House (Republicans) Vote 216-214 To Cut Benefits To Poor, Elderly and Students

[Bronco_Beerslug]

In the guise of deficit reduction. A grand farce really. Bush continues setting spending records while republicans continue the tax cuts for the rich.

And the cut represents a whole one half of one percent of the 14 trillion plus federal spending over the next five years.
-------------------------------------------------------
Budget Cuts Pass By a Slim Margin
Poor, Elderly and Students to Feel Pinch

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 2, 2006; Page A01

The House yesterday narrowly approved a contentious budget-cutting package that would save nearly $40 billion over five years by imposing substantial changes on programs including Medicaid, welfare, child support and student lending.

With its presidential signature all but assured, the bill represents the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans. Women on welfare are likely to face longer hours of work, education or community service to qualify for their checks. Recipients of Medicaid can expect to face higher co-payments and deductibles, especially on expensive prescription drugs and emergency room visits for non-emergency care. More affluent seniors will find it far more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-covered nursing care.

College students could face higher interest rates when their banks get squeezed by the federal government. And some cotton farmers will find support payments nicked. State-led efforts to force deadbeat parents to pay their child support may also have to be curtailed.

Yesterday's 216 to 214 vote, largely along party lines, gave a much-needed boost to President Bush, who is trying to reassert his control over domestic policy despite a series of legislative setbacks and near-record-low approval ratings. Bush had pushed many of the changes since he unveiled his 2006 budget proposal a year ago.

Thirteen Republicans joined 200 Democrats and one independent in voting against the measure. All Republican House members from Maryland and Virginia voted for the measure, while all Democrats voted against it.

The victory was seen by some as helpful to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on the eve of a leadership election that he hopes will elevate him to House majority leader. A defeat could have rekindled questions over Blunt's ability to round up votes and manage the House floor.

Republican leaders said passage was a critical step toward containing the runaway growth of entitlement programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, that threaten to consume the budget as baby boomers begin to retire. "American taxpayers, and anyone concerned with the nation's long-term fiscal stability, have won a great victory today," said House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (Ohio).

But Democrats blasted the White House and Republicans for allowing states to reduce Medicaid coverage and boost fees for Medicaid programs for the poor and disabled at the same time the president is calling for making permanent tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

The fight over the bill exposed deep divisions between conservative Republicans who drove many of the policy changes and some GOP moderates worried that the cuts hit the poor too hard. The House passed the measure at 6:07 a.m. on Dec. 19 after a grueling night of last-minute negotiations. Vice President Cheney cast the tie-breaking vote Dec. 22 to secure passage in the Senate by the narrowest of margins, but Democrats were able to make minor changes, forcing yesterday's House vote.

That gave opponents more than a month to pressure House moderates to reconsider their votes, and it allowed new analyses to surface. In recent days, separate Congressional Budget Office documents estimated that Medicaid changes would impose new costs on 13 million poor recipients and end insurance coverage for 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, that cuts to federal child-support enforcement funds would shift costs to the states and eliminate billions of dollars in child-support payments, and that changes made to the Senate-passed budget package saved private Medicare insurers $22 billion over 10 years.

Those reports reinvigorated Democratic charges that the budget measure exemplified a congressional culture that protects the moneyed interests and their well-connected lobbyists at the expense of the unrepresented poor.

"This bill is Exhibit A for special interests and lobbyists writing legislation behind closed doors at the expense of the ordinary citizen," Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said yesterday.

But with the federal budget deficit expected to rise again this year, to around $360 billion, Republicans implored their members to take what Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) called "this first step toward long-term, fiscal discipline and fiscal health for our government."

The impact of the bill on the deficit is likely to be negligible, slicing less than one-half of 1 percent from the estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. As the House debated the budget-cutting measure, the Senate moved to begin final negotiations with the House on a package of tax cuts and extension of expiring tax cuts that could cost up to $60 billion over five years, more than negating the savings from the budget bill.

