AmeriKKKan Federal Budget - the road to Extinction
V for Vendicar
<orang...@googlemail.com> wrote
> as ron paul explains
> "individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of
> federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget
> would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion -- a sum
> greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone
> seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000
> levels?"
http://www.elunah.com/US%20Budget%202007.jpg
As you can see from the following chart. Total non-defense spending in the
U.S. is 983 billion.
By the way, can you find U.S. forign aid anywhere on that chart?
Ahahahahahahahahah
So you want to cut U.S. spending by 33 precent do you?
Here is how Budget 2009 breaks down
24% - Medicade and medical services
13% - Interest on the public debt
19% - Social Security
19% - DOD
26% - All other government programs.
You gonna reduce Social Security payments for the elderly?
How about cutting Medicade?
Zero out the U.S. military?
Gee, you can't cut interest on the public debt, soooo How do you get to 33%
How about zeroing out a bit of the 3 cuttable categories and then shut down
the rest of the government?
You gonna Close down everything contained under "Other:" 26% government
spending.
The FBI,
The CIA,
The Department of Homeland Security,
The Department of Jusice,
The State Department,
The Treasury Department,
The Department of Vetrans Affairs,
The Department of Agriculture,
The Department of Education,
The National Instiute of Health,
The Federal Aviation Administration,
The Department of Housing and Development,
All Infrastructure construction,
The Department of health and Human Services,
The Interior Department,
NASA,
The National Science Foundation,
The U.S. postal service,
The EPA
<AND> Every other Government program.
And of course after your cuts, the U.S. deficit will still be an estimated
619 billion dollars this year alone since you have cut revenues.
So Come on boy. Tell us what you are going to cut to get to the 33%
reduction.
And how are you going to cope with the massive unemployment problem you
create in those spending reductions?
Come on little boy. Tells us your plan.
Ahahahahahaahahah
(David P.)
> <orangata...@googlemail.com> wrote
> > as ron paul explains:
> > "individual income taxes account for only
> > approx. 1/3 of fedrev. Eliminating 1/3 of
> > the proposed 2007 budget would still leave
> > fedspend at roughly $1.8 trillion -- a sum
> > greater than the budget just 6 years ago
> > in 2000! Does anyone believe we can't find
> > ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?"
> http://www.elunah.com/US%20Budget%202007.jpg
> As you can see from the following chart.
> Total non-defense spending is 983 billion.
> By the way, can you find U.S. foreign aid
> anywhere on that chart?
19% - DOD (World's policeman)
> Here's how Budget 2009 breaks down
> 24% - Medicaid and medical services
> 13% - Interest on the public debt
> 19% - Social Security
> 19% - DOD
> 26% - All other government programs.
> what you gonna cut to get the 33% reduction?
Stop suppressing influenza!
.
.
--
V for Vendicar
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> By the way, can you find U.S. foreign aid
>> anywhere on that chart?
>
> 19% - DOD (World's policeman)
This would be a "police force" that is responsible for the murder of 1
million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
Not to mention a "police force" that has been caught using terrorism to
attack the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, Afghanistan and a
host of other nations.
If AmeriKKKa's murderers and torturers are a police force then they are
the most corrupt police force that has ever existed.
Lloyd
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <orangata...@googlemail.com> wrote
Ron Paul is wrong anyway.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html
Income tax is more than half the total revenue, and the other big
source is Social Security, which is used for SS payments. So of the
money spent on things other than SS, income taxes are far and away the
biggest source.
orang...@googlemail.com
the proportion of the federal budget that comes from income tax is
variable. in 2007 individual income taxes made up 45% of the total
budget -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
to get rid of the income tax spending would have to be cut, no two
ways about it. but i figure it would be worth it.
V for Vendicar
>> Come on little boy. Tells us your plan.
>>
>> Ahahahahahaahahah
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> Ron Paul is wrong anyway.
>
> http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html
>
> Income tax is more than half the total revenue, and the other big
> source is Social Security, which is used for SS payments. So of the
> money spent on things other than SS, income taxes are far and away the
> biggest source.
