West LA VA Land

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Seems Republicans are upset that a Democrat is trying to block the sale of Govt VA property worth four billion dollars. The anger appears to a result of a VA funding issue.
Seems to me that the VA should be funded first and that this Country should not be selling it's land, to fund a war.
If everyone believes so deeply in this war, than why not support a WAR TAX to fund it. It make more sense than selling off more of this Country's assets.
Just my opinion.

[never_fast_enuf]

Better yet, why not cut entitlement programs to pay for the war AND put more of our own money back into our pockets?
Government waste alone could pay for this war and more. Why is it that the left's first answer is to always take more of Americans hard earned money out of their pockets?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Better yet, why not cut entitlement programs to pay for the war AND put more of our own money back into our pockets?
Government waste alone could pay for this war and more. Why is it that the left's first answer is to always take more of Americans hard earned money out of their pockets?
With all that money you're making, I didn't figure you would even notice an additional $500 annually to fund the war and/or the VA. Your party has been in power for nearly 7 years, and where are the spending cuts? The cuts that could pay for the war. Tax cuts and increased spending don't work. Little to do with left or right. just a fact.

[never_fast_enuf]

With all that money you're making, I didn't figure you would even notice an additional $500 annually to fund the war and/or the VA. Your party has been in power for nearly 7 years, and where are the spending cuts? The cuts that could pay for the war. Tax cuts and increased spending don't work. Little to do with left or right. just a fact.
Right off the bat you insert your emotions and feelings instead of dealing with the facts. Well done.
Now, why is it that the very first thing a lib like you proposes is raising taxes when in fact, the PRIME function of our government is protecting the country...
Again, how about we cut much of the BS social cradle to grave programs, demand an end to government waste and then we fund the war, the VA benefits AND we get to keep more of our hard earned money?
Sure sounds like a win win for everyone.

[never_fast_enuf]

Right off the bat you insert your emotions and feelings instead of dealing with the facts. Well done.
Now, why is it that the very first thing a lib like you proposes is raising taxes when in fact, the PRIME function of our government is protecting the country...
Again, how about we cut much of the BS social cradle to grave programs, demand an end to government waste and then we fund the war, the VA benefits AND we get to keep more of our hard earned money?
Sure sounds like a win win for everyone.
One more item...I have made it very clear that I am not happy with the spending of the republicans. That being said, it pales in comparison to what the democrats want to spend. I also noticed you failed to mention the record revenue ( tax receipts) the government has flowing in.
Your team is in charge now...can you point out the spending cuts they are asking for??? Other than defunding our soldiers of course.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

One more item...I have made it very clear that I am not happy with the spending of the republicans. That being said, it pales in comparison to what the democrats want to spend. I also noticed you failed to mention the record revenue ( tax receipts) the government has flowing in.
Your team is in charge now...can you point out the spending cuts they are asking for??? Other than defunding our soldiers of course.:rolleyes:
Ya think that the record revenue might be related to the spending?
I'm not on a team right now. When I join one I will let you know. I wasn't aware of anyone attempting to defund our soldiers Thought you only dealt with facts.
BTW, have you ever thought about a single post response?

[never_fast_enuf]

Ya think that the record revenue might be related to the spending?
I'm not on a team right now. When I join one I will let you know. I wasn't aware of anyone attempting to defund our soldiers Thought you only dealt with facts.
BTW, have you ever thought about a single post response?
I keep it separated so you can keep up.
I wasn't aware of anyone attempting to defund our soldiers
Evidently, you don't pay attention to current events then. Just about every democrat in office has advocated doing just that. I can't help it if you don't like the facts but they are what they are. Pretty sure you will continue to ignore them though.
As for you "not being on a team"...what an odd statement for you to make when you clearly support the democrat agenda, the democrat stance on just about every issue as well as the democrat presidential candidates.
At least be honest about your affiliation.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I keep it separated so you can keep up.
I wasn't aware of anyone attempting to defund our soldiers
Evidently, you don't pay attention to current events then. Just about every democrat in office has advocated doing just that. I can't help it if you don't like the facts but they are what they are. Pretty sure you will continue to ignore them though.
As for you "not being on a team"...what an odd statement for you to make when you clearly support the democrat agenda, the democrat stance on just about every issue as well as the democrat presidential candidates.
At least be honest about your affiliation.
No need to be condescending.
There has been no move to stop funding the soldiers.
I am a registered Democrat.

[eliminatedsprinter]

It's all just a theoretical debate. The V.A. Doesn't even really own the land WLA is on. It was willed to the VA in the 1880s by for use only for veterans. If it is sold for use other than by veterans the whole property reverts back to his heirs. The VA has been trying to find a way to sell off some of that land (they have way more than they can use there) for at least 30 years (including under the Clinton administration) the only thing that is different about this latest attempt is that the press decided to give it more coverage this time.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It's all just a theoretical debate. The V.A. Doesn't even really own the land WLA is on. It was willed to the VA by Sawtell for use only for veterans. If it is sold for use other than by veterans the whole property reverts back to his heirs. The VA has been trying to find a way to sell off some of that land (they have way more than they can use there) for at least 30 years (including under the Clinton administration) the only thing that is different about this latest attempt is that the press decided to give it more coverage this time.
Thnaks for for the info.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Thnaks for for the info.
No problem. That land was willed for use by Veterans in the 1880s, long before the V.A. even existed as a federal agency. I have worked for the V.A. a little over 24 years and they have been trying to figure out a way to get around the terms of the will and sell off or lease some of that unused land at WLA since long before I started working for the V.A.