"I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending in December to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now turn around a short while later to provide tax cuts that exceed or cancel out the reduction in spending," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said yesterday, as the Senate took up a procedural motion that would allow tax-cut negotiations to begin. "We cannot afford these tax cuts."

The policy changes in the budget legislation are significant. The bill allows state governments to impose new co-payments and deductibles on Medicaid recipients, a power sought by governors of both political parties to try to slow the exploding costs of the health program. It makes it far more difficult for middle- and upper-income seniors to attain Medicaid coverage for nursing care by transferring assets to family members, then pleading poverty.

The bill will end federal payments to the states for the administration of child-support enforcement efforts. It will allow some interest rates on student loans to rise and fall with the market, squeezing student lenders and, in some cases, college students. And it will make changes to the basic welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, that would push states to tighten work requirements for women on assistance, a provision pushed hard by the administration for nearly four years.

It will also raise billions of dollars through an auction of the broadcast spectrum that will facilitate the spread of digital television while reserving more space for emergency response broadcasts.

And it will repeal a law -- considered illegal under international trade rules -- that directs payments of some import duties to the companies impacted by unfair trade practices. Instead, those duties will go to the U.S. Treasury.
http://tinyurl.com/ahen7

[Mile High Shack]

so, oh great and wise knowing one

where do you suggest the cuts come from?

[Rascal]

He doesn't propose any cuts, he proposes to raise your taxes instead. Screw that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He doesn't propose any cuts, he proposes to raise your taxes instead. Screw that.

I do? Where did I say that? Or are you talking out your arse again?

[Mile High Shack]

I do? Where did I say that? Or are you talking out your arse again?

what's your solution then?

you bitch about not giving enough to fund the Iraq war and then when we do (I assume some of that increase is due to armor and all of that) you bitch about spending too much

you bitch the government (federal) didn't do enough to aid Katrina....when they do, you bitch that it is too much

you bitch that the government cut student loan money...this article proves I was right, not the money, just how much money the banks get, but you still bitch about it

do you have any solutions or are you just bitching b/c you are a sad bitter person?

[Rascal]

no slug is just a bitch hence the reason slug bitches...LOL

[TailgateNut]

How about we DON"T SPEND $250,000,000,000 (Billion) on the wasted efford AKA the war in Iraq, with another $120,000,000,000 (Billion) earmarked for this year!
That's 7.4 Billion avg from each state. I feel sorry for my children and future grandchildren, who will have to foot the bill for Bush and Co's spending habits!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

what's your solution then?

you b**** about not giving enough to fund the Iraq war and then when we do (I assume some of that increase is due to armor and all of that) you b**** about spending too much

you b**** the government (federal) didn't do enough to aid Katrina....when they do, you b**** that it is too much

you b**** that the government cut student loan money...this article proves I was right, not the money, just how much money the banks get, but you still b**** about it

do you have any solutions or are you just b****ing b/c you are a sad bitter person?


Links? Or are you just trying generalize and throw sh*t out there? I know exactly what I've said and haven't said.

[Mile High Shack]

How about we DON"T SPEND $250,000,000,000 (Billion) on the wasted efford AKA the war in Iraq, with another $120,000,000,000 (Billion) earmarked for this year!
That's 7.4 Billion avg from each state. I feel sorry for my children and future grandchildren, who will have to foot the bill for Bush and Co's spending habits!

so your suggestion is to pull up stake and leave

whether or not going in was right or not, is moot at this point in time

we need to finish the job, it will be a worse mess if we just pull up and leave right now

those funds are necessary unfortunately

[Mile High Shack]

Links? Or are you just trying generalize and throw sh*t out there? I know exactly what I've said and haven't said.

links?

I don't need no stinkin' links ;)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

links?

I don't need no stinkin' links ;)
Well, of course not because that would invalidate your argument of my views. :thumbsup:

But I'll play and then you can write down your solutions.

