hope for your sake that this is just an outlet for you; if it helps keep our streets safer, then please continue to stay in your basement and flame away.

very funny. I love this stuff directed at the drive by flamers who offer nothing but insults.

BRILLIANT!

SO WHAT HE CAN AFFORD IT.

How much did your plasma tv cost you welfare monkeys out there?????

szore said:
SO WHAT HE CAN AFFORD IT.

How much did your plasma tv cost you welfare monkeys out there?????

Could you define “welfare monkey,” please?

darladoon said:
let me ask you something: does government have at least some responsibility to take careof the poor? if they do, what does it matter if mrs. obama wears expensive shoes and takes nice vacations? she is clearly a dedicated first lady. nevermind mr. obama, he’s the one who could probably careless based on his: a) extension of tax cuts for the wealthy b) continuing of the wars c) slashing funds for critical programs d) offering to discuss the possibility of slashing mediare/social security

let me ask you something, do you have at least some responsibility yourself to take care of the poor?

“The gNOpigs raised the debt ceiling 7 times during the Chimperor Bush reign of terror”

LOL!

notimportant2 says:
Congress is trying to do the will of the people. Buffet’s comment is rather over-simplified if you ask me, but I get his meaning. Unfortunately, there are some idiot voters out there who couldn’t care less what the GDP is as long as they’re getting their hand outs at the expense of some “rich” guy. They’re called democrats and they keep voting for the numbskulls who don’t care about our GDP either.

You should look into what the new freshman class of republicans are doing now and you might feel differently. When given the choice of turning down federal funds for their district or claiming them to help ensure their own jobs, they chose the latter. A little different from what they campaigned on isn’t it?

I think the Tea party had a good idea but maybe the wrong priorities. We can say to Senators and Congress that we insist on certain changes , like say, campaign financing and lobbying, and if they do not support those changes they are OUT. If enough voters got behind it they would have to make the necessary changes.

cjd ohio 1 said:
let me ask you something, do you have at least some responsibility yourself to take care of the poor?

yes

darladoon said:
yes

does everyone have that responsibility? and if yes why? thanks for the honest answer above

cjd ohio 1 said:
does everyone have that responsibility? and if yes why? thanks for the honest answer above

well, those are who are poor can’t really carry that burden

but of those who aren’t poor, i believe they have some responsibility.

the question is: how can they help?

some have very little time to help, but they can donate money or food, etc

others have a lot of time (like retired people), and they can help with time/energy.

but it’s unlikely that all this help will be sufficient, and that’s where/when i think
government has a responsibility to help the poor.

it actually saves money to help the poor. it’s financially wise, and also morally courageous.

republicans don’t like the *idea* of helping the poor. they don’t think it’s government’s role.
and many of them think that poor people are lazy and deserve what they get. and others
think that we can’t afford it. some believe all three.

i believe that helping the poor works on multiple levels:

a) i think it saves the taxpayer money (because if we don’t assist the poor, the costs
will shift to municipalities and states, or charities and non-profits, or individuals)

b) i think it’s the right thing to do (and i believe most spiritual/religious people would
agree with me)

c) i think that it’s government’s role to assist our fellow citizens in need

darladoon said:
well, those are who are poor can’t really carry that burden

but of those who aren’t poor, i believe they have some responsibility.

the question is: how can they help?

some have very little time to help, but they can donate money or food, etc

others have a lot of time (like retired people), and they can help with time/energy.

but it’s unlikely that all this help will be sufficient, and that’s where/when i think
government has a responsibility to help the poor.

it actually saves money to help the poor. it’s financially wise, and also morally courageous.

republicans don’t like the *idea* of helping the poor. they don’t think it’s government’s role.
and many of them think that poor people are lazy and deserve what they get. and others
think that we can’t afford it. some believe all three.

i believe that helping the poor works on multiple levels:

a) i think it saves the taxpayer money (because if we don’t assist the poor, the costs
will shift to municipalities and states, or charities and non-profits, or individuals)

b) i think it’s the right thing to do (and i believe most spiritual/religious people would
agree with me)

c) i think that it’s government’s role to assist our fellow citizens in need

I think I just fell in love with darladoon.

darladoon said:
well, those are who are poor can’t really carry that burden but of those who aren’t poor, i believe they have some responsibility. the question is: how can they help? some have very little time to help, but they can donate money or food, etc others have a lot of time (like retired people), and they can help with time/energy. but it’s unlikely that all this help will be sufficient, and that’s where/when i thinkgovernment has a responsibility to help the poor. it actually saves money to help the poor. it’s financially wise, and also morally courageous. republicans don’t like the *idea* of helping the poor. they don’t think it’s government’s role.and many of them think that poor people are lazy and deserve what they get. and othersthink that we can’t afford it. some believe all three. i believe that helping the poor works on multiple levels: a) i think it saves the taxpayer money (because if we don’t assist the poor, the costswill shift to municipalities and states, or charities and non-profits, or individuals) b) i think it’s the right thing to do (and i believe most spiritual/religious people wouldagree with me) c) i think that it’s government’s role to assist our fellow citizens in need

i respect you view on this subject , but dont agree for one reason, i dont think i have the authority to make people responsible for others, except for my family

democrats, on the other hand, exist primarily to protect the poor and disenfranchised;

without the poor or disenfranchised, there is no need for democrats.