[never_fast_enuf]

There has been no move to stop funding the soldiers.
With a comment like that, there is nothing left BUT to be condescending. Either you are not being honest or you are ignorant of the facts. Either way, you deserve what you get.

[never_fast_enuf]

No problem. That land was willed for use by Veterans in the 1880s, long before the V.A. even existed as a federal agency. I have worked for the V.A. a little over 24 years and they have been trying to figure out a way to get around the terms of the will and sell off or lease some of that unused land at WLA since long before I started working for the V.A.
If you look at the location, there is also a massive NIMBY movement going on by very influential people. Of course, the democrats have used this as another political football...
Somehow this will all end up being Bush's fault.

[eliminatedsprinter]

If you look at the location, there is also a massive NIMBY movement going on by very influential people. Of course, the democrats have used this as another political football...
Somehow this will all end up being Bush's fault.
Absolutly. The NIMBYs on the westside hate having the VA there, so they have worked hard to block any efforts to increase that land's use by veterans. They also fear any additional development that might occure if that land is sold to any private interests. So they work to block any increased veterans use of the land, as well as any efforts to sell or lease out the unused land for private use.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No problem. That land was willed for use by Veterans in the 1880s, long before the V.A. even existed as a federal agency. I have worked for the V.A. a little over 24 years and they have been trying to figure out a way to get around the terms of the will and sell off or lease some of that unused land at WLA since long before I started working for the V.A.
There was a time that Sawtelle was a good facility. My Grandfather used it a few times. Apparently, this has changed. It's not like both parties don't have enough egg on theirs faces, we surely don't need media bias making it worse.
the original thread in the Sandbar about this issue, opened by claiming the Feinstein attached a rider to a bill that stole 6 billion from the VA and gave it to Beverly Hills.
Based on the will, it seems like the VA and the Nimbys are arguing over nothing. VA can't sell or lease, VA can use for the VA as it desires.
Of course it is Bush's fault :D :D

[eliminatedsprinter]

There was a time that Sawtelle was a good facility. My Grandfather used it a few times. Apparently, this has changed. It's not like both parties don't have enough egg on theirs faces, we surely don't need media bias making it worse.
the original thread in the Sandbar about this issue, opened by claiming the Feinstein attached a rider to a bill that stole 6 billion from the VA and gave it to Beverly Hills.
Based on the will, it seems like the VA and the Nimbys are arguing over nothing. VA can't sell or lease, VA can use for the VA as it desires.
Of course it is Bush's fault :D :D
WLA has some good departments, but overall it has the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in the region and one of the worst in the nation (for many years now).
It's not quite that simple. In a nutshell the V.A. has been looking for as much wiggle room in the terms of the will as it can, in order to either lease, sell, or make greater use of the land at WLA. The heirs have thus far sucsessfully blocked efforts to sell or lease out the land (at least for private use) and the NIMBYs have blocked most efforts to get more use from the land for veterans use (they fear more use by vets will bring more traffic and (gasp) more homeless vets into their fancy shmancy (democrat dominated;) ) neighborhoods.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

WLA has some good departments, but overall it has the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in the region and one of the worst in the nation (for many years now).
It's not quite that simple. In a nutshell the V.A. has been looking for as much wiggle room in the terms of the will as it can, in order to either lease, sell, or make greater use of the land at WLA. The heirs have thus far sucsessfully blocked efforts to sell or lease out the land (at least for private use) and the NIMBYs have blocked most efforts to get more use from the land for veterans use (they fear more use by vets will bring more traffic and (gasp) more homeless vets into their fancy shmancy (democrat dominated;) ) neighborhoods.
What types of NIMBY efforts have been successful with regard to the VA not using the land and/or facility to benefit Vets?

[eliminatedsprinter]

What types of NIMBY efforts have been successful with regard to the VA not using the land and/or facility to benefit Vets?
There have been several unsucsessful attempts to make more use of that land over the years. Right now there is a new homeless center going in there, but it has taken many years of fighting (aginst local NIMBYs) to get it and the local NIMBYs are very rich and powerful, so the fight may not be over yet.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

There have been several unsucsessful attempts to make more use of that land over the years. Right now there is a new homeless center going in there, but it has taken many years of fighting (aginst local NIMBYs) to get it and the local NIMBYs are very rich and powerful, so the fight may not be over yet.
I would like to see the money people give it a rest. There are many homeless Vets, that deserve better. I had many friends leave for Nam as one person and return as another. Again, Vets deserve better.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I would like to see the money people give it a rest. There are many homeless Vets, that deserve better. I had many friends leave for Nam as one person and return as another. Again, Vets deserve better.
I know my job would be easier if there was a good homeless vet center at my facility. There is supposed to be one here by 2009. We had an out pt homeless program, but it was cut out as part of "Mr Gore's 7 year plan for reinventing the VA". Believe it or not, the building of such centers has actually increased under the Bush Administration.

