posted 05-26-2003 02:50 PM            

The liberals want to KEEP their pork barrel spending so they can buy votes from their constituency with my money and yours.

posted 05-26-2003 04:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
fact is 200 democrats and 50 senate democrats said screw you to the American people...a family of 3 will get 1200 bones...that's real money in the pockets of those who need it...

of course democrats don't care about people they care about spending the people's money...

facts are impossible to argue with shitoga~meister....

---

All Republicans sold out to the NWO

even Ron Paul!

Your best argument is that the other side is almost as corrupt.

Not as corrupt as the RNC!

For Republicans to scream corruption or sellout at anyone else is like the pot calling the teacup black.

Want to fix the problem with corrput special interest owned gov't?
All it takes is leaving the dark side and coming into the light.

Media keeps the truth quiet.

The bush girls are drug and alcohol addicted, so dubya is undoubtedly their daddy/ man in biological function only.

posted 05-26-2003 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
fact is 200 democrats and 50 senate democrats said screw you to the American people...a family of 3 will get 1200 bones...that's real money in the pockets of those who need it...

of course democrats don't care about people they care about spending the people's money...

facts are impossible to argue with shitoga~meister....

---

You speak truth when you say the facts are impossible to argue with Seekermon. Look at Shitoga's response to see the complete vacuous desperation of his position.

Instead of responding to the point, he says Republicans have joined the NWO (but he doesn't specify how)..

He says Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats (an obvious falsehood, given what we saw daily from the Clinton years and what we see daily from Democrats now) but again, he doesn't say his reasoning here (because there is no reasoning, we can only assume)...

Then he goes on a baseless attack of our president's children...

His response does epitomize the left though, and demonstrates exactly why they are losers and why they will loose in the next election. Nobody wants to put up with this level of extreme idiocy anymore....

posted 05-27-2003 06:05 PM            

BTW
about those borrow & spend Republicans
the Bush crime family:

$2.7 TRILLION SCAM http://www.etherzone.com/2003/henr051603.shtml

ENRON, WORLDCOM, OTHERS, ARE PIKERS

By: Ed Henry

Don't worry, forty-three percent of our horrendous
national debt is completely fraudulent and could be
eliminated tomorrow without consequence. All that has
to happen is that the Beltway Bandits suddenly become
honest or, in one way or another, honest people decide
to get rid of the bums, all of them.

Sounds preposterous, doesn't it? Well, it is. It's
preposterous that this has been allowed to continue
for as long as it has. It's preposterous that our national
debt has risen from practically nothing to an incredible
$6.4 trillion in the last twenty-five years.

It's also preposterous that the government is prosecuting
companies in the private sector for doing the same thing
that our lawmakers do on a much larger scale.

Ironically, the pirates turn to industrial reports, factory
figures, or the elements of the Gross Domestic Product
put forth by the same industrial giants who hide debt
and distort their financial position to show that "as a
percentage of GDP" our debt really isn't as bad as
it looks. Talk about students bringing apples
to the teacher.

Let's face a few facts:

Since taking office, George W. Bush has run up
the national debt $733 billion. And that's only from
January 31, 2001 until February 20, 2003, a little
over two years.

In the first year of the Bush term, fiscal 2001, the
government claimed to have the second largest surplus
in history—a surplus of $127.2 billion, all of it from
entitlements like Social Security's $98.7 billion
payroll tax overcharge in 2001.

On February 20, 2003, almost 90 days ago, three
months or one full quarter of the fiscal year, we hit
the national debt limit or ceiling of $6.4 trillion and the
government has not been able to borrow new money
since that time. That's a long time for borrowholics
to be on the wagon.

This fact has been ignored and underplayed by the
loyal media, watchdogs, think tanks, or those supposedly
watching our economy—probably because the government
told them to sit back, shut up, and wave their flags. We do
not want to appear financially weak during the invasion
and rebuilding of Iraq or display our dirty underwear
to a world population increasingly against us.

Amongst the false promises and government inability
to adhere to its own policies, the 1997 Balanced Budget
Act picked the year 2003 as the time when the government
would finally be able to live within its income, the almost
two trillion in taxes now provided annually by taxpayers.

It was the same popular Balanced Budget Act of 1997
that, unbeknown to most, included a raise of the national
debt limit to $5.95 trillion. This raise was inserted by John
Kasich (R-Ohio), Head of the House Budget Committee,
long before it was needed.