republicans exist to protect the rich and comfortable;

without the rich and comfortable, there is no need for republicans.

between the two parties, there are only a few who actually care about transparency
and the rule of law (which, in my view, are the primary obstacles in preventing the
government from doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable people in society
from abuse and neglect).

cjd ohio 1 said:
i respect you view on this subject , but dont agree for one reason, i dont think i have the authority to make people responsible for others, except for my family

so, what if poverty increases, because of a recession for example, and those who were previously
able to take care of other people, are now unable?

in this scenario, more people will slip through the cracks, and go hungry. i think government (i.e.
the only civic body represented by the taxpaying citizenry) has a role to help out.

beyond this, what about the bigger picture? what if some on wall street actually did abuse the public’s trust
and screw the taxpayer, causing immense poverty? shouldn’t government protect those newly impoverished?

Jaurez said:
anyone but obama?

Anyone but Obama and Paul Ryan’s budget plan, apparently.

9.2 9.2 — Do I Hear 10 – Do I Hear 10

and the Democrats want to spend MORE! – Where’s that 12 Step Program for Socialists?

Arthur (Not a Political Comic) said:
Um, you do know that social security and medicare makes up a very tiny portion of the deficit. Any adjustments or even any cuts on those two programs will not drop the deficit by very much. It’s an ideological battle, not an actual deficit solving one.

Watch what happens to those 2 programs in 20 years. And 40. Just because we CAN pay for them doesn’t mean we SHOULD pay for them.

government protect you and others from corrupt people breaking the law, of course………the rest is a opinion i respect, but you see the government role different than i do

Unemployment: Sworn In To Current Date

Reagan 10% 7%

Obama 7% 9%

Two points:
- Socialism doesn’t work
-&-
- The Sweet Smell of Defeat Is In The Air!

szore said:
SO WHAT HE CAN AFFORD IT.

How much did your plasma tv cost you welfare monkeys out there?????

Buffett -Sorous and Bill Gates don’t have enough money combined to do squat…

NORBIT Jr. said:
9.2 9.2 — Do I Hear 10 – Do I Hear 10

and the Democrats want to spend MORE! – Where’s that 12 Step Program for Socialists?

so bush was a socialist, then?

cuz he spent an awful lot of money.

in fact, he spent WAY more than obama.

cjd ohio 1 said:
government protect you and others from corrupt people breaking the law, of course………the rest is a opinion i respect, but you see the government role different than i do

so you don’t think government should provide unemployment insurance?

what about medicare? what about social security?

what about the building of infrastructure?

what about energy?

what about food stamps?

and if government assistance is so wildly unpopular amongst the caucus of
freshmen republicans (the tea party, who just hate big, bad government), then why
are they not refusing federal aid, and then lying about it?

Publius219 said:
Watch what happens to those 2 programs in 20 years. And 40. Just because we CAN pay for them doesn’t mean we SHOULD pay for them.

and this pretty much sums up republicans real hatred of successful and popular
government programs: they don’t *really* care about the deficit (after all, their hero
ronald reagan famously quipped “deficits don’t matter”), they only care about destroying
the government’s ability to actually solve any problems.

they hate government. we have known this for at least a generation.

darladoon said:
so bush was a socialist, then? cuz he spent an awful lot of money. in fact, he spent WAY more than obama. so you don’t think government should provide unemployment insurance? what about medicare? what about social security? what about the building of infrastructure? what about energy? what about food stamps? and if government assistance is so wildly unpopular amongst the caucus offreshmen republicans (the tea party, who just hate big, bad government), then whyare they not refusing federal aid, and then lying about it?

nope, less people, healthier planet

darladoon said:
and this pretty much sums up republicans real hatred of successful and popular
government programs: they don’t *really* care about the deficit (after all, their hero
ronald reagan famously quipped “deficits don’t matter”), they only care about destroying
the government’s ability to actually solve any problems.

they hate government. we have known this for at least a generation.

