Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hauling Barack...
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Gary Heston
Mar 10, 2012, 9:15:46 PM3/10/12
to
I knew there was more than just the pair of 747s, but this is
ridiculous:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/09/obamas-campaign-gets-more-usaf-aircraft/
The "Presidential fleet" currently consists of:
2 Boeing 747 jets
5 Boeing 757 jets
11 Gulfstream jets
And is expanding--while we're engaged in Afghanistan and are having
problems transporting material to our troops there, he's diverting:
5 C-130 turboprop transports
4 C-17 jet heavy transports
in order to lug around campaign vehicles and equipment.
Shouldn't all this be taken care of by his campaign comittee, instead of
the American taxpayers?
_Twenty seven_ aircraft?
Gary
ridiculous:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/09/obamas-campaign-gets-more-usaf-aircraft/
The "Presidential fleet" currently consists of:
2 Boeing 747 jets
5 Boeing 757 jets
11 Gulfstream jets
And is expanding--while we're engaged in Afghanistan and are having
problems transporting material to our troops there, he's diverting:
5 C-130 turboprop transports
4 C-17 jet heavy transports
in order to lug around campaign vehicles and equipment.
Shouldn't all this be taken care of by his campaign comittee, instead of
the American taxpayers?
_Twenty seven_ aircraft?
Gary
bwilson4web
Mar 12, 2012, 9:59:45 AM3/12/12
to
On Mar 10, 9:15 pm, ghes...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
> I knew there was more than just the pair of 747s, but this is
> ridiculous:
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/09/obamas-campaign-gets-more-usaf-airc...
> I knew there was more than just the pair of 747s, but this is
> ridiculous:
>
>
> The "Presidential fleet" currently consists of:
>
> 2 Boeing 747 jets
> 5 Boeing 757 jets
> 11 Gulfstream jets
>
> And is expanding--while we're engaged in Afghanistan and are having
> problems transporting material to our troops there, he's diverting:
>
> 5 C-130 turboprop transports
> 4 C-17 jet heavy transports
>
> in order to lug around campaign vehicles and equipment.
>
> Shouldn't all this be taken care of by his campaign comittee, instead of
> the American taxpayers?
>
> _Twenty seven_ aircraft?
You forgot the helocopters!
> The "Presidential fleet" currently consists of:
>
> 2 Boeing 747 jets
> 5 Boeing 757 jets
> 11 Gulfstream jets
>
> And is expanding--while we're engaged in Afghanistan and are having
> problems transporting material to our troops there, he's diverting:
>
> 5 C-130 turboprop transports
> 4 C-17 jet heavy transports
>
> in order to lug around campaign vehicles and equipment.
>
> Shouldn't all this be taken care of by his campaign comittee, instead of
> the American taxpayers?
>
> _Twenty seven_ aircraft?
Cool! Do they fly in formation?
There are some unique characteristics of Presidential aircraft,
regardless of who is President. For example, communications that might
send us to nuclear war. They are also specially equipped to handle:
o flying away from a reading of "My Favorite Goat" on 911 - this
included an impressive climb and the ability to stay refueled.
o flying over a flooded New Orleans - a great window seats to look
down on the Katrina disaster and 'hell of a good job Brownie'
But best of all, this fleet carries the President and his family
around the country safely so they aren't subject to cowards in
airports like "Plumber Joe" who lied to candidate Barack Obama about
his 'small business.' It was a lie then and remains another Republican
lie today.
How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
Bob Wilson
T.J. Higgins
Mar 12, 2012, 10:22:32 AM3/12/12
to
In article <737ee842-3537-4e4a...@w5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, bwilson4web wrote:
>How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
>your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
How about this: let's lower everyone's tax rate to the same as
>How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
>your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
Romney's, and we make the President's fleet, along with the rest
of the government, proportionally smaller.
--
TJH
tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net
Greg Bacon
Mar 12, 2012, 4:03:46 PM3/12/12
to
T.J. Higgins wrote:
: Bob Wilson wrote:
:
: >How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
: >your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
:
: How about this: let's lower everyone's tax rate to the same as
: Romney's, and we make the President's fleet, along with the rest
: of the government, proportionally smaller.