Shortly before or immediately after hitting the debt
limit on February 20th of this year, Congress could have
voted to raise the debt limit or placed such a raise into
other popular legislation for passage. They failed
to do so. Why?

The fact that the federal government has been able
to survive a full quarter without spending more than it
receives proves something, doesn't it? How long could
they go if they were truly cost conscious?

Every State in the union, every city and local government,
has been suffering from a lack of federal funding. Programs
included in the federal budget for fiscal 2003 have been cut
off at the knees.

Local governments have already bitten the bullet by cutting
essential programs, including Homeland Security, since the
money for these programs went into the invasion of Iraq.
(See: New York Times article of May 8, 2003, and one
from the Washington Times on May 14, 2003.)

We have a trade deficit of more than $500 billion that
will skyrocket even more due to the boycotting of American
products across the world including our strongest allies where
more than 80 percent of the populations of Britain, Spain,
and Australia were against our invasion of Iraq.

Does anyone know what it cost us to buy the "coalition
of the willing" that includes many small nations mumbled
to be somewhere between 40 and 60 supporters?

We have a weakening position of the dollar against
the Euro. Last reports were that it takes $1.15 US to
buy one Euro.

Debt limits became law in 1968 as a means to force
the federal government to live within its revenue, to
balance its budgets. It has never worked.

Laughably, the debt limit was supposed to make it
embarrassing for a politician to stand before Congress and
ask for a borrowing increase. Can you beat that?
Begging for

money is a prerequisite of political life in our country.

The borrowholics of Washington have no compunction
about using their constitutionally authorized "emergency"
credit card to run up the national debt and place more
and more burden on our children and grandchildren.
This applies to democrats and republicans alike.

Paul O'Neill resigned as Secretary of the Treasury
and Mitch Daniels recently resigned as head of the Office
of Management and Budgets (OMB) the president's
budgetary advisor.

As usual, the spin claims these gentlemen left to spend
more time with their families and, in the case of Mr. Daniels,
includes the new twist of a possible running for governor
of Indiana. But it's beginning to look a lot like rats
leaving a sinking ship.

Deeper meaning.

We now have estimates of deficits in the hundreds
of billions per year and these so-called deficits do not
include the money stolen from entitlements like Social
Security's surplus that are included in budgets as "off
budget" revenue but increase the national debt.

If entitlement overcharges are included in the budget,
then they cannot be considered "over budget." How's
that for crooking the books and hiding debt
Enron style?

Contrary to the propaganda, surpluses are not gone.
Entitlements have always accounted for the major if not
the only portion of any government surplus. In fiscal 2000,
Social Security alone produced a surplus of $94.5 billion.

In 2001 it was $98.7 billion. And in fiscal 2002, even
with high unemployment, it was still an $89 billion surplus/
overcharge or what could be called profit. And all of this
came from an organization supposedly "in trouble."

In the same years, all nineteen entitlements together
accounted for surpluses of $149.8 billion, $160.7 billion,
and $149.0 billion respectively.

President Bush talks about the "double taxation" involved
in dividend taxes, but it's nothing compared to the double
taxation involved in the working man's entitlement taxes.

Companies pay taxes on their profits. Then when they
declare dividends to investors, the investors pay a capital
gains tax on the money they receive. These are not the
same people paying the same tax. It's more like paying
sales tax on a used car after the person who bought it
new paid the first tax. Charging sales tax every time
a car is resold wasn't always a tax.

If the president wanted a real stimulus to the troubled
economy he would cut payroll taxes. If he really wanted
people to go out and spend more, he would help the
American workers who supposedly account for two
thirds of the economic growth in our economy.

But the federal government is never going to give up
the slush funds they've painstakingly developed, the rip-
off of every worker's retirement and health care money
plus what's taken from seventeen other entitlements
from unemployment taxes to military retirement.

Here's what happens.

The government pretends to borrow every cent of
surplus entitlement money. It's all a big pretense and
fraudulent game they play. Actually, it's outright theft
and we are buying debt with every surplus cent
we give them.

The American worker might just as well walk into the
U.S. Treasury, plunk down a handful of money and say;
here, give me some debt.