Iraq is a nothing but a sieve of lost and wounded Americans and money now. We leave this year and let the radical religious dirt bags over there fight it out among themselves (something they'll do whether we are there or not).

Put back in place the tax on America's rich that Bush rescinded.

Take away Bush's magical spending pen that has and is leading this country to bankruptcy.

Take the money from Iraq and secure our borders and invest in alternative and renewable energies (which would start bringing returns back immediately in the form of new technolgy research and corporations).

Terminate the Missile Defense Shield program (ICBMs trying to shoot down ICBMs).



Just a start but it would get us moving in the right direction.

[TailgateNut]

so your suggestion is to pull up stake and leave

whether or not going in was right or not, is moot at this point in time

we need to finish the job, it will be a worse mess if we just pull up and leave right now

those funds are necessary unfortunately

No we can't just pull up stake and leave, but we need to throw out the "garbage". Those who mis-manage, mis-appropriate funds, mis-lead the public need to be fired, jailed, exposed, and impeached! I'm tired of hearing this BS about how well we are doing, when reality is the exact opposite.
39%(+-) of the public is still cheering for the chimp! Unbelievable! I'll bet that number decreases as mid term elections approach!

[Mile High Shack]

No we can't just pull up stake and leave, but we need to throw out the "garbage". Those who mis-manage, mis-appropriate funds, mis-lead the public need to be fired, jailed, exposed, and impeached! I'm tired of hearing this BS about how well we are doing, when reality is the exact opposite.
39%(+-) of the public is still cheering for the chimp! Unbelievable! I'll bet that number decreases as mid term elections approach!

do fairies still leave their magic pixie dust in the world you live in too?

lord you sound young

[TailgateNut]

do fairies still leave their magic pixie dust in the world you live in too?

lord you sound young

1.No fairies only live in Bush's world.
2.What makes you think I'm young?
3.FYI, I didn't dodge my commitments to this country like "your fearless leader did".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

no slug is just a b**** hence the reason slug b****es...LOL

He wasn't duped into voting for the drunken moron that got us into the mess we're in today, so we know he's at least one step ahead of you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Iraq is a nothing but a sieve of lost and wounded Americans and money now. We leave this year and let the radical religious dirt bags over there fight it out among themselves (something they'll do whether we are there or not).

Put back in place the tax on America's rich that Bush rescinded.

Take away Bush's magical spending pen that has and is leading this country to bankruptcy.

Take the money from Iraq and secure our borders and invest in alternative and renewable energies (which would start bringing returns back immediately in the form of new technolgy research and corporations).

Terminate the Missile Defense Shield program (ICBMs trying to shoot down ICBMs).

Just a start but it would get us moving in the right direction.

Cue more b*tching from the bushbots about how "the left doesn't have any solutions."

But I'll play and then you can write down your solutions.

:laugh:

We already know what their "solution" is going to be:

"Stay the course" (since King George is never wrong and never makes mistakes.)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

do you have any solutions or are you just b****ing b/c you are a sad bitter person?

I'm a happy, loyal patriot b*tching about what every American with a half a noodle should be b*tching about.
You must have forgot to give us your solutions for cleaning up this Bush mess. So what are they?

[Garcia Bronco]

Less Federal Government...

Pell Grants...the most I ever got out of a Pell Grant was 200 dollars 12 years ago in College....whoo hooo!!...That took me far. I think I spent it all in one place.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Less Federal Government...

Yeah, Bush is all about less federal government.

:giggle:

[Spider]

we couldnt afford to do Nation building in Iraq , Bush knew this , so now all you Fúckers that voted for Bush put us in this hole , we all want milk and honey , but we dont want to pay for it ............
How in the fúck can you be in a war and not raise taxes ? I know lets send the troops over there with no body armor , and poorly armored humvees ,after all fúck the troops , they dont need armor , bastards should learn to move faster ........... funny when it comes to taxes the narrow view of some ...........
Support the troops send baby wipes thats all they need .............