Him talk crazy-talk!
Greg
--
All the marvelous achievements of Western civilization are fruits grown
on the tree of liberty.
-- Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit
: Bob Wilson wrote:
:
: >How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
: >your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
:
: How about this: let's lower everyone's tax rate to the same as
: Romney's, and we make the President's fleet, along with the rest
: of the government, proportionally smaller.
Greg
--
All the marvelous achievements of Western civilization are fruits grown
on the tree of liberty.
-- Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit
Jean
Mar 12, 2012, 11:14:42 PM3/12/12
to
In article <LoidnUsS99I_y8PS...@posted.hiwaay2>,
opportunity. That is what happens when we don't raise the
debt limit.
--
killing great barrier reef http://bit.ly/z2J2JK
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/hmm-prominent-conservative-radio-host
http://pippaabston.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/hr-676-part-7-womens-reproductive-
health-should-not-be-managed-by-chicken-farmers/
gba...@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) wrote:
> T.J. Higgins wrote:
>
> : Bob Wilson wrote:
> :
> : >How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
> : >your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
> :
> : How about this: let's lower everyone's tax rate to the same as
> : Romney's, and we make the President's fleet, along with the rest
> : of the government, proportionally smaller.
>
> Him talk crazy-talk!
>
> Greg
If Romney's ads mean anything, he's taking us to default first
> T.J. Higgins wrote:
>
> : Bob Wilson wrote:
> :
> : >How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
> : >your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
> :
> : How about this: let's lower everyone's tax rate to the same as
> : Romney's, and we make the President's fleet, along with the rest
> : of the government, proportionally smaller.
>
> Him talk crazy-talk!
>
> Greg
opportunity. That is what happens when we don't raise the
debt limit.
--
killing great barrier reef http://bit.ly/z2J2JK
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/hmm-prominent-conservative-radio-host
http://pippaabston.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/hr-676-part-7-womens-reproductive-
health-should-not-be-managed-by-chicken-farmers/
Gary Heston
Mar 13, 2012, 12:09:34 AM3/13/12
to
In article <28CdnUt3Kp01m8PS...@posted.hiwaay2>,
How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
Not that it'll ever happen...
Gary
refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
Not that it'll ever happen...
Gary
bwilson4web
Mar 13, 2012, 4:32:34 AM3/13/12
to
On Mar 12, 9:22 am, ernest.p.worr...@vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins)
wrote:
and how deficit spending appears to have brought the unemployment
numbers down and the economy appears to be improving. The 2008
September debt crisis occurred when there was insufficient private
money to provide payroll and other short-term float needed by
businesses in our economy. The solution was to 'print money' to the
Wall Street investment bankers so short-term loans could be made
again. The federal government made that happen.
Going to war has been another 'popular' approach to injecting a lot of
money into our economy. Spending money on troops employs a lot of
young folks and funds suppliers. There is merit that the great
depression ended with World War II. For example, spending a couple of
billion dollars on three atomic bombs, one test and two operational,
along with building war weapons pretty much ended unemployment in
1942.
What federal spending and to a lessor extent, state and local
government spending accomplishes is to get money frozen in private
accounts back into the economy. It lubricates our broader economy so
we all benefit. But it only works if significant money is tapped and
that is found in the exceptionally wealthy and high values estates.
Someone like a Romney who pays a 15% income tax rate.
So I fully understand why a GW Bush and some Republican politicians
like war and military spending. It is how they justify spending,
deficit spending. But it is also clear that we can cash lubricate our
economy by tapping those who freeze capital in estates and high
incomes. The clever ones will gather it again from their customers and
that is good for everyone.
Bob Wilson
wrote:
> In article <737ee842-3537-4e4a-98d1-0db292bb0...@w5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, bwilson4web wrote:
> >How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
> >your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
>
> How about this: let's lower everyone's tax rate to the same as
> Romney's, and we make the President's fleet, along with the rest
> of the government, proportionally smaller.
I've been thinking about this especially with the GW Bush 'recession'
> >How about this . . . we'll raise Romney's tax rate from 15% to . . .
> >your tax rate to pay for the President's fleet.