I doubt you are old enough to even make this assumption. Typically, our country holds no value on it’s aged…the very place they can learn so much – they think they’re elders a old and dumb and should be left in the corner. I for one am sick to death of young people talking like they have all the wisdom in the world, but in all actually don’t know shi t from shinola and don’t even make an effort to sthu and listen.

cjd ohio 1 said:
nope, less people, healthier planet

you forgot the entire issue of, you know, this little thing called…….

clean energy

at this those still around won’t be choking on fumes

darladoon said:
you forgot the entire issue of, you know, this little thing called…….

clean energy

at this those still around won’t be choking on fumes

i’m sorry, “at least those…..”

notimportant2 said:
I doubt you are old enough to even make this assumption. Typically, our country holds no value on it’s aged…the very place they can learn so much – they think they’re elders a old and dumb and should be left in the corner. I for one am sick to death of young people talking like they have all the wisdom in the world, but in all actually don’t know shi t from shinola and don’t even make an effort to sthu and listen.

i’m 53 years old, with strong connections to many people in their 70s and 80s

For decades we have been spending unimaginable amounts of our tax dollars “helping” people. In fact, since LBJ declared his War on Poverty” we have poured 16 Trillion dollars (interestingly an amount only slightly larger than our nation’s debt) into our inner cities. Many of our decisions were based on anecdotal reports of individuals who truly needed help, and as a generous and good hearted people we wanted to help them. And so we did. We provided “entitlements”, welfare checks and food stamps, housing, medical care, of course schooling, school lunches, school breakfasts, hundreds of thousands of special grants and scholarships and programs restricted to those people in various minority groups. And I would be remiss to not point out that all of these cities have been under continuous liberal/Democratic control for 50 years.

So, now where are we? With the best of intentions, our inner cities are drug and crime ravaged hell holes. Violence, gangs, anger, illegitimacy rates that have tripled, the worst schools in the country. and now a new horror, large gangs of minority youths, running around our cities beating white people to death simply for being white.

Sorry, save the anecdotes, it’s not that they are not moving, but I want to see data. No more “entitlements” that seem to not only be bankrupting this country, they are helping no one, except the poverty pimps who are driven in their limousines as quickly as possible through their ravaged districts.

Jo Gregg said:
For decades we have been spending unimaginable amounts of our tax dollars “helping” people. In fact, since LBJ declared his War on Poverty” we have poured 16 Trillion dollars (interestingly an amount only slightly larger than our nation’s debt) into our inner cities. Many of our decisions were based on anecdotal reports of individuals who truly needed help, and as a generous and good hearted people we wanted to help them. And so we did. We provided “entitlements”, welfare checks and food stamps, housing, medical care, of course schooling, school lunches, school breakfasts, hundreds of thousands of special grants and scholarships and programs restricted to those people in various minority groups. And I would be remiss to not point out that all of these cities have been under continuous liberal/Democratic control for 50 years. So, now where are we? With the best of intentions, our inner cities are drug and crime ravaged hell holes. Violence, gangs, anger, illegitimacy rates that have tripled, the worst schools in the country. and now a new horror, large gangs of minority youths, running around our cities beating white people to death simply for being white. Sorry, save the anecdotes, it’s not that they are not moving, but I want to see data. No more “entitlements” that seem to not only be bankrupting this country, they are helping no one, except the poverty pimps who are driven in their limousines as quickly as possible through their ravaged districts.

one cure, strong parents

Jo Gregg said:
For decades we have been spending unimaginable amounts of our tax dollars “helping” people. In fact, since LBJ declared his War on Poverty” we have poured 16 Trillion dollars (interestingly an amount only slightly larger than our nation’s debt) into our inner cities. Many of our decisions were based on anecdotal reports of individuals who truly needed help, and as a generous and good hearted people we wanted to help them. And so we did. We provided “entitlements”, welfare checks and food stamps, housing, medical care, of course schooling, school lunches, school breakfasts, hundreds of thousands of special grants and scholarships and programs restricted to those people in various minority groups. And I would be remiss to not point out that all of these cities have been under continuous liberal/Democratic control for 50 years.

So, now where are we? With the best of intentions, our inner cities are drug and crime ravaged hell holes. Violence, gangs, anger, illegitimacy rates that have tripled, the worst schools in the country. and now a new horror, large gangs of minority youths, running around our cities beating white people to death simply for being white.

Sorry, save the anecdotes, it’s not that they are not moving, but I want to see data. No more “entitlements” that seem to not only be bankrupting this country, they are helping no one, except the poverty pimps who are driven in their limousines as quickly as possible through their ravaged districts.

you think we have our cities have the worst schools in the country? well i guess you can blame
the 1% property flat tax, for instance, in california…..which severely diminished funding for schools

and btw, “entitlements” are not “bankrupting” the country.

bad accounting is bankrupting the country.

if you’re gonna spend money, you gotta raise taxes.

spending money on food stamps, in and of itself, in the wealthiest country on earth, is
not going to single-handedly bankrupt the country.

egregious tax cuts and endless wars might do so, however

cjd ohio 1 said:
one cure, strong parents

one cure, i agree

but what about those who are suffering who had “strong parents”?

and how do you determine which parents are “strong” enough?