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

we couldnt afford to do Nation building in Iraq , Bush knew this , so now all you Fúckers that voted for Bush put us in this hole , we all want milk and honey , but we dont want to pay for it ............
How in the fúck can you be in a war and not raise taxes ? I know lets send the troops over there with no body armor , and poorly armored humvees ,after all fúck the troops , they dont need armor , bastards should learn to move faster ........... funny when it comes to taxes the narrow view of some ...........
Support the troops send baby wipes thats all they need .............

Bingo.

The pinhead and his brain-dead followers are always going on and on about how "we're at war, we're at war," but America has never tried to fight a war while giving massive tax cuts to its wealthiest citizens before.

The corporations, millionaires, and billionaires would get along just fine without these hundreds of billions in tax cuts. If Dim Son really wanted to turn the economy around, he'd ask his super-rich friends to give something back to the system that made it possible for them to get fat to begin with. As things stand now, these f_ckers are enjoying all of the spoils of war while ordinary Americans and the middle class take on all of the sacrifices.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Fiscal discipline on the backs of the needy
OUR OPINION: REJECT BUDGET BILL IN FAVOR OF MORE SENSIBLE SAVINGS

The so-called Deficit Reduction Act is a prime example of how good intentions become laws that favor special interests at the expense of vulnerable populations that don't have high-priced lobbyists. This budget bill (S 1932) should have included more-sensible spending cuts, called for by the Senate, in both Medicare and Medicaid. Instead, lawmakers chose House provisions that promise greater hardship for needy beneficiaries and higher costs for local communities.

Deficit to grow

Adding insult to injury, the budget bill won't reduce the deficit with its projected $38.8 billion in savings over five years. Pending tax-cut measures that will cost between $60 billion to $95 billion over five years not only will wipe out any savings but actually increase the deficit.

These priorities are out of whack. That's why the House, which has scheduled a final vote on the Deficit Reduction Act today, should reject the bill and send it back to a conference committee for retooling.

As it stands, the budget bill will raise healthcare costs for millions of Medicaid beneficiaries. It will add stringent rules that will disqualify many seniors from Medicaid nursing-home coverage. And it cuts programs that help states collect child-support payments and pay for foster care. One provision would require all U.S. citizens to provide a birth certificate or passport or be dropped from Medicaid. This alone will cause hardship, if not, in fact, disqualify people who lost their papers in Katrina and other disasters, as well as many elderly Southern blacks who never were given birth certificates.

The cuts in Medicare and Medicaid alone account for more than half of the bill's savings over 10 years. But those savings do not consider the added expenses that will be borne by local hospitals and taxpayers who pick up the tab for people who will end up in the emergency room because they can't afford the co-payments for preventive care or those cut from Medicaid altogether.

Industry pressure

Particularly galling were the closed-door negotiations that eliminated sensible Senate provisions. Pushed by health insurers, House and Senate conferees diluted provisions to curb overpayments to HMOs that cover Medicare beneficiaries. Thus, $22 billion in potential savings over 10 years were given back to HMOs. Another Senate provision would have cut Medicaid's prescription-drug costs. Opposed by the pharmaceutical industry and pharmacists, it was diluted by $7.5 billion.