>
> How about this: let's lower everyone's tax rate to the same as
> Romney's, and we make the President's fleet, along with the rest
> of the government, proportionally smaller.
and how deficit spending appears to have brought the unemployment
numbers down and the economy appears to be improving. The 2008
September debt crisis occurred when there was insufficient private
money to provide payroll and other short-term float needed by
businesses in our economy. The solution was to 'print money' to the
Wall Street investment bankers so short-term loans could be made
again. The federal government made that happen.
Going to war has been another 'popular' approach to injecting a lot of
money into our economy. Spending money on troops employs a lot of
young folks and funds suppliers. There is merit that the great
depression ended with World War II. For example, spending a couple of
billion dollars on three atomic bombs, one test and two operational,
along with building war weapons pretty much ended unemployment in
1942.
What federal spending and to a lessor extent, state and local
government spending accomplishes is to get money frozen in private
accounts back into the economy. It lubricates our broader economy so
we all benefit. But it only works if significant money is tapped and
that is found in the exceptionally wealthy and high values estates.
Someone like a Romney who pays a 15% income tax rate.
So I fully understand why a GW Bush and some Republican politicians
like war and military spending. It is how they justify spending,
deficit spending. But it is also clear that we can cash lubricate our
economy by tapping those who freeze capital in estates and high
incomes. The clever ones will gather it again from their customers and
that is good for everyone.
Bob Wilson
Greg Bacon
Mar 13, 2012, 11:27:43 AM3/13/12
to
Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
Greg
--
I couldn't believe it. My book was used to define the ultimate geek, and
suddenly my son thinks I'm really cool.
-- W. Richard Stevens on Garth carrying UNP in Wayne's World
Greg
--
I couldn't believe it. My book was used to define the ultimate geek, and
suddenly my son thinks I'm really cool.
-- W. Richard Stevens on Garth carrying UNP in Wayne's World
Chris Adams
Mar 13, 2012, 11:51:33 AM3/13/12
to
Once upon a time, bwilson4web <bwils...@gmail.com> said:
>What federal spending and to a lessor extent, state and local
>government spending accomplishes is to get money frozen in private
>accounts back into the economy. It lubricates our broader economy so
>we all benefit. But it only works if significant money is tapped and
>that is found in the exceptionally wealthy and high values estates.
>Someone like a Romney who pays a 15% income tax rate.
In other words, if you save too much of your money, the government
>What federal spending and to a lessor extent, state and local
>government spending accomplishes is to get money frozen in private
>accounts back into the economy. It lubricates our broader economy so
>we all benefit. But it only works if significant money is tapped and
>that is found in the exceptionally wealthy and high values estates.
>Someone like a Romney who pays a 15% income tax rate.
should be free to take it from you and give it to somebody else. Spend,
spend, spend!
So Bob, since you are hung up on Romney's effective income tax rate,
want to share what yours was last year? Not FICA, SS, state, etc.; just
federal income tax (after any refund) as a percentage of gross income.
I might care about Rmoney's 15% if about half of the country didn't have
an effective federal income tax rate of 0% (or less; a significant chunk
of households get more money out of the IRS than they put in).
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Jean
Mar 13, 2012, 2:37:20 PM3/13/12
to
In article <6didnV7Kq6Py-sLS...@posted.hiwaay2>,
Did y'all enjoy your chance to vote for Ron Paul today?
Did y'all enjoy your chance to vote for Ron Paul today?
MikeC
Mar 13, 2012, 1:41:18 PM3/13/12
to
On 3/13/2012 10:27 AM, Greg Bacon wrote:
> Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
>
> Greg
Greg,
> Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
>
> Greg
Is it possible to push the smoke of inflation/devaluation back into the
bottle? Could we just shave a few zeros off the $100 bill or is that too
insane?
Is there any sane way to return to a bimetal non-fiat currency system?
If one could generally control the means of production would it be
possible to then control the results of sluggish consumerism?
Is there any hope for sanity or all we all doomed to be shuttle-cocked
and given the racket instead of a rattle and a smile?
--
Mike C
Not Insane!