Isn't it interesting that not a single RepubliKKKunt here has managed to
learn how to add and subtract and
then provide a plan on how to Cut Government spending.
All the Shit Sucking KKKonservative traitors can do is whine, and demand
lower taxes as a solution to the problem of a stream of government revenue
that is already so low that deficit spending has bankrupted their nation.
Ahahahahahaha..
AmeriKKKans can't add, or subtract. Neither can they apply the most basic
grade school level thinking to their daily lives, which is also illustrated
by the current U.S. Banking Crisis.
By the way, at the above link, charts named "Annual Change in the Debt
1941-2009", "Per Capita Debt 1950-Present", "Federal debt at the end of the
year 1940-2009", and "Receipts, Outlays and Surplusses or Deficits" should
be memorized by Every AmeriKKKan
SO THAT THEY CAN SEE THE EXTEND OF THE REPUBLIKKKAN TREASON PERPETRATED UPON
THE NATION.
AmeriKKKa is dead meat....
So long Suckers.........
(David P.)
Topaz
Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:
"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"
"The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
white women by black men"
"The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:
to protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows
and orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white
race in life, honour and property from the encroachments of the
blacks"
"To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious
fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen
covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for
eyes"
"the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by
giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order,
replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the
worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws
of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under
the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
(David P.)
>
> Here are some quotes from...
Topaz View profile
======
Google Groups
Profile
This account has been banned because it
violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use.
.
.
--
V for Vendicar
> "V for Vendicar" wrote:
>>
>> Here's how Budget 2009 breaks down
>> 24% - Medicaid and medical services
>> 13% - Interest on the public debt
>> 19% - Social Security
>> 19% - DOD
>> 26% - All other government programs.
>>
>> what you gonna cut to get the 33% reduction?
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
> Stop suppressing influenza!
Which would only lower the U.S. tax base, reduce taxes and drive up
medical costs, and make it more difficult
for the U.S. to pay interest on it's massive federal debt.
So what you gonna cut to get the 33% reduction?
(David P.)
> taxes and drive up medical costs, and make
> it more difficult for the U.S. to pay
> interest on it's massive federal debt.
It would affect mostly the very young and
very old. The elderly are the ones who
take up most medical costs, so the health
care and Social Security programs would
come back to full health! With a world
population finally under control, technology
could catch up, so there would be much less
cause for conflict! The big picture is NOT
"JUST US, RIGHT NOW"! Future generations
are just as important as we are!
.
.
--
Topaz
<imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>This account has been banned because it
>violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use.
>.
No, it's a Jew thing.
Crusading 1990s paper was mercilessly attacked -- and destroyed --
when it led one crusade into forbidden territory; a personal story.by
Jack Killey
QUESTION: Do you really believe the Jews own the media?
Answer: Most of it, yes. But they don't have to own it to control it.
An object lesson in this distinction was the downfall of northeastern
Ohio's The Gateway Press, a general interest newsweekly to which I
devoted seven years of part-time work. A fierce smear campaign and
unremitting advertising boycott by Cleveland-area Jews -- many not
even in our circulation region -- caused the forced sale of a
newspaper that many readers trusted to deliver at least an
approximation of the truth about events in their communities...
But only 850 words on Clinton's appointments reduced our county, after
twelve years of an alternative, to its former bland diet of
one-newspaper pabulum. A barely measurable percentage of our
readership, none of whom ever refuted the commentary on its
particulars, managed to deprive some 48,000 readers of a reliable news
source in their communities. The Jews' "persecuted minority" mantle
is, I suppose, apropos for a race that showed a gift for the
theatrical long before they created Broadway and Hollywood...
