Deficit Down

[Lefty]

Neal Cavuto reported the other night that the deficit is 40 billion less than projected for this time. In fact, if we were not at war we would prob be running a surplus.
Wow, kudos Pres Bush, Kudos...

[chickenhead]

Neal Cavuto reported the other night that the deficit is 40 billion less than projected for this time. In fact, if we were not at war we would prob be running a surplus.
Wow, kudos Pres Bush, Kudos...

The Republicans don't have a super-majority in every house at every level though right? Therefore, since he and his party cannot be blamed for anything bad, they cannot be given credit for anything good, either. (no matter how trivial it may be).

I am not sure who is running the show, but you have convinced me it's not Bush and the Republicans, so I don't want to see you congratulating him anymore, ever, about anything.

[Tom]

The Republicans don't have a super-majority in every house at every level though right? Therefore, since he and his party cannot be blamed for anything bad, they cannot be given credit for anything good, either. (no matter how trivial it may be).

I am not sure who is running the show, but you have convinced me it's not Bush and the Republicans, so I don't want to see you congratulating him anymore, ever, about anything.

Oooo, you are hot today! :lol:

I don't see the joy in a deficit being down as opposed to a debt being down.

That's like aying I'm only losing $100 a day at the track, used to lose $200.

[Lefty]

chick, nice try but the deficits are dn because we have had a tax cut every yr Bush has been pres and economic good news is because of tax cuts. Who's idea was the tax cuts, hmm, Kerry, no, Hillary, no, Bird, uh, no, give you a hint, BUSH! Yes dems have foiled lottsa good legislation, but not tax cuts, eh? I'm sorry any good news sours your stomach, but there ya go.

[Lefty]

Oooo, you are hot today! :lol:

I don't see the joy in a deficit being down as opposed to a debt being down.

That's like aying I'm only losing $100 a day at the track, used to lose $200.
The deficit is the aggragate of all debt, so it's good news. Funny this board has been crying over the deficit for a long ti,me and when there's good news in that direction they can't find any joy in it. Shows me most don't give a damn about the deficit or anything else unless it's bad news for Bush. Sad, just sad.

[Tom]

No, we care about the truth, And Chicken hit the nail - you won't allow Bush to accept any blame, so how can we give him any credit.
And deficit reduction is just a political term to make fiscal irresponsiblilty a better taste. Even the surplus left us with was ot a surplus at all - the huge debt was still there.
I gave him credit for going to Iraq, but I only give credit when it is deserved. Bush has much to do before he ever regains my respect.

[Lefty]

The Republicans don't have a super-majority in every house at every level though right? Therefore, since he and his party cannot be blamed for anything bad, they cannot be given credit for anything good, either. (no matter how trivial it may be).

I am not sure who is running the show, but you have convinced me it's not Bush and the Republicans, so I don't want to see you congratulating him anymore, ever, about anything.
I get it, these reductions came about for no apparant cause or SANTA AND THE TOOTH FAIRY have joined forces; yes, that's it.

Yes, chick, let's not have any more good news coming from this admin, it just depresses the libs too much, doesn't seem to do the moderates much good either. GOD help em.

[Lefty]

Tom, that's funny. Everybody hollering about the deficit and now it doesn't matter. Funny as my sore back.
The deficit is the accumulation of ALL debt from every admin. It has been the main point of the libs on this board and off everytime good economic news is announced "BUT THE DEFICIT THE DEFICIT" and now when it falls, it doesn't count. LOL and rolling on the freakin floor.

[Snag]

chickenhead, what is a "super-majority in every house" mean and what does that have to do with anything?

If you are not sure who is running the show, and you are sure that it is not President Bush and the Repubs, then you must think it is being run by the Dems. When did that happen?

Sounds to me like your hate for President Bush is over riding your logic.

[chickenhead]

chickenhead, what is a "super-majority in every house" mean and what does that have to do with anything?

If you are not sure who is running the show, and you are sure that it is not President Bush and the Repubs, then you must think it is being run by the Dems. When did that happen?

Sounds to me like your hate for President Bush is over riding your logic.

My post had everything to do with Lefty, nothing to do with Bush. I didn't present any of my logic in my post, I followed Lefty's logic, as presented in previous posts.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. It was a futile attempt at satire.

[Snag]

My post had everything to do with Lefty, nothing to do with Bush. I didn't present any of my logic in my post, I followed Lefty's logic, as presented in previous posts.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. It was a futile attempt at satire.

