Lucky...

Of course we could always consider military spending in teh same light, as it is corporate welfare. BTW, how was the GD recovery? Any stimulus? No, just 10 years of recovery. So now you enjoy a quick recovery on the credit card, many brainless repubtards got the 8k home buy gift and they still denounce stimulus.

No, retarded is what most people are w/o debt / degrees. I believe retarded is when someone refers to the onion as "real and legit". ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. Ohhh, thats going to leave a mark I guess the pinnacle of retardation is thinking Reagan was president for 7 years, then boasting about it so much that you make it your sig; retarded and proud. Of course if you count mental competency, he was pres for little over 4 years, so pick your own time.

No, retarded is what most people are w/o debt / degrees. I believe retarded is when someone refers to the onion as "real and legit". ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. I refer to redarded as a person who takes an innocuous quote in part only, then drags it out for the next severals months, to be years. Or, could it be your neo-con brother Beligian for thinking an impeachment was a conviction. Or could it be hwt for thinking MSNBCBS was a real media outlet. See, we can all drag your neo-con brothers into this and I'm sure they appreciate you.

Right, but defense as a whole should be restructured/reduced and that is the point you are avoiding. Wasn't supposed to????? The fed wasn't supposed to fund a standing military either, based upon your old doctrine. You went from hero to zero when you said that everyone wants other's progs cut, except their own. Then you went on to defend grotesque military spending as wanted., It's too difficult and massive to do. It comes out as an estimate and is revised months/years later.

Hmmm Pehaps someone could post the difference between Disabilty and Welfare. It gets so old trying to educate you. If you read what I'm responding to it makes sense, when you cherrypick, it becomes your own little world. Welfare, pet projects (earmarks), bailing out the states, and other programs should be greatly reduced or cut completely. I even think soso security should be eliminated as a common fund and set up as a personal fund, that way people that didn't pay in much (like foriegners that work for 4 or 5 years) can't collect more than they paid in. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html So social security is in part, part of SS, so that was my point. As well, he included all social programs, so since he was explicit I can also be general and I was. Now, back to your own little microcosmic world.

Were you just posturing with all that stuff about people hating their progs getting cut, fuck other's progs? Or do you hate loberals agreeing with you? Well, hey, after all, it is ALL about you after all. OK, so then since we spend 8 times #2 spender for military + Iraq/AFG then we should cut too since it's unncessary? I agree. Tell me now, what do you do? Oh yea, don;t suck on the military nipple, so you're being a hypocrite. And all the homeless should go fuck themselves too, all the elders who are now, in your sociopath's dream of a society are homeless. The WWII vets, fuck them, they are old and they are feeloaders; FUCK THEM GOD DAMNIT! I agree and we should bring back soilent green, as those freeloaders have been sucking us dry for so long that they owe us. Yea, those lazy mother fuckers who live in wheelchairs are just greedy, lazy fucks. Those elders who HELPED MAKE YOUR FUCKING WORLD HAPPEN are really just lazy at 80. But, of course, with the exception of military spendinbg; you're illustrating your own point when you were making sense a couple posts up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama Obama rolled out a trio of new plans to help spur job growth and invigorate the sluggish national economic recovery. They would: - expand and permanently extend a research and development tax credit that lapsed in 2009, allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their investments in equipment and plants through 2011 - and pump $50 billion into highway, rail, airport and other infrastructure projects. - Allow tax cuts to expire on the richest Americans So now the brainless drones will try to tell us how tax cuts stimulate the economy in spite of teh fact that everytime they lower them things go to hell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States and they can't produce 1 major fed tax cut that has fixed a thing.

Try to find a program that affects you or your business that you would cut. Thats when people get a little tight in the pants. I would cut EAS. That has a direct result on the business I work in but I hate that program. For once I agree with you. That's a very objective thing to say.

Which one? Or just 50% across the board? They mean leave all military spending, cut all social progs, that's the 50%.

We know already, go easy on yourself.

It's still Bush's fault, Clinton still did it first, and Obama still can't stop any of it. Take that!!! Except Obama will try to spend his way out of debt. And Hoover/McSame would cut taxes out of debt. And some people still don't understand the concept of living within one's income. Just because you want ti to happen, doesn't mean you can afford to do it. CUT THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS . . . if the state cannot afford theirs, guess what, YOU CUT STATE PROGRAMS TOO! Oh, like the 600B/yr military? Oh that's right, you weren't talking that. Or, we could raise taxes to pay for what we have.

It's still Bush's fault, Clinton still did it first, and Obama still can't stop any of it. Take that!!! Except Obama will try to spend his way out of debt. And Hoover/McSame would cut taxes out of debt. And some people still don't understand the concept of living within one's income. Ok, but on a national tax/spend scale, as we were talking, you've completely sidestepped.