House lawmakers should reject the budget bill and insist that these Senate provisions be restored. Other provisions that will increase the ranks of the uninsured should be axed. Congress also should pare down the tax cuts. Fiscal discipline mustn't come only at the expense of the poor and infirm.
http://tinyurl.com/82q4j

[defenseman]

You must stop with the banter. We are in Iraq, for the duration. Simple. Accept it. Move on. To pull out now would permanently injure the entire country for a lot longer than finishing the job. That said, find me a democrat who can stand up to the heat. Forget Clinton, ain't happenin, she's a woman and the american people aren't ready for that......keep in mind she needs correct ALL THE SHORTCOMINGS you say the bush admin has. Present her, and lets see how she is going to correct the problem. I want to hear some "problem solving" and quit being "part of the problem". There is alot of people in the country that are comfortable "pointing fingers" instead of sitting back, identifying the real problem, and coming up with a solution. Whats your solution? Lets hear it. And, impeaching the Prez isn't a fix. Expend energy really coming up with a way to fix the problem is the solution. You have the floor, let's hear it....dman

[Rascal]

IMO the first thing that should be done is eliminate the tax returns but not increasing taxes either. After that see how much money we are short off and then go after the programs that have not met their goals, are wasteful, etc and cut them. If still short then I say we bite the bullet till we get out of Iraq, but that will be a 22 bullet instead of a tank round.

I've already written my congressman telling him to **** can the idea of tax returns.

[defenseman]

Interesting. A detailed breakdown of what happens to a tax "dollar" may be required from where I sit. Where does $1.00 of our taxes go, today? I am in total agreement on the above. I believe that we as americans can sustain a good quality of life if we all were required to give a small % in taxes every year to the gov and don't bother with filing unless you've got a reason to file. The only reason to file is , you haven't paid all of your taxes. Get rid of the off shore tax free accts, it's all reportable as income based on the fact that you are an american citizen. I also believe that business, whether large or small, and commerce is absolutely imperative to a thriving economy. How they would be affected , I am still contemplating, however, the large tax breaks for the very large conglomerates would have to be cut is what I'm thinking.
I wonder how many Billions of dollars goes to people who handle the tax documentation, drafting, etc...etc......with respect to the subject of "taxes" all by itself. Scary if you ask me. I'm sure there is some elderly folks out there who could be using that money and not have to decide between eating and medicine, if you know what I mean...dman

[Rascal]

Sorry I misspoke...not tax returns but the tax cuts he spoke of in his state of the union address.

Not raising taxes, but eliminating the tax relief which is about 880 billion in the past 5 years. If not eliminating it all, definetly start with eliminating the rich and then down the list and see where that gets us.

[defenseman]

I'll buy that. I'm a firm believer in a "flat tax". Everyone pays. No matter what. No break. Unfortunately, there are many rich folks, many of them politicians, who are against this thought process. They seem to forget, it's for the good of the COUNTRY and their own GRANDCHILDREN. They need to pay too....dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unfortunately, there are many rich folks, many of them politicians, who are against this thought process. They seem to forget, it's for the good of the COUNTRY and their own GRANDCHILDREN. They need to pay too....dman

Finally, a post I can co-sign. :thumbs:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You must stop with the banter. We are in Iraq, for the duration. Simple. Accept it. Move on. To pull out now would permanently injure the entire country for a lot longer than finishing the job.
No, we're not. Bush will start pulling troops before the elections. If he doesn't repubs go out the door.

Like I've stated over and over and over, The religious fanaticals of Iraq hate each other almost as much as they hate us. No matter how many Americans we sacrifice, how many Americans we maim for life and how many trillions we spend there, as soon as we leave (or sooner) they will go to war with each other over religious rule of the country.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Take from the poor, give to the military

Where would the Bush administration be without terrorism? Like the Cold War before it, the "war on terror" is a conveniently sweeping rationale for all manner of irrational governance, such as the outrageous $2.77-trillion budget the president proposed to Congress on Monday.

Without terrorism, how could Bush justify to fiscal conservatives the whopping budget deficits that he has ballooned via his tax cuts for the wealthy that he now seeks to make permanent? Without terrorism, how could he convince government corruption watchdogs that the huge increases in military and homeland security -- 7% and 8%, respectively -- aren't simply payback to the defense contractors who so heavily support the Republicans every election cycle? Without terrorism, how could the president get away with blindly dumping $120 billion more into the war in Afghanistan and the bungled occupation of Iraq that the Bush administration had once promised would be financed by Iraqi oil sales?