['75 Miller]

:) Believe it or not, the building of such centers has actually increased under the Bush Administration.
No it hasn't, you lie, you're a liar, why would you lie?:D Bush is the devil.:D He's never done anything good...never.:D Bush is a war criminal, this war is illegal, blah blah, boo hoo.:D
Sorry, but you just said something good about Bush, so it's likely that some whinning and ridiculous statements are soon to follow. Just thought I'd get 'em outta the way.:)

[eliminatedsprinter]

:)
No it hasn't, you lie, you're a liar, why would you lie?:D Bush is the devil.:D He's never done anything good...never.:D Bush is a war criminal, this war is illegal, blah blah, boo hoo.:D
Sorry, but you just said something good about Bush, so it's likely that some whinning and ridiculous statements are soon to follow. Just thought I'd get 'em outta the way.:)
I don't think they will. Most people (liberals included) remember how universal the veterans dislike for the Clinton administration was. Many even remember that dislike was well earned.
It is a simple fact that the Clinton years were very very hard on the VA. I do wish that our homeless facility was schedualed for completion before 2009. Because Hillery was no friend of the VA (ie she was involved in getting our Gulf war syndrome programs cancelled) and I fear she might cut it before it is completed.

['75 Miller]

Because Hillery was no friend of the VA (ie she was involved in getting our Gulf war syndrome programs cancelled) and I fear she might cut it before it is completed.
From here bought and paid-for senate seat? Do you believe she's got a snowball's chance in hell at the Presidency? I don't.

[eliminatedsprinter]

From here bought and paid-for senate seat? Do you believe she's got a snowball's chance in hell at the Presidency? I don't.
I wish I was as sure as you are. The republician field is pretty pathetic and I'm not sure the primaries will even produce their most electable challenger.
If the dems are smart enough to put together a Hillery/Obama ticket and the repubs are dumb enough to put either Thompson or Romney with some dough faced unknown white guy, the repubs just might get spanked. Esp if VP Cheny stays in office much longer and the Bush administation misses out on the chance to make popular history by putting Sec Rice in the VP's seat. That is an obvious way they could improve the republician image. One thing I've noticed about today's republicians is they never miss an oppertunity to miss an oppertunity. Just look at how they squandered their oppertunity to fully lead from 2000-2006. Are any of the Bush tax cuts perminant? Is the federal government smaller? Some could say they got power and started acting ALMOST like a bunch of dems......

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I know my job would be easier if there was a good homeless vet center at my facility. There is supposed to be one here by 2009. We had an out pt homeless program, but it was cut out as part of "Mr Gore's 7 year plan for reinventing the VA". Believe it or not, the building of such centers has actually increased under the Bush Administration.
ES,
Thanks. I agree that we need to get centers built where needed and keep them funded.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
Thanks. I agree that we need to get centers built where needed and keep them funded.
They are needed everywhere. Every VA should at least have a small program. That way the existing programs wouldn't be so stressed and the NIMBYs wouldn't have to worry as much about them attracting too many more homeless people to their neighborhoods.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Government waste alone could pay for this war and more. Why is it that the left's first answer is to always take more of Americans hard earned money out of their pockets?
Because you are too selfish and stupid to be entrusted to spend it properly, so it must be taken from you so the govt. can spend it correctly, where it should be spent, according to the govt.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

With all that money you're making, I didn't figure you would even notice an additional $500 annually to fund the war and/or the VA.
Just where does it STOP?
Another $20 a year to study the sex life of a certain zooplankton?
Another $50 a year to buy and maintain ANOTHER national park?
Another $10 a year to pay for another congressional pay raise?
Another $1000 a year to prop up a failed govt giveaway program?
Another $3,000 a year for "free" medical care?
This is the exact gun controll arguement. Incremental reason.
A bite here, a tiny bite there, another bite over here next time, another bite over here, eventually, the whole pizza is gone, given away piece by piece.
Where is the line to say "NO MORE!" ?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I'm not on a team right now. When I join one I will let you know.?
"OUR TEAM has been in charge for 7 years", and will be gone, to your great glee in 2008, yet "You don't have a team".
Good god, talk about speaking from both sides of your mouth.
I wasn't aware of anyone attempting to defund our soldiers Thought you only dealt with facts.
You pay absolutely ZERO attention to the activities and plans of the congress, don't you. THAT much is blatantly abvious.
Just about every one of the democrats in power were trying to run the soldiers out, and dear John Murtha, the gutless one without the balls to direc tly defund the troops, has TRIEDE to put in restrictions on funding, involving equipment readiness levels.
Fail to meet the requirement of available equipment, fail to get funding for train ing AND deployments.
A LOT of equipment is positioned in the desert, used by all units rotating in and out of there, which they DO NOT HAVE on hand, since it is over there.
That is gutless BACKHAND de-funding the soldiers.
I listened to a recording of his OWN WORDS describing it. He sure thought it was a good idea, then it became public knowledge (well, to those who pay attention anyway.)
You'd have to pay attention to be aware of this tho.
That or "investigate".:idea:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No need to be condescending.
There has been no move to stop funding the soldiers. .
WRONG!
I am a registered Democrat.
Thought "You don't have a team". :idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