my parents taught me to be tidy, respectful, and prompt.

but, beyond that, i was on my own. so parents can only do so much….

besides, what if parents don’t do their job? do you actually wanna just
screw over their innocent children? let ‘em rot?

darladoon said:
one cure, i agree but what about those who are suffering who had “strong parents”? and how do you determine which parents are “strong” enough? my parents taught me to be tidy, respectful, and prompt. but, beyond that, i was on my own. so parents can only do so much…. besides, what if parents don’t do their job? do you actually wanna justscrew over their innocent children? let ‘em rot?

parents shape their children, government has now taken on that responsibilty , which is wrong

darladoon said:
so bush was a socialist, then? cuz he spent an awful lot of money. in fact, he spent WAY more than obama. so you don’t think government should provide unemployment insurance? what about medicare? what about social security? what about the building of infrastructure? what about energy? what about food stamps? and if government assistance is so wildly unpopular amongst the caucus offreshmen republicans (the tea party, who just hate big, bad government), then whyare they not refusing federal aid, and then lying about it?

Bush ia a textbook definition of a RINO!

cjd ohio 1 said:
parents shape their children, government has now taken on that responsibilty , which is wrong

the 53 yr old drala morphed from a 19 yr old libertarian, anarchist to a know it all. lol

Rather entertaining – but she’s still a socialist however she wants to paint herself this week.

She doesn’t realize that those “successful” government programs have made a complacent society who wants more and more “successful” programs and they are unable to pay for any of them. Thus the need to keep hammering at the people who have paid and continue to pay for the “successful” government programs which encourage unsuccessful people to sit on their butts because it pays better than the jobs they are qualified for.

seek said:
the 53 yr old drala morphed from a 19 yr old libertarian, anarchist to a know it all. lol

Rather entertaining – but she’s still a socialist however she wants to paint herself this week.

She doesn’t realize that those “successful” government programs have made a complacent society who wants more and more “successful” programs and they are unable to pay for any of them. Thus the need to keep hammering at the people who have paid and continue to pay for the “successful” government programs which encourage unsuccessful people to sit on their butts because it pays better than the jobs they are qualified for.

If she’s 53, Obama’s the best president EVA.

Fokker News said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/rep-paul-ryans-pricey-pinot-noir.php?ref=fpa

I wonder how Professor Feinberg would like it if people routinely came up to her table when she was dining out, to criticize her choices of food and beverage?

She seems like a nasty commie bitch, so it would serve her right.

‘I Could End The Deficit In Five Minutes’ — Warren Buffet

So could I….fire Obama and all his Marxist minions!!! Problem solved!!!

Colorado_Conservative: Sorry, which president turned a budget surplus into a multi-trillion dollar deficit in just eight years? Which president saw 9/11 occur on its watch, established a gigantic new government bureaucracy called Homeland Security, cut taxes-which are some of the biggest drivers of the current deficit-and established a Medicare prescription drug program that is inefficient, isn’t allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices and wasn’t paid for? Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, and which president started two wars which were unpaid for and are probably the worst foreign policy decisions ever made in this country’s history?
And by the way, where were you when Bush was president all this was occurring? Probably cheering him on.

We’d be much more successful at ending the deficit if we outlawed lobbyists and ended tax loopholes and the current tax cuts.

cjd ohio 1 said:
parents shape their children, government has now taken on that responsibilty , which is wrong

don’t blame the government, blame advanced capitalism, which requires
poor parents (for example) to work 2 jobs.

or even rich parents to work/travel 80 hours a week.

why blame the government?

notimportant2 said:
If she’s 53, Obama’s the best president EVA.

huh?

seek said:
She doesn’t realize that those “successful” government programs have made a complacent society who wants more and more “successful” programs and they are unable to pay for any of them. Thus the need to keep hammering at the people who have paid and continue to pay for the “successful” government programs which encourage unsuccessful people to sit on their butts because it pays better than the jobs they are qualified for.

yeah, medicare is so “unsuccessful” that it has a 3% overhead

whereas the incredibly “successful” private insurance has 30% overhead

yeah, seek is an expert on these issues of success or lack thereof

fir

cjd ohio 1 said:
less people, healthier planet

I agree. This is why federally funded abortions are a necessity.

“Tedderman” said:
We’d be much more successful at ending the deficit if we outlawed lobbyists and ended tax loopholes and the current tax cuts.

“I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won’t work in my White House.”

Funny stuff. ;)

and how are workers not able to pay for healthcare?

my payroll takes a rather large amount for medicare…..social security, etc

and i’ll gladly take that back when i retire

yeah, so “unsuccessful”….that medicare….

but private insurance? oh yeah, they *really* care about seniors.

they’re not interested in taking advantage of……sick/old people! nah!

why on earth would private insurance wanna make profits off the backs of sick old people?!