When you expose yourself in public, you never know who is watching.

[chickenhead]

When you expose yourself in public, you never know who is watching.

I must be slow today, I don't get it.

[46zilzal]

over 8 trillion but hey, when you print the money, who are you beholden to?
http://www.federalbudget.com/

[JustRalph]

over 8 trillion but hey, when you print the money, who are you beholden to?
http://www.federalbudget.com/

We don't care what Canada thinks...............

[OTM Al]

Sorry Lefty but you got that backwards. The deficit (or surplus) is the difference between each year's income and outlays. The debt can be considered to be the sum at a given point in time of all that the gov't owes...not exactly the sum of all yearly deficits and surpluses, but that is a way to think of it that isn't too far off. Don't worry though, even Ross Perot kept screwing this up :)

So Tom's analysis is right...we're only losing $100 instead of $200, but the debt is still growing.

[46zilzal]

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[Tom]

Thank you OTM Al.

[OTM Al]

You are quite welcome. I had to refrain from my whole spiel on the thing I used to teach to my Macroeconomics "101" students, but in re reading I am inclined to go a little further.

Failed to mention that reducing taxes usually results in an increase in deficit spending as taxes are the government's income. Hard to say here what exactly is going on with regards to tax changes as I haven't looked hard at what is going on lately. Needless to say though, I would have to believe that what was announced was a reduction only in the sense that the projected deficit is less than anticipated for whatever reason. Therefore it is likely, though not absolute, that had tax cuts not happened, the deficit would be even lower.

I will also say that Pres. Bush may not deserve credit or abuse for this. The actions of the current administration generally take a few years to filter through so current conditions may be the result of late Clinton and early GBII. It will take a few more years to feel the affects of current policy. That of course may make a few of us even more uneasy, but it is the way of such things. A prime example of this is the economic conditions prevailing under the term of Jimmy Carter. That mess was a result of longstanding Federal Reserve policy to hold up interest rates along with the large debts incurred from Vietnam. The Fed had to shift policy to curb the skyrocketing interest rates which in the short term caused even higher inflation, but eventually got inflation under control. The Fed since then has set policy to maintain a low inflation rate. The Carter administration clearly had nothing to do with the contributing factors to that highly inflationary period, but was often blamed for it.

Just be glad that the Fed is not answerable to any administration, which is the way it has become in most countries. Otherwise looming large debts would tempt some individuals to take a very destructive monetary path just to make themselves look good in the short run.

[kenwoodallpromos]

How does macroeconomics say is the best way to use inflation etc. to keep the tax rate to inflatioin highest? Here in Ca we have a Demo wanting to raise the rate on the "riich".

[Lefty]

Money going into the fed coffers was up 14% last month. Hmmmm.

Zilly, you're in Canada, better worry about THEIR deficit.

[Lefty]

How does macroeconomics say is the best way to use inflation etc. to keep the tax rate to inflatioin highest? Here in Ca we have a Demo wanting to raise the rate on the "riich".

They're not only in CA.

[Lefty]

Money going into the fed coffers was up 14% last month. Hmmmm.

Zilly, you're in Canada, better worry about THEIR deficit.

And the money going into the coffers under Reagan doubled. How does that equate to the deficit going up? I'd say spending makes the deficit go up and we've had to spend a lot on this war and we waste lottsa money for social prgms to help people who like free rides.

[OTM Al]

Ken---

Not exactly sure what you are asking here. Are you asking how taxes are related to inflation and interest rates?

[skate]

well, debt is good. so, get out of the box, can ya do that for yourself?


hey, if you wanna lower the debt (big deal), go and increase the minimum wage

[OTM Al]

Some debt is good, there is no question about that. The question that no one really knows is how much is too much. When does the point come when investors in government issued securities lose confidence because of the high level of debt accumulated? If such a thing ever happened you would see a market crash unlike anything we have ever witnessed. Governemnt debt is of course not like personal debt. At some point we have to pay ours off, while the government can theoretically roll it forward whenever it needs to. The whole concern about the level of debt is not that we can pay it all off some day (that would likely be foolish to try as well and would also cause big problems in the markets) the problem is the possibility that investors lose confidence that the governemnt is able to continue to service current debt (ie make coupon payments, retire matured instruments etc), which will blow the interest rates on these bonds and bills sky high as the price drops, which will have a massive ripple effect.

[ljb]

Money going into the fed coffers was up 14% last month. Hmmmm.