"OUR TEAM has been in charge for 7 years", and will be gone, to your great glee in 2008, yet "You don't have a team".
Good god, talk about speaking from both sides of your mouth.
You pay absolutely ZERO attention to the activities and plans of the congress, don't you. THAT much is blatantly abvious.
Just about every one of the democrats in power were trying to run the soldiers out, and dear John Murtha, the gutless one without the balls to direc tly defund the troops, has TRIEDE to put in restrictions on funding, involving equipment readiness levels.
Fail to meet the requirement of available equipment, fail to get funding for train ing AND deployments.
A LOT of equipment is positioned in the desert, used by all units rotating in and out of there, which they DO NOT HAVE on hand, since it is over there.
That is gutless BACKHAND de-funding the soldiers.
I listened to a recording of his OWN WORDS describing it. He sure thought it was a good idea, then it became public knowledge (well, to those who pay attention anyway.)
You'd have to pay attention to be aware of this tho.
That or "investigate".:idea:
Smokin just relieved some tension. Wipe yourself off and run along, weekend boy.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Just where does it STOP?
Another $20 a year to study the sex life of a certain zooplankton?
Another $50 a year to buy and maintain ANOTHER national park?
Another $10 a year to pay for another congressional pay raise?
Another $1000 a year to prop up a failed govt giveaway program?
Another $3,000 a year for "free" medical care?
This is the exact gun controll arguement. Incremental reason.
A bite here, a tiny bite there, another bite over here next time, another bite over here, eventually, the whole pizza is gone, given away piece by piece.
Where is the line to say "NO MORE!" ?
What was the top tax bracket during WWII smart guy?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

WRONG!
Thought "You don't have a team". :idea:
Someone asked I answered. Not sure of how I will vote in 08.

[eliminatedsprinter]

What was the top tax bracket during WWII smart guy?
Relevance???
One of the many problems with our gawdawfull income tax is, that what was rich, is now middle class and the tax brackets have not kept up. The result is that middle class (even lower middle class) people are now paying tax rates the were supposed to be only for the ultra (26 ;)) rich when the income tax scam was initially forced upon us.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Relevance???
One of the many problems with our gawdawfull income tax is, that what was rich, is now middle class and the tax brackets have not kept up. The result is that middle class (even lower middle class) people are now paying tax rates the were supposed to be only for the ultra (26 ;)) rich when the income tax scam was initially forced upon us.
That is my point. The middle and upper middle class carry the majority of the tax burden. I have read that during and after WWII the Ultra (26;) rich were considered to be in a 70% tax bracket. Reagan lowered the top bracket to 28% and Clinton bumped it back in the high 30's. Please don't get me wrong, I'm fed up with taxes as much as you are. The entire tax structure is broken. A flat tax or maybe even the Fair Tax, but I agree that something needs to be done.
I tired of the rich getting all of the tax breaks while my share continues to go up.

[eliminatedsprinter]

That is my point. The middle and upper middle class carry the majority of the tax burden. I have read that during and after WWII the Ultra (26;) rich were considered to be in a 70% tax bracket. Reagan lowered the top bracket to 28% and Clinton bumped it back in the high 30's. Please don't get me wrong, I'm fed up with taxes as much as you are. The entire tax structure is broken. A flat tax or maybe even the Fair Tax, but I agree that something needs to be done.
I tired of the rich getting all of the tax breaks while my share continues to go up.
Anything over 25% for anyone is draconian.:mad:
Sales tax is the only fair way to tax the public. Income tax is inherently authoritarian and unfair.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Anything over 25% for anyone is draconian.:mad:
Sales tax is the only fair way to tax the public. Income tax is inherently authoritarian and unfair.
Seems a flat tax between 15 & 20% with no write offs or deductions would be fair, simple and way less complex. Again, I believe that IRS is broken beyond repair. Huckabee suggests that a National Sales tax, or Fair Tax of 23% would be sufficient. According to others the Fair Tax needs to be somewhere between 32 and 35%. I have yet to see supporting data.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Seems a flat tax between 15 & 20% with no write offs or deductions would be fair, simple and way less complex. Again, I believe that IRS is broken beyond repair. Huckabee suggests that a National Sales tax, or Fair Tax of 23% would be sufficient. According to others the Fair Tax needs to be somewhere between 32 and 35%. I have yet to see supporting data.
I agree 100% that the IRS is broken beyond repair and it is something a nation that is rooted in the concept of individual liberty should never have.
The studies that I read (a few years ago) showed that a 23% sales tax would result in the federal government being much better funded than it is under our current tax code.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I agree 100% that the IRS is broken beyond repair and it is something a nation that is rooted in the concept of individual liberty should never have.
The studies that I read (a few years ago) showed that a 23% sales tax would result in the federal government being much better funded than it is under our current tax code.
From what I understand so far, seems like it would be a better way. Problem as I see it is that it will never happen in my lifetime.