The federal government spends and plans to spend every
surplus entitlement dollar that comes into the Treasury and
do so as fast as it comes in. Then, wanting the public to
believe that it's possible to both spend and save the same
money, they deposit certificates of obligation in a fund
that they call a "trust fund" but actually hasn't the slightest
resemblance to a real bonifide fiduciary activity dealing
with the stewardship of property.

It's a debit black hole containing nothing but debt.

Periodically, these certificates of deposit are rolled over
into "special obligation" nonmarketable U.S. Treasury bonds
as well as tacking on about six percent annual interest paid
against the previous year's balance just to make the
"borrowing" appear authentic.

Interest is figured on a five year model of the interest
paid real long term bonds sold investors on the honest side
of the national debt. A side that deals entirely with investor
loans but is deliberately mislabeled "Public Debt" (it should
be called Investor Debt) to make you believe it's the
only side for which the public is responsible.

Interest is also paid entitlements by simply handing
the "trust" more bogus bonds, no real money whatsoever
involved. Interest is paid the Social Security trust fund in
December and June. Last year, fiscal 2002, the Social
Security trust was paid $64.3 billion by simply handing
the distrust fund more debt. Isn't that nice?

Last year, the crisis over the national debt ceiling of
$5.95 trillion was due entirely to the semi-annual interest
due the Social Security trust—what the authorities confess
is a bookkeeping effort. Since this interest raises the national
debt substantially, it was essential the debt limit be raised
during June. On the very last working day, Friday, June
28th, the debt limit was raised to $6.4 trillion and
the crisis was over.

There is currently $2.7 trillion in bogus bonds in the
fraudulent Intragovernmental Holdings portion of the
national debt. The words "Intragovernmental Holdings"
are another misnomer to make you believe that the
government owes itself or that somehow the
government is going to pay this off without taxpayer
money”an absolute impossibility. This should be
called "Entitlement Debt."

Ninety-three percent of the "holdings" are in the
nineteen different entitlement black hole accounts
with Social Security being the largest at a current $1.3
trillion or 21.7 percent of the national debt all by itself.

The other seven percent is in perks for judges and
government employees. Simply name a trust, deposit
some bogus nonmarketable bonds in it, and when you
need real money take it from the Treasury's general
fund of recent taxpayer dollars or money borrowed
from investors. (See: Trust Fund List)

Economists have continually claimed that if the poor dears
in Washington ever have to turn to the Social Security trust
fund for money, they will be faced with the tough decision
to either (1) raise taxes (2) borrow from investors (3)
cut benefits, or any combination thereof.

These are the normal options of government in raising
and managing revenue whether there is a trust fund or not.
In other words, the trust fund is meaningless and useless
except as a means of double taxation.

The only single purpose of these fraudulent
"Intragovernmental Holdings" is that they allow
the Beltway Bandits to withdraw money from the
U.S. Treasury without having to vote on it. They
do not require legislation if the entitlement
needs money.

We've had confessions right from the horse's mouth,
from President Clinton and heads of the Congressional
Budget Office, that this is nothing more than a
bookkeeping scam.

But we also have Alan Greenspan of the Federal
Reserve telling us that "the only thing that matters is
that it's enforceable." When called on, revenue will come
out of the Treasury's general fund even if it takes all of
the operating cash for that year or forces more honest
borrowing from investors.

And this is happening right now, today, with the
Unemployment trust fund, the Airport & Airways trust,
the Highway trust fund, and several others. With today's
income taxes, we are repaying money that was already
paid once before by someone else.

Without its credit card, without the ability to substitute
money borrowed from investors, the government is forced
to cut existing programs. There has been no other choice
for the last three months.

When it happens with Social Security it will be the
same people who paid the tax in the first place, their
children or grandchildren, who will be paying the tax again,
plus interest. That's real double taxation, plain and
simple.

The federal government will never give up this scam.
It's up to the victims to take action.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication
allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Ed Henry is the founder of TUFF, the Taxpayers Union,
and a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Ed Henry can be reached at ctzcrank@mindspring.com

Ed's FREE pamphlet-"To The Moon, Alice" the national
debt, your Social Security, and the Pay-It-Again
Sam scam.

We also invite you to visit his website at www.uncle-scam.com

Not my words Bush minions.
burn your crosses in their yards, for posting the truth,

Ain't nothing "quiet" except the biased media's coverups.

posted 05-28-2003 10:29 PM            

Bush Signs Tax Cut Bill

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

WASHINGTON — For the third time since taking office, President Bush signed a tax cut measure Wednesday to put money back into the pockets of individual taxpayers, investors and small business owners.

