| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
merkyl |
|||
|
Because spending and income are two different things. I see you can't wrap your retarded head around that. I'm going to officially declare you are
indeed more of an idiot than UC. Congrats!!
|
|||
rugslug |
|||
memyselfandi wrote:Warm it up Kris! |
|||
bob2559 |
|||
merkyl wrote: Give it up, merkyl. Glazer is yet another lib who is totally unable to see anything beyond his D=good, R=bad viewpoint, trying to argue with him is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing. Actually, the pig would probably have a more open mind than glazer. |
|||
youfist |
|||
bob2559 wrote: add Rliiss and Urban Peado to this list, thanks in advance |
|||
Pahrump Mania |
|||
memyselfandi wrote:Another good call |
|||
Archimedes |
|||
Pahrump Mania wrote: Didn't Glenn Beck rape and murder some girl? |
|||
B DeBrun |
|||
|
Here we go again:
|
|||
GregBuisIsADick |
|||
bob2559 wrote: Yeah, so unlike your heavily nuanced R=good, D=bad viewpoint. Oi. |
|||
PassionatePiscesMan |
|||
|
He cums the fucking war tax on the middle class you dumbass Obamatrards
Call it "pay as you fight." After months of listening to conservatives caterwaul over deficits and health care, senior House Democrats want a graduated surtax on individuals and corporations to pay for another big drain on the treasury: the Afghanistan war. Three full committee chairmen - including the House's top tax writer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) - are backing the initiative together with the chair of the party caucus, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), and close allies of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The speaker has been silent thus far, and many dismiss the idea as more rhetoric than real legislation. But with President Barack Obama due to make a final decision soon on adding more U.S. troops, the initiative testifies to the growing restlessness among Democrats over the costs of the American commitment in Afghanistan. Today's jobless rate - far worse than during the height of the Vietnam War in the '60s - adds to this angst. And Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who oversees the Pentagon's budget and supports the surtax, went so far as to send Obama last month a copy of Yale historian Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." U.S. military spending in Afghanistan had reached $3.6 billion a month this summer - or more than $43 billion a year, according to estimates by the Congressional Research Service. And in the course of meeting with lawmakers, Obama has used a rough measuring stick that every 1,000 troops added will add another $1 billion to this annual basis. "We're not trying to insult anybody. We're just trying to keep in the forefront what the financial costs are," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told POLITICO. "We felt conscience bound to speak up" "It's conditional, but if we're going to add 40,000 troops, people ought to know what the costs are," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "It's important for people to understand how these wars are adding to our deficits." Dubbed the "Share the Sacrifice Act," the six-page bill exempts anyone who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan since the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as families who have lost an immediate relative in the fighting. But middle-class households earning between $30,000 and $150,000 would be asked to pay 1% on top of their tax liability today - a more sweeping approach than many Democrats have been willing to embrace. By comparison, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has spoken only of an added tax on the wealthy. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) remains hesitant about any surtax to cover the war: "Someone has to demonstrate how it can be done," he told POLITICO in a statement Monday. |
|||
Charming Nemesis |
|||
B DeBrun wrote: O-bow-mao |
|||
glazerboy |
|||
youfist wrote:Pot, kettle, all of you. Pointless to talk about either income OR spending without including the other. You can make a million a year but if you are spending 1.5 million you are fucked. And people can gasp at your paying 100k for a new car until they find out you make 500k a year. See the connection, dipshits? |
|||
DelosWorld |
|||
glazerboy wrote: If the Repubs got booted for their excessive spending what will happen to the poor Dems who want to spend multiple times more money? A lot of the Dems that replaced Repubs ran to the right to displace them. The same thing will happen to Obama who effectively ran to the right of McCain on many issues related to spending and taxation. (Not a dime of tax increases, remember?) What matters is income and spending, and looking at that graph posted previously doesn't bode well for the present Congress or Obama.
|
|||
DelosWorld |
|||
Charming Nemesis wrote: Obama is not bowing to these foreign %#%+%. Everything they say always sounds like gibberish and Obama is simply bending over to try and hear what they are saying more clearly. |
|||
Beefcake |
|||
|
Learn some English, stoopid foreigners!!!!
It's God's language. |
|||
skydivesq |
|||
Pahrump Mania wrote: Where's memy to apologize? *crickets* BTW, census worker was a total tool. Hung himself so that it was obvious he could have stood up if he wanted to and taping his glasses to his head so that he could right "Fed" upside down. |
|||
Charming Nemesis |
|||
|
Angelina Jolie: No Fan of Obama? Posted By Big Hollywood On November 24, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
Could this [1] be true?
Could this be some kind of watershed moment where one of Hollywood's most popular and beautiful stars, an Academy Award winner, no longer fears retribution from the Hollywood Left for saying such things … out loud? Wouldn't be the first time Jolie went against the leftist grain. In February of 2008, when most of her Hollywood colleagues called for abandoning the Iraqi people - Cambodian Holocaust 2: The Middle East - this [2] breath of mature, compassionate air appeared in the Washington Post. |
|||
PoChop |
|||
|
I wish Angelina Jolie would adopt me.
Was she invited to tonight's state dinner at the WH? |
|||
CBRetriever |
|||
Charming Nemesis wrote: and he concedes again
|
|||
bob2559 |
|||
|
It was a longshot, but after the absentee ballots are all counted he'll still be 1500-2000 votes shy. Come November, it will be a different story though.
Really too bad, Congress needs more independents.
|
|||
Goosehead |
|||
|
What are you guys talk'n aboot in here?
|
|||