[never_fast_enuf]

I tired of the rich getting all of the tax breaks while my share continues to go up.
Really? Have you researched that?
The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes.
The bottom 50% of income earners effectively pay no federal income tax at all.

[never_fast_enuf]

From what I understand so far, seems like it would be a better way. Problem as I see it is that it will never happen in my lifetime.
That would be three times we agree...:eek: :D

[eliminatedsprinter]

From what I understand so far, seems like it would be a better way. Problem as I see it is that it will never happen in my lifetime.
Sad but true.
To get an idea of how hard it would be to make the change, consider that over 50% of the lawyers in America owe their income to the current tax code.:devil:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Sad but true.
To get an idea of how hard it would be to make the change, consider that over 50% of the lawyers in America owe their income to the current tax code.:devil:
A flat tax seems much more possible to implement.

[eliminatedsprinter]

A flat tax seems much more possible to implement.
Perhaps a little. But it would still be opposed by the lawyers and the income tax industry, require an authoritarian IRS to enforce, and be very ineffecient to collect. I personally don't feel switching to the flat tax is worth the trouble and effort it would take. On the other hand, the sales tax would be well worth the effort.
Both would take a sustantial effort to achieve, but only one of the options would make us all more free, rid us of the IRS, and result in a better funded government.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Perhaps a little. But it would still be opposed by the lawyers and the income tax industry, require an authoritarian IRS to enforce, and be very ineffecient to collect. I personally don't feel switching to the flat tax is worth the trouble and effort it would take. On the other hand, the sales tax would be well worth the effort.
Both would take a sustantial effort to achieve, but only one of the options would make us all more free, rid us of the IRS, and result in a better funded government.
Good point!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Really? Have you researched that?
The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes.
The bottom 50% of income earners effectively pay no federal income tax at all.
ultra doesn't research trivial things, he just ignores "inconvenient truths", like those above.
And, EVERYTHING is trivial apparently.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Oh, and ultram since "nobody is trying to defund the war"..................
You really should research "trivia" before you spout out stupidity, again.
8 January 2007:
Coward Congressman John Murtha tells Arianna Huffington that he has a plan to "fence the funding" and deny the president funds for the "surge" on the grounds that our tax dollars are better spent on taking care of traumatic brain injuries sustained by our fighting men and women, the "signature injury" of those wounded in Iraq.
More about it:
John Murtha was in the Marines for many years and served in Vietnam; by Democrat standards, this makes him an expert on all things military. Despite losing an embarrassing bid for majority leader, the 16-term representative still carries a lot of weight in the House. He used his military and political brilliance to draft and tie an amendment to the $100 billion war request from President Bush that would create strict standards of troop safety and readiness.
Because there is not a realistic way to meet the standards, this basically equates to defunding the war and essentially forcing the president to send troops into war without the proper training and equipment. This would have crippled any chance of a troop increase in Iraq and would have achieved the goal of the far left.
The excitement was too much for Murtha, and he let his plan to micromanage the war out of the bag too early. Without the consent of Pelosi, Murtha told his plan to the liberal Web site MoveCongress.org.
You managed to never hear of it tho, apparently, it is too "trivial".
You are "honest" eh? :idea:
Tail that with the pre-election knowledge of:
October 9, 2006
New York's own Charlie Rangel of Harlem - in line to become chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee - is a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. And he minced no words in speaking to The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress: "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?"
Then there's John Conyers of Michigan, who would chair the Judiciary Committee. Conyers has been pushing for impeachment hearings for the Bush administration almost from Day One.
In June, he oversaw an unofficial hearing to consider grounds for impeachment, and also produced a "report" claiming that the 2004 presidential election was "stolen" in Ohio by the GOP.
Conyers would be matched in political gamesmanship with California's Henry Waxman, who's set to take over the Government Reform Committee - and who has kept busy lately "investigating" Vice President Dick Cheney.
Meanwhile, in contention to become House majority leader is John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Murtha, of course, is on record favoring effective surrender in Iraq.
That puts him roughly in the same War on Terror camp as John Dingell of Michigan, who's in line to chair the Energy Committee - and who recently told a Michigan radio station, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
Asked point blank, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell said, "No." Then he voted against the congressional resolution supporting Israel in its recent war with Hezbollah.
Most frightening, California's Jane Harman - a thoughtful moderate and the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee - is likely to be ousted by the Democrats if they win.
Her likely replacement - Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings - holds the unusual distinction of being the only member of the House to have been impeached from a federal office before becoming a congressman.
The former judge was rebuked in 1989 for corruption and perjury; the House impeached him, and the Senate removed him from the federal bench. Unfortunately, Florida voters then elected him to the House.
Just what the Intelligence Committee needs to lead it - someone with a proven ability to be "bought" will now have access to classified information.
And then there is Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi of California.
The House Democratic leader has said that a move toward impeachment would be a "leadership decision."