RIP Peter Bergman Founder of Firesign Theatre
Jean
Mar 13, 2012, 4:51:48 PM3/13/12
to
In article <jjo0rv$ujv$1...@dont-email.me>, MikeC <Mi...@nowhere.non> wrote:
> On 3/13/2012 10:27 AM, Greg Bacon wrote:
> > Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
> >
> > Greg
>
> Greg,
>
> Is it possible to push the smoke of inflation/devaluation back into the
> bottle? Could we just shave a few zeros off the $100 bill or is that too
> insane?
Bring back the old method of computing inflation. Anybody believe that their
> On 3/13/2012 10:27 AM, Greg Bacon wrote:
> > Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
> >
> > Greg
>
> Greg,
>
> Is it possible to push the smoke of inflation/devaluation back into the
> bottle? Could we just shave a few zeros off the $100 bill or is that too
> insane?
house payment got cheaper balancing the the cost of utilities, clothing, food
and fuel besides Richard Shelby?
>
> Is there any sane way to return to a bimetal non-fiat currency system?
No. Even the RW media is encouraging giving up our precious metal in favor of
> Is there any sane way to return to a bimetal non-fiat currency system?
cash.
>
> If one could generally control the means of production would it be
> possible to then control the results of sluggish consumerism?
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/03/growing-productivity-stagnating.html
> If one could generally control the means of production would it be
> possible to then control the results of sluggish consumerism?
The working man has been losing since Reagan. Putting their wives to work.
putting the rising cost of living on credit cards and borrowing their equity in
their homes didn't do the trick. As soon as the poor found out that interest was
deductable, whoop there it went. The venture of the ignorant into the stock
market based on counting on the S&P 500 dependably doubling failed, IMHO.
>
> Is there any hope for sanity or all we all doomed to be shuttle-cocked
> and given the racket instead of a rattle and a smile?
What does that mean?
> Is there any hope for sanity or all we all doomed to be shuttle-cocked
> and given the racket instead of a rattle and a smile?
bwilson4web
Mar 13, 2012, 3:51:38 PM3/13/12
to
On Mar 12, 11:09 pm, ghes...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
> In article <28CdnUt3Kp01m8PSnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@posted.hiwaay2>,
>
. . .
Bob Wilson
> In article <28CdnUt3Kp01m8PSnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@posted.hiwaay2>,
>
. . .
>
> How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
> refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
> borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
No problem AFTER we pay off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
> How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
> refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
> borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
Bob Wilson
Jean
Mar 13, 2012, 5:17:55 PM3/13/12
to
In article <742cd211-0d8d-4523...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
I think the past twelve years made the Reagan/Bush debt disappear into
the noise. The Clinton era budget was seen as a threat to the Payroll Savings
Plan. GWB fixed that.
the noise. The Clinton era budget was seen as a threat to the Payroll Savings
Plan. GWB fixed that.
Greg Bacon
Mar 13, 2012, 11:11:18 PM3/13/12
to
Bob Wilson wrote
: T.J. Higgins wrote
:
: > How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
in additional debt every year now. What do you propose cutting to get to
breakeven, the first babystep toward the goal of retiring the debt?
Greg
--
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order,
stability, and logic.
-- Frederic Bastiat
: T.J. Higgins wrote
:
: > How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
: > refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
: > borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
:
: No problem AFTER we pay off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
Sort of hard to do when they are piling on more than a trillion dollars
: > borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
:
: No problem AFTER we pay off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
in additional debt every year now. What do you propose cutting to get to
breakeven, the first babystep toward the goal of retiring the debt?
Greg
--
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order,
stability, and logic.
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greg Bacon
Mar 13, 2012, 11:45:15 PM3/13/12
to
MikeC wrote
: Is it possible to push the smoke of inflation/devaluation back into the
expansion of the monetary base, but he provides few details. Good for
him that banks are terrified to loan and sitting on all their "excess"
deposits at the Fed. If that money gets out, price inflation will be
horrible.
: Is there any sane way to return to a bimetal non-fiat currency system?
Bimetallism was a mistake because of the inevitable natural fluctuations
between gold and silver that put them on a Gresham's law see-saw.
Achieving sound money will be tricky and likely even painful at
times. The present American monetary system is the result of nearly
a century of distortion due to central-bank inflation. There are no free
lunches: boom begets bust.