"By ensuring that Americans have more to spend, to save and to invest, this legislation is adding fuel to an economic recovery. We have taken aggressive action to strengthen the foundation of our country so that every American who wants to work will be able to find a job," Bush said during an East Room signing ceremony where he was flanked by congressional lawmakers who led the push in Congress, as well as Treasury Secretary John Snow, who lobbied on behalf of the White House.

With the signing of the 10-year, $330 billion tax cut (search), the third largest in history, the president is on track to fulfill his goal of signing a tax cut every year that he's in office. He signed a $1.3 trillion measure in 2001 and a $96 billion tax cut bill last fall.

Wednesday's tax cut measure will go into effect in July, when payroll checks will get a little bigger, reflecting reduced income tax rates that were not expected to go down until 2004 and 2006. Investor earnings will also increase as a result of a cut in dividend and capital gains tax cuts.

The president recited several examples of the amount of refunds average Americans would receive. He said that in July, 25 million families will begin receiving checks of $400 per child as part of the child tax credit accelerated in the bill.

"Tax relief matters a lot to the average citizen here in America. This tax bill will make it easy for moms and dads to save for their children's education, and that is vitally important for this country," Bush said.

The president's primary objective with the tax cuts is to create jobs, which he hopes will happen when people immediately pump money back into the economy. Saying tax cuts are more important than deficits, the administration is operating under the premise that with more jobs will come more tax revenues for the government.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that economic numbers continue to show unevenness, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (search) will give the boost needed to increase growth. New home sales were up last month but purchases of durable goods dropped.

"We continue to see mixed signs in the economy, and this tax cut comes at a very propitious moment in terms of being able to create opportunities for jobs and growth in the economy. It's a well-timed tax cut package," Fleischer said.

But Democrats say the $330 billion tax cuts will cost the government several times more than that. They say Republican congressional members are already trying to repeal the sunset provisions on some of the cuts, which are set to expire in just three to four years, and argue the president's tax cuts won't recover the more than 2 million jobs that have been lost since Bush took office.

If the president does get a second term, he is likely to rally Congress to extend some of the bill's provisions. But Fleischer was reluctant to make that promise on this day.

"In the future, the president will, of course, provide new budgets that may have ideas in them. Generally speaking, as an overall matter, the president believes that the more permanency in the tax code, the better. But the president wants to welcome today as the day of real progress in the code," Fleischer said.

The bill also provides $20 billion to help states deal with lower revenues and to pay for Medicaid expenses.

Wednesday's ceremony follows a much less public bill signing Tuesday, when the president raised the federal debt ceiling by $984 billion to nearly $7.4 trillion, in part to compensate the increasing deficit (search), expected to pass $300 billion this year.

Earlier in the day and also without fanfare, the president signed into law a measure that extends unemployment insurance an additional six months for those still unable to find jobs who have exhausted their state benefits. Unemployed workers in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, where unemployment is higher than the national average, will get 26 weeks.

While the president has often said he inherited a faltering economy, starting with a recession in 2001 during the first three quarters of his presidency, Democrats say that with the tax cuts, the president clearly owns the ailing economy now.

That is something Democrats hope to capitalize on during election season, as they argue the president's tax cuts will have helped only the wealthy, who benefit from capital gains and dividend cuts more than lower income taxpayers.

Republican officials dismiss those arguments as a class warfare fight that no longer works.

Fox News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.

posted 05-29-2003 12:40 AM            

Tax bill gets proviso for big SUV break.
by Joseph Szczesny       5/26/2003

An expanded tax break for sport-utility vehicles — included in the new tax package that President George Bush will sign into law this week — has come under fire from conservationists.

The bill, which cleared the U.S. Senate Friday by one vote, includes a special provision that allows small business and professionals who have incorporated for tax purposes to deduct up to $100,000 when they purchase any vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds.
The weight limit excludes several popular pickup trucks and SUVs. The bill also expedites the tax savings for depreciation by allowing small businesses to write off the full cost of their vehicles in the first year of ownership.

Detroit supports

The auto industry, which had been supportive of the President's tax package, had basically favored a broader change that would have allowed more vehicles to qualify for the deduction.