In order to pay for the money pit that is Iraq, the Bush budget demands draconian cuts in 141 domestic programs, led by a $36-billion cut in Medicare spending for the elderly over the next five years. This from a president reelected after promising to expand rather than curtail healthcare services to seniors.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_bush_budget_military/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The cruelest cuts

PRESIDENT BUSH said in his State of the Union address, "we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society."

The next day, he and his fellow Republicans ambushed the poor.

The majority-Republican House last week narrowly passed $39 billion in budget cuts for Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, and child support. The Republican-majority Senate had already passed the cuts. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the former acting Republican House majority leader, declared, "Once again, House Republicans are on record as defending budget discipline. We have achieved $39 billion in savings, while streamlining government."

It was a cutthroat lie. Everyone knows the cuts are meant to fund $70 billion in tax breaks for the rich. Bush repeated in the State of the Union that he wants to make the tax cuts permanent. As the government streamlines and disciplines the poor, hope springs eternal for entitlements for the rich.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/08/the_cruelest_cuts/

[Requiem]

Bush has also stated he wants to do the America Competitiveness Initiative, which gets kids more involved in the math and sciences... I wonder how the hell he plans to do that when he cut Education Funding by over three billion dollars. Heh.

[Requiem]

If the United States kept one B2 Bomber out of their budget, it'd save 2.1 billion dollars, which is enough for the government to help pay the way for over 225,000 kids to attend public colleges.

[Rascal]

They are decreasing the number of B-52 to 56 aircraft. They are going to retire the F-117 in 2008 instead of 2011. U2 operations will be retired in 2011, 50% of the C-21 fleet will be retired, and the C-130E will be divested by Fiscal Year 2014. They will also be reducing the Total Force end strength by 16,100 in 2007.

[Hotrod]

If the United States kept one B2 Bomber out of their budget, it'd save 2.1 billion dollars, which is enough for the government to help pay the way for over 225,000 kids to attend public colleges.

Where do you get your #'s? Got a link or something.

[Antilles]

They are going to retire the F-117 in 2008 instead of 2011.

Really? That didn't last long. The F-117s went active in what? 1986ish? 22 years of active service doesn't exactly sound like getting your money's worth to me- especially when you realize we've still got A-4s and F-14s out there. Plus, the F-117's service record is so outstanding, and they aren't exactly out of date. Anyone know what the rationale is?

[Rascal]

Cost of maintenance on those suckers is ridiculous plus the same job can be done by the F-22, JSF, or B-2. There is simply no role for them anymore.

[Play2win]

Where do you get your #'s? Got a link or something.
If that is true, that is SOOOOOOOOOOOO MESSED UP...

[Hotrod]

If that is true, that is SOOOOOOOOOOOO MESSED UP...

Thats what Im thinking. Id want some proof of his claims before I got to worked up. Is he including the cost of their use during this war time? Surely thats not just to maintain the bird!

[Requiem]

It's in my International Politics book for the class I'm taking about International Relations, etc. this semester. It's valid.

[Rascal]

Sorry but I doubt a B-2 costs 2.1 billion a year in maintenance.

[Requiem]

Sorry but I doubt a B-2 costs 2.1 billion a year in maintenance.
When did I say just maintenence? This book is from 2005, and at the time, (in the budget plan) the United States built 21 new, additional B-2 Bombers. Each costing 2.1 billion dollars.

[Rascal]

Your book is a farse.

There are only 21 aircraft right now.

Production stopped in 1996 after 21 were made in lieu of the initially planned 132.

[Hotrod]

Ok so his book is correct then if we stop building planes that we already are not building we could save 2.1 billion. ;D That sounds like fuzzy math to me Ha!

[Requiem]

Your book is a farse.

There are only 21 aircraft right now.

Production stopped in 1996 after 21 were made in lieu of the initially planned 132.