The game of kick the can with the world's longest experiment in paper
money can't go on forever. We can take our medicine now or wait until it
comes apart chaotically. Ron Paul's proposal to legalize monetary
competition echoes that of Murray Rothbard in The Case for the Hundred
Percent Gold Dollar. The basic idea is to repeal taxes on gold and
abolish legal tender laws in order to let all of us sort out the
complex issues.
: If one could generally control the means of production would it be
isn't geared toward producing what we want. Artificially "stimulating"
consumption prolongs the problem.
Attempts to control the structure of production inevitably result in
shortages and misery. The problem is too complex and the variables too
many in number to permit centralized management. See The Fatal Conceit
by Nobel prize winner Friedrich Hayek.
: Is there any hope for sanity or all we all doomed to be shuttle-cocked
so many incumbents of both big-government varieties was the beginning of
a constitutional reawakening. Primary results so far show that is not at
all the case. Uncle Sam is broke, but everyone insists on continuing the
guns and butter.
Then there's Ron Paul who proposed cutting a trillion dollars out of the
federal budget next year, eliminating five cabinet departments, building
more bases here at home, and bringing home troops from abroad. Somehow
this is "pacifism" and "unrealistic." Instead so-called conservatives
are going for two Yankee liberals and a Georgia progressive.
Maybe libertarians really are just Republicans who mean it.
Greg
--
When asked by the king what he thought he was doing by infesting the sea, he
replied with noble insolence, "What do you think you are doing by infesting
the whole world? Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate;
because you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor." --Augustine
: Is it possible to push the smoke of inflation/devaluation back into the
: bottle? Could we just shave a few zeros off the $100 bill or is that too
: insane?
Chairman Bernanke assures us that the Fed can unwind the frightening
: insane?
expansion of the monetary base, but he provides few details. Good for
him that banks are terrified to loan and sitting on all their "excess"
deposits at the Fed. If that money gets out, price inflation will be
horrible.
: Is there any sane way to return to a bimetal non-fiat currency system?
Bimetallism was a mistake because of the inevitable natural fluctuations
between gold and silver that put them on a Gresham's law see-saw.
Achieving sound money will be tricky and likely even painful at
times. The present American monetary system is the result of nearly
a century of distortion due to central-bank inflation. There are no free
lunches: boom begets bust.
The game of kick the can with the world's longest experiment in paper
money can't go on forever. We can take our medicine now or wait until it
comes apart chaotically. Ron Paul's proposal to legalize monetary
competition echoes that of Murray Rothbard in The Case for the Hundred
Percent Gold Dollar. The basic idea is to repeal taxes on gold and
abolish legal tender laws in order to let all of us sort out the
complex issues.
: If one could generally control the means of production would it be
: possible to then control the results of sluggish consumerism?
Consumers aren't buying because the economy's structure of production
isn't geared toward producing what we want. Artificially "stimulating"
consumption prolongs the problem.
Attempts to control the structure of production inevitably result in
shortages and misery. The problem is too complex and the variables too
many in number to permit centralized management. See The Fatal Conceit
by Nobel prize winner Friedrich Hayek.
: Is there any hope for sanity or all we all doomed to be shuttle-cocked
: and given the racket instead of a rattle and a smile?
A couple of years back, I cautiously hoped the uprising that threw out
so many incumbents of both big-government varieties was the beginning of
a constitutional reawakening. Primary results so far show that is not at
all the case. Uncle Sam is broke, but everyone insists on continuing the
guns and butter.
Then there's Ron Paul who proposed cutting a trillion dollars out of the
federal budget next year, eliminating five cabinet departments, building
more bases here at home, and bringing home troops from abroad. Somehow
this is "pacifism" and "unrealistic." Instead so-called conservatives
are going for two Yankee liberals and a Georgia progressive.
Maybe libertarians really are just Republicans who mean it.