The existing deduction in the current law is $25,000 and President Bush initially had proposed increasing the deduction to $75,000 but the final draft of the bill called for $100,000 deduction, much to the consternation of conservationists.

"Including in the tax cut package a four-fold increase in the already egregious tax break for some SUV purchases - particularly while a comprehensive energy bill languishes in the Senate - is a poor way to make tax or energy policy," according to the Alliance to Save Energy, of Washington, D.C.

"By supporting a new $100,000 tax deduction for small business owners who purchase gas-guzzling SUVs and Hummers, Congress is sending the harmful message that it's okay to waste oil and to rip off U.S. taxpayers," said Alliance President David M. Nemtzow.

Ronnie Kweller, spokeswoman for the Alliance to Save Energy, noted the provision was originally included in the tax bill to help farmers, craftsman and contractors. It was never intended to help sell luxury SUVs, she said.

"It seems unnecessary," added Meagan Owens of the Ann Arbor-based Public Interest Research Group in Michigan. "I have difficulty understanding the justification for it," added Owens, who noted most work-ready, heavy duty trucks and SUVs cost nowhere near $100,000.

"They're a lot more vehicles closer to the bottom end of the range than top," Owens  said.

"The tax package is supposed to stimulate the economy and help small businesses afford equipment such as computers and machinery.  But instead, this huge tax loophole for luxury vehicles would loot the U.S. Treasury," Nemtzow said.

Kweller added it would have made more sense to use tax credits to encourage consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, she added.

Billion-dollar break

The new tax deduction could save taxpayers as much as $1 billion, according to some estimates.

Several cash-strapped states, however, have begun to enact legislation that would neutralize parts of the tax break, according to Reuters.

Oregon state Sen. Charlie Ringo said his "nullification" bill had passed two key House committees and noted that the New York and California legislatures were moving similar bills.

Meanwhile, the auto industry also is pushing for tax breaks for energy-efficient vehicle. The tax breaks would bolster the commercial viability of new technologies.

Executives from General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have said that fuel efficiency tax credits could help in stimulate demand for hybrid vehicles, which draw power from both electric motors and gasoline engines.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=6055

posted 07-04-2003 04:43 PM            

eat your heart out shitoga....

"Since that September day," he said, "we made our own intentions clear to them: The United States will not stand by and wait for another attack or trust in the restraint and good intentions of evil men."

"We will not permit any terrorist group or outlaw regime to threaten us with weapons of mass murder," he told a cheering crowd of mostly military servicemen and women and their families. "We will act whenever necessary to protect the lives and liberty of the American people."

hear hear !

posted 07-04-2003 05:00 PM            

a man!

In the best Log Cabin Republican tradition.

Really cute female sitting there and Dubya behaves like Fallwell and grabs a man.

posted 07-04-2003 09:48 PM            

FW claims the following is departing from a mind?

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Your dear w is holding the hand of:

a man!

In the best Log Cabin Republican tradition.

Really cute female sitting there and Dubya behaves like Fallwell and grabs a man.

Here:
Drool on RW fags and leave us real people alone for awhile:
http://www.tonywhite.net/Goeduck.htm

---

whatsamatta FW?

Did the link to
http://www.tonywhite.net/Goeduck.htm
get you too excited?

Predictable
>As said before, newcomers to the geoduck phenomenon cannot fail to note the creature's resemblance to the most proud of human male parts. One need hardly imagine that the men seeing this can only but dream of what they might have been… while their wives or girlfriends dream the same dreams also… perhaps even more so. <

The rest of US hav enot that hangup that you conservatives have.
We who are secure in ourselves have not those dreams Fallwell and the rest of the RW fags have.

Our sympathy.

posted 07-06-2003 01:15 PM            

You actually visit links and read articles before posting a response.

Are they real?

My source (in Seattle) claims they are for real.
she is amused.
I am not impressed.

FW is too tongue swelled up to respond or too partisan to even visit a link.

If they were all like that?
Eating clams could become too disgusting to many of us.
Libbers should appreciate the 'geo-ducks' however.

Rocky mountain oysters anyone?

Good surf and turf combo for FW/imho.

I treat dates to gator tail and lobster and eat freid clams with no thought to source until those pics got e=mailed to me.

Bleech!!!

GW's 1970's pats on the arse are now suspect however.

what was he thinking.
Now: what is he/them/it thinking?

Delusional perverted

don't really want to know!