AmericaSucks said:
I agree. This is why federally funded abortions are a necessity.

yup

NORBIT Jr. said:
Bush ia a textbook definition of a RINO!

now he is, but while he was president? totally different picture.

he only became a RINO until after he destroyed the country.

then it became obama’s problem….

darladoon said:
don’t blame the government, blame advanced capitalism, which requirespoor parents (for example) to work 2 jobs. or even rich parents to work/travel 80 hours a week. why blame the government? huh? yeah, medicare is so “unsuccessful” that it has a 3% overhead whereas the incredibly “successful” private insurance has 30% overhead yeah, seek is an expert on these issues of success or lack thereof fir

the government is a enabler

AmericaSucks said:
I agree. This is why federally funded abortions are a necessity.

darladoon said:
yup

then lets just let the elderly and poor people starve, less people right

cjd ohio 1 said:
then lets just let the elderly and poor people starve, less people right

No, that would be cruel, and it’d be murder–old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t.

Any other ideas?

AmericaSucks said:
No, that would be cruel, and it’d be murder–old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t. Any other ideas?

really it depends, fetuses are people under the law sometimes, isn’t that funny

AmericaSucks said:
No, that would be cruel, and it’d be murder–old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t. Any other ideas?

murder how?

AmericaSucks said:
old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t.

such a classy pos

AmericaSucks said:
No, that would be cruel, and it’d be murder–old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t. Any other ideas?

cjd ohio 1 said:
really it depends, fetuses are people under the law sometimes, isn’t that funny

yep the law thinks they are people

Who is this darladoon person , and is he/she insane ?

cjd ohio 1 said:
the government is a enabler

you’re not a very good debater. if you wanna forward this discussion, then you have to
concede basic points.

so far, you’ve largely been unwilling to concede that government has at least *some* role
to help people. you’re mostly unclear on the degree to which government should help people,
but you don’t deny that, even given your faux-libertarian position, government has a
responsibility to do something.

your above comment is, in this particular context, totally meaningless.

cjd ohio 1 said:
then lets just let the elderly and poor people starve, less people right

letting people starve is inhumane; shrinking payroll is not.

Doleful Lions said:
Who is this darladoon person , and is he/she insane ?

yeah, totally insane. i have this antiquated view that certain basic human necessities
shouldn’t be privatized; that giant corporations and the super wealthy should shoulder more
of the tax burden; that we should protect the environment; that healthcare is a right; and
that social security and medicare are great programs.

yeah, i’m totally insane, and the aforementioned views are shared by roughly 65-70% of
the population (and in the case of taxes, 82% of the population).

cjd ohio 1 said:
yep the law thinks they are people

it has NOTHING to do with whether fetuses are people

if you have any knowledge of case law, then you would know that

darladoon said:
you’re not a very good debater. if you wanna forward this discussion, then you have toconcede basic points. so far, you’ve largely been unwilling to concede that government has at least *some* roleto help people. you’re mostly unclear on the degree to which government should help people,but you don’t deny that, even given your faux-libertarian position, government has aresponsibility to do something. your above comment is, in this particular context, totally meaningless. letting people starve is inhumane; shrinking payroll is not.

well i am laboring at my keyboard so that all i need, i dont need ideas or thoughts, and i know you agree with that

AmericaSucks said:
No, that would be cruel, and it’d be murder–old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t.

Any other ideas?

this is actually an obvious claim

but it’s said that we have to remind conservatives of this

they’re ALWAYS more concerned about the un-born

but those who ARE born? as george carlin said, “you’re on your own!”

inhumane,really lol but sucking somebodies brains out is cool

darladoon said:
this is actually an obvious claim but it’s said that we have to remind conservatives of this they’re ALWAYS more concerned about the un-born but those who ARE born? as george carlin said, “you’re on your own!”

murder really how?

darladoon said:
you’re not a very good debater. if you wanna forward this discussion, then you have toconcede basic points. so far, you’ve largely been unwilling to concede that government has at least *some* roleto help people. you’re mostly unclear on the degree to which government should help people,but you don’t deny that, even given your faux-libertarian position, government has aresponsibility to do something. your above comment is, in this particular context, totally meaningless. letting people starve is inhumane; shrinking payroll is not.

see you dont understand, government cant be everything to everybody

darladoon said:
this is actually an obvious claim

but it’s said that we have to remind conservatives of this

they’re ALWAYS more concerned about the un-born

but those who ARE born? as george carlin said, “you’re on your own!”

Well, yeah. Because 20 years after you’re born, you’re supposed to take care of yourself. We love the little ones though, and we take good care of them.

darladoon said:
it has NOTHING to do with whether fetuses are people

if you have any knowledge of case law, then you would know that

If a fetus wasn’t a person, legally, Scott Petersen wouldn’t be on death row.

Perhaps you can convince Governor Moonbeam to commute his sentence on the basis that Conor Petersen wasn’t really a person.