[havasu5150]

Ya think that the record revenue might be related to the spending?
I'm not on a team right now. When I join one I will let you know. I wasn't aware of anyone attempting to defund our soldiers Thought you only dealt with facts.
BTW, have you ever thought about a single post response?
Just today, Sen (and Presidential Candidate) Joe Biden stated that he would vote against any funding measures that didn't call for some sort of immediate troop withdrawl.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Oh, and ultram since "nobody is trying to defund the war"..................
You really should research "trivia" before you spout out stupidity, again.
8 January 2007:
Coward Congressman John Murtha tells Arianna Huffington that he has a plan to "fence the funding" and deny the president funds for the "surge" on the grounds that our tax dollars are better spent on taking care of traumatic brain injuries sustained by our fighting men and women, the "signature injury" of those wounded in Iraq.
More about it:
John Murtha was in the Marines for many years and served in Vietnam; by Democrat standards, this makes him an expert on all things military. Despite losing an embarrassing bid for majority leader, the 16-term representative still carries a lot of weight in the House. He used his military and political brilliance to draft and tie an amendment to the $100 billion war request from President Bush that would create strict standards of troop safety and readiness.
Because there is not a realistic way to meet the standards, this basically equates to defunding the war and essentially forcing the president to send troops into war without the proper training and equipment. This would have crippled any chance of a troop increase in Iraq and would have achieved the goal of the far left.
The excitement was too much for Murtha, and he let his plan to micromanage the war out of the bag too early. Without the consent of Pelosi, Murtha told his plan to the liberal Web site MoveCongress.org.
You managed to never hear of it tho, apparently, it is too "trivial".
You are "honest" eh? :idea:
Tail that with the pre-election knowledge of:
October 9, 2006
New York's own Charlie Rangel of Harlem - in line to become chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee - is a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. And he minced no words in speaking to The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress: "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?"
Then there's John Conyers of Michigan, who would chair the Judiciary Committee. Conyers has been pushing for impeachment hearings for the Bush administration almost from Day One.
In June, he oversaw an unofficial hearing to consider grounds for impeachment, and also produced a "report" claiming that the 2004 presidential election was "stolen" in Ohio by the GOP.
Conyers would be matched in political gamesmanship with California's Henry Waxman, who's set to take over the Government Reform Committee - and who has kept busy lately "investigating" Vice President Dick Cheney.
Meanwhile, in contention to become House majority leader is John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Murtha, of course, is on record favoring effective surrender in Iraq.
That puts him roughly in the same War on Terror camp as John Dingell of Michigan, who's in line to chair the Energy Committee - and who recently told a Michigan radio station, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
Asked point blank, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell said, "No." Then he voted against the congressional resolution supporting Israel in its recent war with Hezbollah.
Most frightening, California's Jane Harman - a thoughtful moderate and the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee - is likely to be ousted by the Democrats if they win.
Her likely replacement - Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings - holds the unusual distinction of being the only member of the House to have been impeached from a federal office before becoming a congressman.
The former judge was rebuked in 1989 for corruption and perjury; the House impeached him, and the Senate removed him from the federal bench. Unfortunately, Florida voters then elected him to the House.
Just what the Intelligence Committee needs to lead it - someone with a proven ability to be "bought" will now have access to classified information.
And then there is Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi of California.
The House Democratic leader has said that a move toward impeachment would be a "leadership decision."
Talk is cheap Smokin, obviously. There's been quite a lot of people talikin, but noone is doing anything. Bottom line Smokin, is your party has made a huge f'n mess in Iraq, that is going to dropped in the lap of the next administration. Dems aren't going to defund anything. Use your head for a change. It's politics remember :confused:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