Greg
--
When asked by the king what he thought he was doing by infesting the sea, he
replied with noble insolence, "What do you think you are doing by infesting
the whole world? Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate;
because you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor." --Augustine
T.J. Higgins
Mar 14, 2012, 10:13:05 AM3/14/12
to
In article <QMWdnTtgo6PWif3S...@posted.hiwaay2>, Greg Bacon wrote:
>Then there's Ron Paul who proposed cutting a trillion dollars out of the
>federal budget next year, eliminating five cabinet departments, building
>more bases here at home, and bringing home troops from abroad. Somehow
>this is "pacifism" and "unrealistic."
You left out "isolationist."
>Then there's Ron Paul who proposed cutting a trillion dollars out of the
>federal budget next year, eliminating five cabinet departments, building
>more bases here at home, and bringing home troops from abroad. Somehow
>this is "pacifism" and "unrealistic."
--
TJH
tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net
bwilson4web
Mar 17, 2012, 6:31:02 AM3/17/12
to
On Mar 13, 10:11 pm, gba...@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) wrote:
> Bob Wilson wrote
>
> : T.J. Higgins wrote
> :
> : > How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
> : > refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
> : > borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
> :
> : No problem AFTER we pay off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
>
> Sort of hard to do when they are piling on more than a trillion dollars
> in additional debt every year now. What do you propose cutting to get to
> breakeven, the first babystep toward the goal of retiring the debt?
The first step is to return to the tax rates of the last time we were
> Bob Wilson wrote
>
> : T.J. Higgins wrote
> :
> : > How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
> : > refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
> : > borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
> :
> : No problem AFTER we pay off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
>
> Sort of hard to do when they are piling on more than a trillion dollars
> in additional debt every year now. What do you propose cutting to get to
> breakeven, the first babystep toward the goal of retiring the debt?
paying off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
Then stop subsidizing Afghanistan and let them make their own way into
the future. After Obama authorized the killing bin Laden, our mission
is over. Sure there are some Somali pirates to whack but that doesn't
require anything but transient battles of our own choosing.
Bob Wilson
Ron Hammon
Mar 19, 2012, 3:23:39 AM3/19/12
to
Greg Bacon wrote:
>
snip
> Then there's Ron Paul who proposed cutting a trillion dollars out of the
> federal budget next year, eliminating five cabinet departments, building
> more bases here at home, and bringing home troops from abroad. Somehow
> this is "pacifism" and "unrealistic." Instead so-called conservatives
> are going for two Yankee liberals and a Georgia progressive.
snip
It's even worse. As soon as I heard Santorum thumping the Bible a few
weeks ago, I predicted the coming results for Dixie, particularly
Alabama. We just proved that Alabamians would rather have a wishy-washy,
Yankee, warhawk Catholic than a highly principled, Constitionalist
Baptist ! Up is down!
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> Then there's Ron Paul who proposed cutting a trillion dollars out of the
> federal budget next year, eliminating five cabinet departments, building
> more bases here at home, and bringing home troops from abroad. Somehow
> this is "pacifism" and "unrealistic." Instead so-called conservatives
> are going for two Yankee liberals and a Georgia progressive.
It's even worse. As soon as I heard Santorum thumping the Bible a few
weeks ago, I predicted the coming results for Dixie, particularly
Alabama. We just proved that Alabamians would rather have a wishy-washy,
Yankee, warhawk Catholic than a highly principled, Constitionalist
Baptist ! Up is down!
Ron Hammon
Ron Hammon
Mar 19, 2012, 3:27:27 AM3/19/12
to
Jean wrote:
>
> In article <6didnV7Kq6Py-sLS...@posted.hiwaay2>,
> gba...@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) wrote:
>
> > Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
> >
> > Greg
>
> Did y'all enjoy your chance to vote for Ron Paul today?
No, not "enjoy". A vote for Ron Paul is dead earnest convection in the
>
> In article <6didnV7Kq6Py-sLS...@posted.hiwaay2>,
> gba...@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) wrote:
>
> > Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
> >
> > Greg
>
> Did y'all enjoy your chance to vote for Ron Paul today?
face of little hope. I REFUSE to continue to vote for the lesser of two
evils! I now vote for the candidate I really want and respect and let
the chips fall where they may.