Followd by meaningless drivel from a cop. And an even less important attempt at an insult by an ******. You can't even insult well, what has 6 letters and is preceeded by, "an?" What an *****.

Back in the '40s, '50s, and early '60s. One chart here: www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php If you think that tax rate was used mainly to fund "socialism" in the US during that time, you're wrong. After World War II, that was principally to fund the (largely peacetime) massive military buildup that morphed into the Cold War military-industrial complex. In the US, unlike the UK and most of Europe during the 50s, those taxes were not used mainly to fund domestic social services programs like the other nations' comprehensive national health services. Eisenhower (Republican), who was President from 1953-1961, could have put the brakes on that, but did not. Eisenhower did end the Korean War and nuclear proliferation went from 46 to 58, so I think he did what he could amongst times when most morons thought Communism was gonna take hold of America and ruin it.

Back in the '40s, '50s, and early '60s. One chart here: www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php AKA the best, sustained economic years of the US.

The top marginal rate was 94% in WWII at the peak. Truman lowered it to 82% and then back to 91% as teh post-war recession was killer. Esp with Cold War spending and nucular (spelled that way top make any neo-cons feel at home) proliferation from 1946 to 1958, not to mention Korean War spending. The debt fell 3 years of Eisenhower's 8 years as he left the top brkt at 91%. The top brkt stayed in the 80's, 70's throughout the 1960's, 1970's until Fascist Ronnie knocked them down from 70% to 28% from 81 to 86 and the debt went up steep. As for the top brkt, that is but 1/2 the equation, the other half being the dollar amount at which that tax is applied. But the top brkt is a good indicator by which to understand the tax rates. Whenever we've had high taxes, that demands top earners to reinvest as a shelter, which stimulates the economoy. When taxes are low, it is more prudent to pull your money, not invest, not build and that stagnates the economy. Here is a chart showing top tax rates over 100 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States More specifically, look at the chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png Look at the period of Harding Coolidge in teh early 1920's where they chopped taxes from 73% to 25%, then look at fascist Ronnie who did the same thing from 70% to 28% in a little longer time. These started the 2 worst economic times in US history, certainly the last 100 years. The best times were under high taxes, not that any/many paid those rates, but that it made them reinvest to keep it, which stimulated jobs. I have an article I recently posted where the author states it best: It's counter intuitive to think high taxes lead to better times, but they do. They go on to give the reasons I gave. As a young, ultra-conservative male I don't see you buying into this, buit it plants a seed and maybe in 20 or 30 years you'll get it. The data is clear, if not, show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall betterment. Not theory, but application.

You need a better tax accountant. Exactly, he/she would tell you to reinvest most profits and keep most of it. Almost no one pays the 90%, that's just to dissuade selling/proifit-taking.

And we were the most prosperous when the top marginal rate was in the 90's. An educated person knows the 90% is there as a deterrent to make people, the real Amricans like Beligian, reinvest rather than profit-take. I bet few actually pay the 90% or whatever the top brkt is, they have been counters telling them what to do. Then fascist pigs come along and chop therate and turn the vibale country to shambles as teh profit-take.

Yea, Israel would fix that area if we quit protecting them.

No shit, you don't say. I was in the military when we could have gone to war with Iran in the way early 80's; were you alive yet? Funny to read a kid trying to talk over adults . And me reading that you have no comprehsion skills is typical as well; WHERE DID I STATE OR INFER WE SHOULD GO INVADE IRAN? You nbeo-cons are so funny, one drops a hint and the rest of the lemmings go into mod mentality mode and run with it. Hysterical, yet predictable. I'm not calling for an attack, take a prozac and show me where I stated so. How about you reading and showing where I inferred, not eevn stated, just inferred we should attack them. Riiiight, I know it's not in your makeup to admit you jumped, so we'll just take it for what it is, now quit trying to play with the adults, kiddo. I'll refresh you: On one hand NATO and/or the US should invade, OTOH why end up in a long, protracted war where thousands of Americans die changing a fucked up place like Iran? See, I illustrate and weigh the possibilities, showing how it would be a bad idea to attack. Then I show what I would do; basic embargo. See, reading really is fundamental.

Followd by meaningless drivel from a cop.

You two get a room.

Right, so this was a, "I hate Obama" thread in disguise. You guys haven't become more creative, altho you think you have been. Student loans have been going on for decades, but you now just assign them to Obama in < 2 years? Brilliant. Tell me what Obama / admin has spent money on, esp that GWB didn't. Tell me how it was wasteful.

Quit watching/listening to Fox, Newsmax, Limbaugh, etc

No, retarded is what most people are w/o debt / degrees. Fait do's... that'll be me then. I don't need no stinking degree ... I work for a living. I have 1 and a half degrees, I don;t use them now, probably will soon, but it makes a person more globally aware even if you don't use it as your primary earning source.