That is my point. The middle and upper middle class carry the majority of the tax burden. I have read that during and after WWII the Ultra (26;) rich were considered to be in a 70% tax bracket. Reagan lowered the top bracket to 28% and Clinton bumped it back in the high 30's. Please don't get me wrong, I'm fed up with taxes as much as you are. The entire tax structure is broken. A flat tax or maybe even the Fair Tax, but I agree that something needs to be done.
I tired of the rich getting all of the tax breaks while my share continues to go up.
Care to explain why, when Regan lowered the tax rates, from over 50% in the 70's, to 28% in his term, tax money collected INCREASED?
Or,,,, are you going to (again) deny that this happened?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Seems a flat tax between 15 & 20% with no write offs or deductions would be fair, simple and way less complex. Again, I believe that IRS is broken beyond repair. Huckabee suggests that a National Sales tax, or Fair Tax of 23% would be sufficient. According to others the Fair Tax needs to be somewhere between 32 and 35%. I have yet to see supporting data.
It's called "The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS."
Written by Neal Boortz and John Linder
Go buy it, it is under $8 on Amazon.com right now.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Care to explain why, when Regan lowered the tax rates, from over 50% in the 70's, to 28% in his term, tax money collected INCREASED?
Or,,,, are you going to (again) deny that this happened?
Sorry Smokin, I don't remember commenting that this didn't happen. I have desire 0 to explain anything to you, so obviously my answer is no.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Sorry Smokin, I don't remember commenting that this didn't happen. I have desire 0 to explain anything to you, so obviously my answer is no.
Poor long-term memory too? Your secretary must keep a LOT of written notes at eh? Thank god (or Bill Gates, same thing) for the PDA and electronic memory.
Some months ago, back when I thought you deserved reasonable handling, you claimed, amid a discussion, that tax decreases do not result in increased tax revenues collected.
I then pulled up the facts, which proved you to be WRONG (again).
The facts state that EVERY TIME since the middle of the 20th century that tax rates were reduced, the ammount of money collected INCREASED, including during the Bush tax cuts of THIS decade.
I suspect it was in your whining thread about the current national debt being the cause of tomorow's colapse of the nation.
No wonder you don't remember it, it's "trivial".:idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Poor long-term memory too? Your secretary must keep a LOT of written notes at eh? Thank god (or Bill Gates, same thing) for the PDA and electronic memory.
Some months ago, back when I thought you deserved reasonable handling, you claimed, amid a discussion, that tax decreases do not result in increased tax revenues collected.
I then pulled up the facts, which proved you to be WRONG (again).
The facts state that EVERY TIME since the middle of the 20th century that tax rates were reduced, the ammount of money collected INCREASED, including during the Bush tax cuts of THIS decade.
I suspect it was in your whining thread about the current national debt being the cause of tomorow's colapse of the nation.
No wonder you don't remember it, it's "trivial".:idea:
Your name implies what you've been doing to much of.
I'm not in the mood for your bullsh*t right now.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I'm not in the mood to you bullsh*t right now.
You "sir" seem again to have mistaken me for someone who cares what mood you happen to be in.
Reality, ain't it a bish? :D
No wonder you hate history so. :idea:
I believe the health nuts reccomend DHEA, Lecethin, and Phosphatidyl Choline for that memory trouble. :idea:
Here: Dr Colbert's 7-keto DHEA (http://www.drcolbert.com/product_info.php?cPath=100_35&products_id=198) :)

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Your name implies what you've been doing to much of.
And, if you care to have the balls to DIRECTLY insinuate I smoke illegal narcotics, do feel free to come here and we'll just go together to either my unit clinic, OR my employer, and give a sample.
Your5 memory issues have already forgotten that I deal with the US millitary, AND THE FAA, both of whom take an equally dim view of my having both a career and a Marry Jane habit.
Dumbazz.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You "sir" seem again to have mistaken me for someone who cares what mood you happen to be in.
Reality, ain't it a bish? :D
No wonder you hate history so. :idea:
I believe the health nuts reccomend DHEA, Lecethin, and Phosphatidyl Choline for that memory trouble. :idea:
Here: Dr Colbert's 7-keto DHEA (http://www.drcolbert.com/product_info.php?cPath=100_35&products_id=198) :)
And, if you care to have the balls to DIRECTLY insinuate I smoke illegal narcotics, do feel free to come here and we'll just go together to either my unit clinic, OR my employer, and give a sample.
Your5 memory issues have already forgotten that I deal with the US millitary, AND THE FAA, both of whom take an equally dim view of my having both a career and a Marry Jane habit.
Dumbazz.
Please stay on topic. Your attacks are getting old and boring. If you have nothing reasonable to say than say nothing. The mod has asked that we all stay on topic, and I imagine that would include you.
Get it through your head that you are not the authority of all.

[never_fast_enuf]

Oh my...
http://www.***boat.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2509010&postcount=15
Quote:
Originally Posted by minimatt
Re-read my post. Cutting taxes generates MORE tax revenue, not less. We need to be pushing for tax CUTS, not increases in order to reduce the debt. I agree with the part about reducing spending and unfunded mandates to the states & local governments, but this notion of raising taxes to reduce the debt hasn't worked yet, so why should we expect it to work now. Cutting taxes spurs the economy and creates jobs and creates taxpayers, thus increasing tax revenues. Raising taxes has the opposite effect.
Talk about me spewing garbage. The school of thought that you profess hasn't worked either.
__________________
2007 Ultra 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by ULTRA26 # 1 : 04-18-2007 at 01:10 PM.

[never_fast_enuf]

It gets worse...
The thought that lowing taxes increases the amount of tax collected is a myth.
__________________
2007 Ultra 26
http://www.***boat.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2509044&postcount=17