The commentary in question was published, as all my many commentaries
were, as my personal opinion, not as the editorial position of the
newspaper. The piece can be easily synopsized. I pointed out the high
percentage of Jews among Clinton's appointees, hardly representative
of his stated goal to have an administration that "looks like
America." I wondered how this might affect American foreign policy
towards Israel, and (this was the part that brought in the big guns
against us) ventured the opinion that this facet of the Clinton
administration was being deliberately obscured by a Jewish-dominated
American media establishment.
You'd think I'd written a glowing reconsideration of Mein Kampf. My
editor's phone started jumping off her desk. Sales reps were screamed
at and thrown from premises by red-faced merchants who had previously
described us as an asset to the community. One of the more prominent
Jewish businessmen in the area wrote the editor a venomous letter
(specifying, of course, that it was not for publication) telling her,
"You can't say whether or not you're an anti-Semite. Only we can
decide that."
Do you think the surrounding media establishment came to the defense
of one of their own embattled members as the pot began to boil beyond
the boundaries of Portage County, Ohio? Do you suppose that perhaps
they'd defend the First Amendment right of a 12-year-old mainstream
newspaper to publish controversial opinion articles? Think again.
It took the Newhouse-owned Cleveland Plain Dealer about ten working
days to run a lead editorial titled "One For the Fish," written by
Plain Dealer staffer Carolyn Davis, a Jewess who in a personal whine
piece once stated her wish that every gun be wiped off the face of the
Earth (no liberal bias here). Carolyn was mad, and maybe a little
jealous that I could write circles around her. She at least quoted the
commentary's best sentence, which was that Clinton "seated enough
white European males to ensure that America will be ruined in a
competent, intelligent, and well-organized fashion." Otherwise it was
the stock denunciation of "anti-Semitic . . . crap," seething with
horrified disbelief that anyone could suggest that Jews control
America's media. Let's see, a Jewess writer for Ohio's largest - and
Jew-owned --newspaper attacks a rural Gentile-owned weekly in a lead
editorial . . . doesn't sound like control to me.
The Cleveland Jewish News was even more generous, allotting a full
page to editor Cynthia Dettelbach herself rather than an underling. An
equally unexceptional attack it was, bristling with weasel words and
broad smears, but contradicting none of the commentary's content with
opposing facts regarding Clinton's appointees. I imagine the Jewish
News, like most of the other Jewish organs in the country, ran
bannered praise of Clinton's favoritism towards Jews in his
administration. I guess it's only impolitic for Gentile publications
to notice it, another point I made in the commentary.
This sort of notice by large media organs goes beyond "coverage" of a
hot topic. Neither publication took any interest in the community
served by The Gateway and probably cared even less who we, the paper
covering it, were.
The Newhouse-owned Akron Beacon Journal ran no editorial hate pieces,
but they stayed on top of the unfolding events around that
"anti-Semitic" newspaper in Streetsboro. The Plain Dealer nominally
covered our county, but we beat them regularly in an area they usually
assigned to worn-out hacks in their Summit County bureau. The point
is, the sudden interest and overbearing coverage of a heretofore
unnoticed region of their circulation area was looking mighty
selective. We had touched on a topic that was . . . unpermitted. A
Jewish topic. And they were going to make sure that the publication
impertinent enough to raise the thorny issue of Jewish power in the
American oval office and the American media wouldn't publish for long.
The point man in the effort -- the visible one, anyway -- was Jerry
Brodsky, a Jewish principal in the largest and most affluent public
school district in our county. His most recent claim to fame had been
his opposition to the display of a Christmas tree at the predominantly
Gentile school he governed.
Also an attorney and a resident of Beachwood, a heavily-Jewish and
affluent Cleveland bedroom suburb, "Jerry the Jew," as he became
less-than-affectionately known in the Gateway office, mounted a
secondary advertising boycott against us, sending high-minded letters
to many of our advertisers warning them of the business to be lost if
they continued to advertise with us. He wrote the letters under his
legal letterhead, though he took care to remind recipients this wasn't
official business (although he did remind them of his important
position in the school district).