Doleful Lions said:
Who is this darladoon person , and is he/she insane ?

a kid with an open socialist tome and she’s slowly working her way through it.
yup

Ahhh what we do for our children. lol

Dear Mr. Buffett

If your boastful claim of “I could end the deficit in five minutes” is true, then we respectfully ask you to please end the deficit in the next five minutes…

Thank you!

Buffet said: “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Buffet is right but a snowball has a better chance of surviving in hell than does the Congress passing such a career-ending law.

AmericaSucks said:
The great education that now enables me to line my pockets

I assume you got that “education” overseas, since America sucks according to you.

AmericaSucks said:
old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t.

You were a fetus at one time. It’s funny how people who are pro-abortion are just glad their own mothers were not.

Just like anti 2nd Amendment nuts, the first thing they think about when getting robbed is…I wish I had a gun.

Can’t even argue with such flawed logic, so I’ll just make fun of it.

America Sucks chooses to stay in a place that he thinks sucks. Not a bright fella.

Perdido said:
America Sucks chooses to stay in a place that he thinks sucks. Not a bright fella.

Well, there’s always a chance, however slight, that it will get better.

In the meantime, the money makes up for some of the suckitude.

Of course, Buffett is right. Politicians will act responsibly only if the system forces them to do so. Congress should have incentive schemes the same way businesses do. In Singapore, politicians get a bonus based on GDP growth. It’s no coincidence that Singapore has had such prosperity and job creation. Right now, US politicians get their “extra spending money” by paying off special interests with taxpayer money. The result is easy to predict — enormous deficits, and bloated, pork-filled budget. Fix the rules, and the system will fix itself.

Look around a bit and you’ll find that a large proportion of people with just continue making one bad decision after another. Politicians are in that category. Easy to make short range, self-centered decisions, but difficult to tie a lot of decisions together to provide a national plan.

I agree with Buffet. Only when politicians are held personally responsible for the outcomes of their decisions will we have the control of them that seems to be required. Notice I said ‘outcomes’, not intent.

Ah, ya, right Warren, now take your medication and go sit in the corner!

Then do it money bags.

Buffett didn’t get there by being stupid or listening to stupid people.
I would vote for that idea and believe it would work.
Trouble is, he only has one vote, same as the rest of us.

J Baustian said:
I wonder how Professor Feinberg would like it if people routinely came up to her table when she was dining out, to criticize her choices of food and beverage?

She seems like a nasty commie bitch, so it would serve her right.

I normally would not refer to a lady as a commie bitch, but that leftie professor who interrupted Congressman Ryan’s meal was not a lady.

darladoon said:
so bush was a socialist, then? cuz he spent an awful lot of money. in fact, he spent WAY more than obama. so you don’t think government should provide unemployment insurance? what about medicare? what about social security? what about the building of infrastructure? what about energy? what about food stamps? and if government assistance is so wildly unpopular amongst the caucus offreshmen republicans (the tea party, who just hate big, bad government), then whyare they not refusing federal aid, and then lying about it?

Unemployment insurance is a pay as you go program, as is social security. You seem to keep ignoring that, why?

AmericaSucks said:
No, that would be cruel, and it’d be murder–old people are, you know, PEOPLE…. Fetuses aren’t. Any other ideas?

No problem. To you a fetus isn’t a person because you decided to define it that way. Just change the definition of a person. In many socialist countries a non-person is someone who disagrees with the government. Voila, another group you can kill without it bothering your conscience.

Tedderman said:
We’d be much more successful at ending the deficit if we outlawed lobbyists and ended tax loopholes and the current tax cuts.

Can’t outlaw lobbyists because of the First Amendment. I do favor the flat tax, but I’d love it if the tax payment was due in cash, one lump sum, the day before the election.

Give us a checkoff list of ‘discretionary’ projects on our 1040′s where we can decide what projects we want, say, half of our taxes to pay for. They’ll need half of them just to pay the interest on the national debt (regardless of what R’s try to claim, Bush41 + Bush43′s share of the debt is over 8 trillion) and federal salaries, but we should have a say in where the other half is spent.

e.g. I paid $15,000 last year… if I got to specify where half of that was spent I’d delegate 20% (or $1500 in this example) to NASA, 20% to infrastructure projects, 10% to medicaid, 20% toward college scholarships/grants, and 30% towards Renewable Energy Subsidies.
That way people could decide where their taxes were spent. If nobody wants to support NASA, then we can leave space exploration strictly to private enterprise. If nobody wants to pay for federal abortion clinics, then there won’t be any. If nobody wants their taxes going to Foreign Aid, those billions stay here in the USA. If you have enough deductions and credits that you pay zero taxes, then you have no say in where any of anybody’s taxes are spent, either.