I guess I am wrong, with the detailed budget report and all.

[Rascal]

I know where his book got the 2.1 billion number but it is incorrect. The entire program to make 21 (the 21st one was a test aircraft that in 1996 Clinton ordered it be upgraded to a fully operation aircraft at the cost of 493 million) cost 44.4 million in then-year dollars. That included research, design, production, facility construction, etc. The last plane to actually roll off the assembly line was in 1992.

The development began in 1981 with the increasing Cold War with the Soviety Union, but in 1990 the Secretary of Defense after a major aircraft review announced the reduction from 132 to 76. In January of 1992 Bush ordered the number reduced from 76 to 20 operational aircraft plus the one test aircraft that Clinton had upgraded in 1996 after the emphasis of the B-2 development program changed from nuclear payload delivery against USSR to conventional operations.

[Rascal]

I guess I am wrong, with the detailed budget report and all.

Unless you have a digital copy of that detailed budger report, which I doubt since a) I work for the AF and I have a copy of it on my desk and b) the democrats would be slamming Bush like crazy if it did include it, your arguement holds no water and yes I claim your book is a farse.

Why would it be 2.1 billion since in 2001 Northrup offered to build 40 more aircraft at 760 million a piece (which was not taken BTW).

[Requiem]

Would you like me to scan in what the book says?

[Rascal]

Go ahead but it's not going to make it right.

Here is a suggestion.

I work for the AF as an engineer in OKC. Can you tell me where the B-2 depot maintenance facility is?

[Requiem]

Tinker Air Force Base!?

[Rascal]

Think you can connect the dots now?

[Requiem]

Until I see the light of Christ, I'm blind -- so no.

[enjolras]

IMO the first thing that should be done is eliminate the tax returns but not increasing taxes either. After that see how much money we are short off and then go after the programs that have not met their goals, are wasteful, etc and cut them. If still short then I say we bite the bullet till we get out of Iraq, but that will be a 22 bullet instead of a tank round.

I've already written my congressman telling him to **** can the idea of tax returns.

Uhm... You get tax returns because the government took more money from you than you actually owe. Its actually a giant boon for the government because you lose the time-value of the money the government borrowed with no interest on the repayment.

I'm not a real big fan of my government stealing from me.

[Mile High Shack]

Uhm... You get tax returns because the government took more money from you than you actually owe. Its actually a giant boon for the government because you lose the time-value of the money the government borrowed with no interest on the repayment.

I'm not a real big fan of my government stealing from me.

quoted for truth

[Hotrod]

Uhm... You get tax returns because the government took more money from you than you actually owe. Its actually a giant boon for the government because you lose the time-value of the money the government borrowed with no interest on the repayment.

I'm not a real big fan of my government stealing from me.

Great post.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unless you have a digital copy of that detailed budger report, which I doubt since a) I work for the AF and I have a copy of it on my desk and b) the democrats would be slamming Bush like crazy if it did include it, your arguement holds no water and yes I claim your book is a farse.

Why would it be 2.1 billion since in 2001 Northrup offered to build 40 more aircraft at 760 million a piece (which was not taken BTW).

You keep asking him for links, but so far you haven't provided a single one to back your claims.

Do you have any links to support your numbers?

[Rascal]

Uhm... You get tax returns because the government took more money from you than you actually owe. Its actually a giant boon for the government because you lose the time-value of the money the government borrowed with no interest on the repayment.

I'm not a real big fan of my government stealing from me.

I said I misspoke. Not actual tax returns but the tax refief he spoke off in the State of the Union Address. You know the 800 billion that's been given back to us supposedly over the past 5 years.

[Rascal]

You keep asking him for links, but so far you haven't provided a single one to back your claims.

Do you have any links to support your numbers?

I recalled most of it off the top of my head, but I believe this website will concur with everything I've said: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/rathole-war-cash.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-cuts-awful.gif