I don't think Jerry the Jew really scared anyone off, but he kept up
the momentum; the big advertisers who dropped us did so on their own
hoof. Jewish Rite Aid CEO Alex Grass suddenly took a personal interest
in the ad account of his rundown shop fifteen miles from us and pulled
their ads, declaring his offense at the article in a letter to us; Jew
Albert Klaben of Klaben Auto Stores, one of the region's
biggest-volume auto-supply chains, was equally miffed and yanked his
ads. Both were important accounts. Several smaller but regular
advertisers pulled one by one, and a large Cleveland-area grocery
chain, Gentile-owned but with stores in heavily Jewish Cleveland
suburbs, began shuffling their feet and "reconsidering" their account
in phone calls and letters to my editor. Nervous local Gentile bankers
and realtors called with weak offers of continuing support, but whined
about all the "bad publicity" we were getting...
I thought back to a mysterious anonymous caller, a not-unfriendly
and apparently Gentile woman with a patrician accent who contacted me
early in the fray. She calmly told me the history of "the boycott,"
meaning not the current one against us but the
historical prototype of it, and said, "Your paper will be out of
business in eighteen months." It took, I think, fourteen.
What I found significant throughout this process was the outsized
influence wielded by a small clique, and a clique who would normally
have had no special interest in our paper or in our region, which is
largely rural and probably 99 percent Gentile. Even had a genuine
boycott been carried out its effect would have been negligible. Bad
publicity seems to have been the boycott's purpose; since the largest
advertisers who pulled were Jews, a phone call to them from Brodsky or
the Jewish News or the Cleveland ADL probably would have sufficed.
Another feature of the boycott that struck me was the powerlessness of
our Gentile readers, many of whom were outraged by the attack on us.
We weren't lacking in support from our readership, some of whom were
courageous enough to register their agreement with the commentary in
our letters column. I found encouraging the number of readers who told
me privately their feelings on Jewish power in U.S. politics.
Unfortunately, they didn't wield the power the Jews do among U.S.
merchandisers, bankers, car dealers, and realtors, the people whose ad
dollars support small (and large) newspapers. It shouldn't have
surprised me.
I had to laugh at Carloyn Davis's description of "Jewish media power"
in the Plain Dealer editorial as a "bigoted buzz phrase that goes back
decades." One doesn't have to sample overtly "racist" writings to
encounter references to Jewish media control, and they date back much
farther than decades. When I see past allusions to Jewish press power
from the pens of such august and "establishment" figures as historian
W.E.H. Lecky, Winston Churchill, Hillaire Belloc, or Sir Richard
Burton (among many others), two things cross my mind.
One is the casual manner of its mention, as though these writers are
noting that the sky is blue. Lecky, for example, in his late
nineteenth-century masterpiece "Democracy and Liberty," devotes a
paragraph or two to Jewish domination of the Russian press under the
Czars (he attributes at least some of the resentment the average
Russian felt for the Jews during the pogroms to this influence). No
earnest attempt is made to convince the reader of a doubtful precept,
no long lists of proofs are proffered: not because they couldn't be
produced, one senses, but because it simply isn't necessary to
document what appears to have been a commonly-known fact among the
less-numerous, but better-informed, literate members of earlier
generations.
A more troubling thought that strikes me about this situation is that
contemporary authors of comparative standing could not publish similar
observations, or at least not without sudden relegation to vanity
presses and maybe community college jobs. Probably only the eminence
and the solid corpus of work produced by earlier authors, and perhaps
less fear among Gentile publishers, allowed them to make such
references without destroying their careers.
At any rate, Jewish press control is hardly a malicious myth that's
been propagated for decades (centuries?) by anti-Semites; it is rather
a truth that has been relentlessly obscured by increasingly powerful
Jewish interests within and outside the press. No one who has closely
studied the pertinent history at any length can convincingly argue
otherwise, even if the student limits himself to "permitted" books and
authors rather than documents some find inherently questionable (i.e.,
the Protocols. ) The extent to which an offending author is pushed to
the margins or isolated from the public by a self-interested Jewish
minority probably depends on a variety of factors, but one thing is
certain: he won't emerge from the process quite intact.