There should definitely be “means-testing” on medicare and socialism security… nobody with $500,000 revolving accounts at Tiffany’s should be getting medicare OR social security. If they can spend half a mill on bling, they can pay for their own health care/insurance.

Buffet is right. He’s a genius.

Buffet is a genius in so many ways. He lives in the same normal-sized house for decades ( I think since the 40′s) and gives his kids & grandkids unlimited funds for eduation, money for charity, and nothing else. I’d listen to him about almost anything.

Anyone know how Becky always gets these early morning interviews with Buffet. Always very insightful…

Yes it would help if Obama would quit buying votes with money he doesn’t have. If the super rich are serious about paying more taxes, then raise the capital gains taxes and let them pay. Bill Clinton lowered them to 15 per cent when he was president and more jobs appeared. I guess Obama doesn’t care about jobs , just more people on welfare.

Darr247 said:
Give us a checkoff list of ‘discretionary’ projects on our 1040’s where we can decide what projects we want, say, half of our taxes to pay for. They’ll need half of them just to pay the interest on the national debt (regardless of what R’s try to claim, Bush41 + Bush43’s share of the debt is over 8 trillion) and federal salaries, but we should have a say in where the other half is spent. e.g. I paid $15,000 last year… if I got to specify where half of that was spent I’d delegate 20% (or $1500 in this example) to NASA, 20% to infrastructure projects, 10% to medicaid, 20% toward college scholarships/grants, and 30% towards Renewable Energy Subsidies.That way people could decide where their taxes were spent. If nobody wants to support NASA, then we can leave space exploration strictly to private enterprise. If nobody wants to pay for federal abortion clinics, then there won’t be any. If nobody wants their taxes going to Foreign Aid, those billions stay here in the USA. If you have enough deductions and credits that you pay zero taxes, then you have no say in where any of anybody’s taxes are spent, either. There should definitely be “means-testing” on medicare and socialism security… nobody with $500,000 revolving accounts at Tiffany’s should be getting medicare OR social security. If they can spend half a mill on bling, they can pay for their own health care/insurance.

I think your numbers are a bit off. Mandatory spending (funded by trust funds that have a positive balance) and servicing the debt amounts to 61% of the federal budget. Medicaid is one of those mandatory programs with its own trust fund. If you mean to consider social security, medicare, medicaid, and the rest of the mandatory programs as discretionary, and consider federal salaries and servicing the debt mandatory, they’d need somewhere around 20% of tax receipts to cover it. That doesn’t count things like keeping the lights on, paying for supplies, etc though. As far as your examples, foreign aid is about $15 billion, less than 1% of the budget. Nasa gets less than 20 billion, also less than 1%. Federal abortion clinics get $0.

The real reason I wanted to reply to you was your comments about means testing social security. Means testing social security will cost more than it saves. Right now, the Social Security Administration (SSA) administers Social Security (SS), retirement money which is not means tested, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), disability money which is means tested. Dollar for dollar, administering SSI costs about 7 times as much as administering SS. There aren’t that many rich people, so the savings won’t offset the costs unless you go with a very low earnings cap. If you do, you encourage people not to save for retirement. You’ll also encourage people to save for retirement in Roth IRAs and tax free bonds, rather than traditionalal IRAs and 401(k) plans, which would generally give them better returns and more financial security in retirement.

Haha, wrong, Warren! You were supposed to say you would just write a check for it…..

BTW,
Osama Bin Laden is a code.
The code is, lets party!
Pass the bottle!

Buffet makes a lot of sense and this is getting to be stupid. Washington D.C. needs to stop paying chicken with American lives.

J Baustian said:
I normally would not refer to a lady as a commie bitch, but that leftie professor who interrupted Congressman Ryan’s meal was not a lady.

But you ma’am, are a lady.

Dave Be said:
Medicaid is one of those mandatory programs with its own trust fund.

No, you’re confusing medicare and medicaid.
Medicare is (supposed to be) paid for with the FICA-HI deductions; Medicaid is part of the welfare system, which is certainly NOT a mandatory program, and in fact along with road repairs is among the first things repunatards start cutting when governements run out of money because they gave $100,000 per million tax breaks to their country club butt buddies.

Buffoon and Bill Gates “could” do a lot more to help unemployed, homeless and disabled so why don’t they? The answer is they want to leave libraries and museum with the names chiseled in stone as remembrances of the benevolence. Gates could make annual refunds to customer who are fed up with the glitches and updates in his original software as it was not free. If these billionaires really cared they could payback to those who have helped them prosper. The truth is they made their money and don’t refund customer money, they only want the media and their wives to believe the “kind, genera=our myth of themselves”.

Maybe I am missing something here, being from Australia. Why doesn’t the USA cut some of the military prgs.
For example the Virginia Class Subs, (8 have been delivered and 30 are to be made)…..used to deliver nuclear missiles at a cost of $1.8 billion. Who is the enemy of the USA that would require a nuclear weapon being used ???