Ron Hammon
T.J. Higgins
Mar 19, 2012, 10:26:25 PM3/19/12
to
In article <77f00cb8-9fbb-4514...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, bwilson4web wrote:
>On Mar 13, 10:11�pm, gba...@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) wrote:
>> Bob Wilson wrote
>>
>> : T.J. Higgins wrote
>> :
>> : > How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
>> : > refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
>> : > borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
>> :
>> : No problem AFTER we pay off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
>>
>> Sort of hard to do when they are piling on more than a trillion dollars
>> in additional debt every year now. What do you propose cutting to get to
>> breakeven, the first babystep toward the goal of retiring the debt?
>
>The first step is to return to the tax rates of the last time we were
>paying off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
Naturally the 2nd step would be to return to the spending levels
>On Mar 13, 10:11�pm, gba...@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) wrote:
>> Bob Wilson wrote
>>
>> : T.J. Higgins wrote
>> :
>> : > How about a flat 5% for everyone. No deductions, no credits, no unearned
>> : > refunds; you get a buck, you send the Treasury a nickel. No more
>> : > borrowing; pay off the existing debt over the next 25 years.
>> :
>> : No problem AFTER we pay off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
>>
>> Sort of hard to do when they are piling on more than a trillion dollars
>> in additional debt every year now. What do you propose cutting to get to
>> breakeven, the first babystep toward the goal of retiring the debt?
>
>The first step is to return to the tax rates of the last time we were
>paying off the Reagan Memorial Debt.
of that era.
--
TJH
tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net
Greg Bacon
Mar 20, 2012, 11:08:26 AM3/20/12
to
T.J. Higgins wrote:
: Naturally the 2nd step would be to return to the spending levels
: of that era.
Daily Kos says we're not allowed to call it spending any more. It's
*investment* in America.
Don't be so ideological.
Greg
--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
-- H.L. Mencken
: Naturally the 2nd step would be to return to the spending levels
: of that era.
Daily Kos says we're not allowed to call it spending any more. It's
*investment* in America.
Don't be so ideological.
Greg
--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
-- H.L. Mencken
Gary Heston
Mar 20, 2012, 8:52:31 PM3/20/12
to
In article <V-WdnVYLJK1Md_rS...@posted.hiwaay2>,
No, first step is return to the spending levels, then apply the extra revenue
to the debt until paid off, and add an ammendment to prohibit borrowing.
Congress can live within our means, and not so large as they have been.
Gary
to the debt until paid off, and add an ammendment to prohibit borrowing.
Congress can live within our means, and not so large as they have been.
Gary
Greg Bacon
Mar 22, 2012, 11:18:12 AM3/22/12
to
Gary Heston wrote
: No, first step is return to the spending levels, then apply the extra revenue
money out of thin air, the controls above are of no effect.
Greg
--
It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does
not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil
liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments.
: No, first step is return to the spending levels, then apply the extra revenue
: to the debt until paid off, and add an ammendment to prohibit borrowing.
:
: Congress can live within our means, and not so large as they have been.
Don't forget to abolish the Fed. With the continued ability to create
:
: Congress can live within our means, and not so large as they have been.
money out of thin air, the controls above are of no effect.
Greg
--
It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does
not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil
liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments.
Ron Hammon
Mar 22, 2012, 12:39:42 PM3/22/12
to
Greg Bacon wrote:
>
> Gary Heston wrote
>
> : No, first step is return to the spending levels, then apply the extra revenue
> : to the debt until paid off, and add an ammendment to prohibit borrowing.
> :
> : Congress can live within our means, and not so large as they have been.
>
> Don't forget to abolish the Fed. With the continued ability to create
> money out of thin air, the controls above are of no effect.
>
> Greg
Yeah. That pesky little Constitutional restriction that only states
>
> Gary Heston wrote
>
> : No, first step is return to the spending levels, then apply the extra revenue
> : to the debt until paid off, and add an ammendment to prohibit borrowing.
> :
> : Congress can live within our means, and not so large as they have been.
>
> Don't forget to abolish the Fed. With the continued ability to create
> money out of thin air, the controls above are of no effect.
>
> Greg
should issue money, which the first Republicans revoked via the War of
Northern Agression, wasn't such a wacko idea after all.
Ron Hammon
0 new messages