So what has this to do with the experiences of a small-time writer for
a little newspaper in Streetsboro, Ohio? Only that I saw firsthand
what happens and has happened to many writers who dare to write and
publish on the fact of Jewish media and political influence. It was in
one sense a privilege to be in courageous company living and dead: to
be allocated the ire bestowed on people like Hillaire Belloc, G. K.
Chesterton, William Pierce, Douglas Reed, and Wilmot Robertson was a
badge of honor of sorts.
In other senses, not least the sacrifice of a good newspaper on the
altar of Jewish sensibilities, it was a tragedy. But not for me.
Although it's virtually certain that despite fifteen years of some
pretty good journalism on my part, I'll never work again for a
"respectable" journal, given the litmus tests and the rules imposed by
such publications, who would want to? If anything my experience in
fifteen years in the field has been one of progressive distaste for
the media, and in that sentiment at least I join a growing number of
Americans.
Unfortunately, most readers and television viewers will probably
continue to be guided by a thirst for entertainment and stimulation
despite their stated disgust for the mainstream media. But there's no
doubt that awareness of the true nature and agenda of America's
"mainstream," i.e., Jewish, media is growing, and perhaps we can take
a page from the Chosen Ones themselves when it comes to the
retribution a committed and aligned minority can impose.
2005 NationalVanguard.org.
V for Vendicar
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> QUESTION: Do you really believe the Jews own the media?
>
> Answer: Most of it, yes. But they don't have to own it to control it.
And now we know why Topaz has beem postig about the KKK for monhs owl
He must be a member.
V for Vendicar
<orang...@googlemail.com> wrote
>
> > And how are you going to cope with the massive unemployment problem you
> > create in those spending reductions?
>
> > Come on little boy. Tells us your plan.
>
> > Ahahahahahaahahah
>
> Ron Paul is wrong anyway.
>
> http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html
>
> Income tax is more than half the total revenue, and the other big
> source is Social Security, which is used for SS payments. So of the
> money spent on things other than SS, income taxes are far and away the
> biggest source.
the proportion of the federal budget that comes from income tax is
variable. in 2007 individual income taxes made up 45% of the total
budget -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
to get rid of the income tax spending would have to be cut, no two
ways about it. but i figure it would be worth it.
So you want to cut U.S. spending by 50 precent do you?
Here is how Budget 2009 breaks down
24% - Medicade and medical services
13% - Interest on the public debt
19% - Social Security
19% - DOD
26% - All other government programs.
You gonna reduce Social Security payments for the elderly?
How about cutting Medicade?
Zero out the U.S. military?
Gee, you can't cut interest on the public debt, soooo How do you get to 50%
How about zeroing out a bit of the 3 cuttable categories and then shut down
the rest of the government?
You gonna Close down everything contained under "Other:" 26% government
spending.
The FBI,
The CIA,
The Department of Homeland Security,
The Department of Jusice,
The State Department,
The Treasury Department,
The Department of Vetrans Affairs,
The Department of Agriculture,
The Department of Education,
The National Instiute of Health,
The Federal Aviation Administration,
The Department of Housing and Development,
All Infrastructure construction,
The Department of health and Human Services,
The Interior Department,
NASA,
The National Science Foundation,
The U.S. postal service,
The EPA
<AND> Every other Government program.
And then you are going to have to Zero out all Military funding and then
cut 5% from Medicade and Social Security.
Ahahahahahaha... Good luck with that Child.
V for Vendicar
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
> It would affect mostly the very young and
> very old. The elderly are the ones who
> take up most medical costs, so the health
> care and Social Security programs would
> come back to full health!
I see, so your solution is to murder AmeiKKKan children and the elderly.
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> > It would affect mostly the very young and
> > very old. The elderly are the ones who
> > take up most medical costs, so the health
> > care and Social Security programs would
> > come back to full health!
>
> and the elderly.
More equitable than fighting wars!
.
.
--