For one thing, it would take a constitutional amendment. For another thing, politicians would be as likely to pass such a law as Bill Clinton would be to join the Trappists and take vows of silence, poverty, chastity and obedience. Less, since Bill might welcome some time away from the HillaBeast.

THIS IS THE BEST IDEA FOR ELIMINATING OUR B.S. FINANCIAL CRISIS YET! NO WONDER THIS GUY IS A BILLIONAIRE. Even tho he is a liberal, he nailed it. We, the electorate, have the option of implementing this plan come November…

For the two richest people in the USA to give an opinion on money matters, I think I would listen. I mean they must know something or they wouldn’t have all the Damn money would they ?????????

Buffet said: “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Golden Solution Mr. Buffet… smile :-)

Richard Minear said:
Yes it would help if Obama would quit buying votes with money he doesn’t have. If the super rich are serious about paying more taxes, then raise the capital gains taxes and let them pay. Bill Clinton lowered them to 15 per cent when he was president and more jobs appeared. I guess Obama doesn’t care about jobs , just more people on welfare.

The Taxpayer Relief act of 1997 that Clinton put through included certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%. but there were 5 regular tax tables with the lowest being 15% to a top table of 39.6%.

Despite the fact that Clinton INCREA

Darr247 said:
Give us a checkoff list of ‘discretionary’ projects on our 1040’s where we can decide what projects we want, say, half of our taxes to pay for. They’ll need half of them just to pay the interest on the national debt (regardless of what R’s try to claim, Bush41 + Bush43’s share of the debt is over 8 trillion) and federal salaries, but we should have a say in where the other half is spent. e.g. I paid $15,000 last year… if I got to specify where half of that was spent I’d delegate 20% (or $1500 in this example) to NASA, 20% to infrastructure projects, 10% to medicaid, 20% toward college scholarships/grants, and 30% towards Renewable Energy Subsidies.That way people could decide where their taxes were spent. If nobody wants to support NASA, then we can leave space exploration strictly to private enterprise. If nobody wants to pay for federal abortion clinics, then there won’t be any. If nobody wants their taxes going to Foreign Aid, those billions stay here in the USA. If you have enough deductions and credits that you pay zero taxes, then you have no say in where any of anybody’s taxes are spent, either. There should definitely be “means-testing” on medicare and socialism security… nobody with $500,000 revolving accounts at Tiffany’s should be getting medicare OR social security. If they can spend half a mill on bling, they can pay for their own health care/insurance.

If you don’t want to pay for roads – then don’t drive!!

The trouble is, social security is itself not in debt and has plenty of money, but the Trust has so many IOU’s from the federal government that it only appears to have a money problem. It is actually the fed that has the debt not the Trust.

== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ====

A new season,

In our website can be found

in many cheap thing,

fashion for your choice.

Your charm start from here,

welcome to our website:
== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ===
Dedicated service, the new style,

The new update, a large hot
== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ===
== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ===

No, Warren, you couldn’t end the deficit in five minutes, because you, a mere mogul, cannot pass any law.

Anson E. Long said:
No, Warren, you couldn’t end the deficit in five minutes, because you, a mere mogul, cannot pass any law.

Oy, again with the not understanding what a man means.

Womens MBT Lami Gray http://www.nicembtshoes.com/womens-mbt-lami-gray-p-38.html

== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ====

A new season,

In our website can be found

in many cheap thing,

fashion for your choice.

Your charm start from here,

welcome to our website:
== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ===
Dedicated service, the new style,

The new update, a large hot
== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ===
== w w w (L t t s y – t r a d e ) c o m ===

Gorgegirl said:
If you don’t want to pay for roads – then don’t drive!!

The trouble is, social security is itself not in debt and has plenty of money, but the Trust has so many IOU’s from the federal government that it only appears to have a money problem. It is actually the fed that has the debt not the Trust.

When you say Fed, I am not sure if you are speaking of the Federal Government or the Central Banking system. but your assessment is right on in the fact that the IOU’s you speak of are US Treasury instruments meaning that they will have to be repaid by the Federal Government before they can be dispursed to our Social Security reciepients. It is kinda like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, but yes, the trust fund if it were independent from the Federal government would be solvent for years to come, but as it is not independent and has essentially become just another federal program it can be argued that it is no longer solvent as the government will have to raise funds from outside agency to make good on the securities that fund holds. The resulting effect is much as if there is no longer any trust fund. It is just another case of mismanagement of taxpayer money that the congress would never tolerate in the private sector. I could just imagine the outcry had something like this been done in let’s say the banking sector.

YEAH BECAUSE YOURS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUCKED OUT, RIGHT?

Well said…time to rid off them!

If FETUS is not a human being – then why do we “Mourn” a miscarriage?  Why have a funeral?  Why have a Service?