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It gets worse...
http://www.***boat.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2509044&postcount=17
Maybe you should post my entire response
Back in the 1970s, conservative economist Arthur Laffer proposed that high marginal tax rates discouraged people from earning additional income. By cutting taxes, especially on those with the highest incomes, Laffer argued, governments would spur individuals to work harder and invest more, stoking economic growth. Though the government would get a smaller bite from every dollar the economy generated, there would be so many more dollars to tax that government revenues would actually rise. Ronald Reagan invoked the "Laffer curve" in the 1980s, insisting he could cut taxes, hike defense spending, and still balance the budget.
Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax packages are eerily reminiscent of the Reagan cuts. They reduce rates levied on ordinary income, with the largest rate cut going to the wealthiest taxpayers. They extend business tax write-offs and increase the child tax credit (though only for two years and only for families who earn enough to pay federal income taxes). They cut the tax on capital gains from 28% to 15%; dividend income, previously taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, now faces a top rate of 15%.
Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that two-thirds of the 2003 tax cut will accrue to the richest 10% of taxpayers. By 2006, the increased child credit will be phased out and nine out of ten taxpayers will find their taxes cut by less than $100. The top 1%, in contrast, will save an average $24,000 annually over the next four years, thanks to the 2003 cut alone.
Though inspired by the same "supply-side" vision that guided Reagan, Bush officials have not explicitly cited Laffer's arguments in defense of their tax packages. Probably, they wish to avoid ridicule. After the Reagan tax cut, the U.S. economy sank into recession and federal tax collections dropped nearly 10%. The deficit soared and economic growth was tepid through much of Reagan's presidency, despite sharp hikes in military spending. Some of the Republican faithful continue to argue that tax cuts will unleash enough growth to pay for themselves, but most are embarrassed to raise the now discredited Laffer curve.
The problem with your friend's assertion is fairly simple. If the government cuts projected taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, those dollars will recirculate through the economy. The $1.5 trillion tax cut becomes $1.5 trillion in taxable income and is itself taxed, as your friend suggests. But this would be just as true if, instead of cutting taxes, the government spent $1.5 trillion on highways or national defense or schools or, for that matter, if it trimmed $1.5 trillion from the tax liability of low- and middle-income households. All tax cuts become income, are re-spent, and taxed. That reality is already factored into everyone's economic projections. But the new income, taxed at a lower rate, will generate lower overall tax collections.
To conclude that revenues will rise rather than fall following a tax cut, one must maintain that the tax cut causes the economy to grow faster than it would have otherwise—that cutting taxes on the upper crust stimulates enough additional growth to offset the lower tax rates, more growth than would be propelled by, say, building roads or reducing payroll taxes. Free-marketeers insist that this is indeed the case. Spend $1.5 trillion on highways and you get $1.5 trillion worth of highways. Give it to Wall Street and investors will develop new technologies, improve productivity, and spur the economy to new heights.
Critics of the Bush cuts contend, however, that faster growth arises from robust demand for goods and from solid, well-maintained public infrastructure. Give $1.5 to Wall Street and you get inflated stock prices and real estate bubbles. Give it to working families or state governments and you get crowded malls, ringing cash registers, and businesses busily investing to keep up with their customers.
Who is right? Die-hard supply-siders insist that the Reagan tax cuts worked as planned—the payoff just didn't arrive until the mid-1990s! But the Bush administration's own budget office is predicting sizable deficits for the next several years. Maybe, like your friend, they believe the tax cuts will pay for themselves—but they're not banking on it. —Ellen Frank
The thought that lowing taxes increases the amount of tax collected is a myth.
Again,
Simply lowering taxes without lowering spending is a joke. The current adminsistration is a perfect example.

[never_fast_enuf]

Maybe you should post my entire response
Again,
Simply lowering taxes without lowering spending is a joke. The current adminsistration is a perfect example.
Can you tell me what democrat leader has called for lowering spending? How about voted for lowering spending? Unfortunately, when it comes to spending OUR money, neither party has a good track record. In this case, the republicans spend less but all that makes them is the cream of the crap.

[never_fast_enuf]

Can you tell me what democrat leader has called for lowering spending? How about voted for lowering spending? Unfortunately, when it comes to spending OUR money, neither party has a good track record. In this case, the republicans spend less but all that makes them is the cream of the crap.
I should have added the caveat concerning democrats and cutting spending...
"other than cutting spending for our national defense"

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I should have added the caveat concerning democrats and cutting spending...
"other than cutting spending for our national defense"
Let me start by saying that I am no more thrilled by the agenda of Democrats than I am with the current administration.
So you know, I am not an advocate of war, except under the most extreme circumstances. Democrats, talk of similar views in this regard. Beyond that I am fiscal conservative. I feel very strongly that the National Debt is fueled by over spending. I believe that many of this Country's social programs are terribly mismanaged, to the degree of extreme waste. I am not for a government run health program, I am not for amnesty for illegals, however, in a few parts of the Country, there is a need for the labor force provided by illegals, which further complicates the issue.
I appreciate those in the PRF who can discuss the issues without the leftist or neocon tags. Thankfully, my ego is not fed by what goes on in here. I have learned from others as I will hopefully do until my time on this earth is over. I am human and have made mistakes, here as well. I do my best to learn from my mistakes, so as not make the same mistake again.
If your only purpose here is to prove me wrong you no doubt will be able to from time to time.

[Old Texan]

If your only purpose here is to prove me wrong you no doubt will be able to from time to time.
:eek:
:D Sorry couldn't resist.......:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

:eek:
:D Sorry couldn't resist.......:D
:argue: :boxingguy :D

[never_fast_enuf]

Let me start by saying that I am no more thrilled by the agenda of Democrats than I am with the current administration.
I can tell you I am not too thrilled with any politician these days either.
As for finding you wrong, I just couldn't help myself. :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Let me start by saying that I am no more thrilled by the agenda of Democrats than I am with the current administration.
I can tell you I am not too thrilled with any politician these days either.
WRONG AGAIN!
:D :D