Lefty,
I need some verification/clarification of that statement, Please.

[ljb]

We don't care what Canada thinks...............
jr, that is the problem. Too many folks in this country have a similiar arrogant attitude.

[Lefty]

Lefty,
I need some verification/clarification of that statement, Please.
Don't know what there is to clarify. Speaks for itself. Tax cuts up govt reenue, simple as that. If you can't figure out why it's because it promotes more investment from business owners. Pig simple.

[Lefty]

jr, that is the problem. Too many folks in this country have a similiar arrogant attitude.
Why is it a problem?

[ljb]

Why is it a problem?
Earth to Lefty,
Wake up Lefty, look around you. What's going on in the world today ? Think about it.

[ljb]

Don't know what there is to clarify. Speaks for itself. Tax cuts up govt reenue, simple as that. If you can't figure out why it's because it promotes more investment from business owners. Pig simple.

So the pig is collecting more taxes ? Time for another cut don't you think ?

[Lefty]

Earth to Lefty,
Wake up Lefty, look around you. What's going on in the world today ? Think about it.
lbj, when you can't think of an anser you always fall back on statements similar to this. We are the greatest country on this earth. We even help our enemies in times of disaster knowing we get kicked in the teeth for our efforts, still the generous american people come through. Why should we care what some folks in Canada or anywhere else thinks? If we did, we would no longer be free and would have become socialists or communists long ago; just like libs seem to want.
What's going on in the world today, lbj, is terrorists are trying to kill us all and people like you seem to be on the wrong side of things. You seem to think all is well, when it clearly is not; and you put your trust in a corrupt U.N.

[Lefty]

So the pig is collecting more taxes ? Time for another cut don't you think ?
Calling the Pres a pig just shows your ignorance. Tax cuts have kept this country's economy going in war and disaster. And this seems to be a surprise to you. Another product of our liberal controlled schools, it would seem.

[OTM Al]

I will say this to both of you once more. Tax cuts can theoretically increase revenues but generally they do not. Lefty's arguement is that of the famed trickle down theory of "Reaganomics". His presentaion is correct in the root of the arguement that this model says that if you cut taxes on firms, they will take the money and invest in new projects. The new projects will create new revenue streams, the taxes on which will more than make up for the loss incurred by the tax cuts. This is a completely valid theory, but it depends on two crucial assumptions. First, the firms will use their tax savings and reinvest it. Second, the new investments create something of value that generate additional new revenue streams. These two things simply did not happen with enough frequency and the trickle down theory has pretty much been considered a complete bust for at least 15 years now.

Lefty is correct in one other statement however. When there is a time of national disaster or recession, tax cuts can help supply the jumpstart to get the economy moving forward again. When these things happen it is good for the government to cut taxes and deficit spend. That way the government continues to spend as much as it did before, but the people also have more to spend. That said, if you believe the economy is doing well, then that is the absolute worst time to cut taxes because in doing so you will either have to reduce government spending, which will cause a cool down in the economy, or you will have to borrow more, increasing the debt. Tax cuts, if properly administered (and often they are not) can help if used properly, but will not help if they are used willy nilly to garner a few more votes at election time.

[Lefty]

Funny, everytime tax cuts are tried they increase the revenue and jumpstarts the economy. EVERYTIME! Theory is one thing, but the facts speak for themselves.

[OTM Al]

Uh...no they don't, but since that's what you want to believe, there is no reason to waste breath. I am glad you are so happy and comfortable under that rock you live beneath...

[ljb]

Uh...no they don't, but since that's what you want to believe, there is no reason to waste breath. I am glad you are so happy and comfortable under that rock you live beneath...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

What do you think of this liberal?

"The Government should not be permitted to run behind or increase its debt in times like the present. Suitably to provide against this is the mandate of duty -- the certain and easy remedy for most of our financial difficulties. A deficiency is inevitable so long as the expenditures of the Government exceed its receipts. It can only be met by loans or an increased revenue. While a large annual surplus of revenue may invite waste and extravagance, inadequate revenue creates distrust and undermines public and private credit. Neither should be encouraged. Between more loans and more revenue there ought to be but one opinion. We should have more revenue, and that without delay, hindrance, or postponement. A surplus in the Treasury created by loans is not a permanent or safe reliance. It will suffice while it lasts, but it can not last long while the outlays of the Government are greater than its receipts, as has been the case during the past two years. Nor must it be forgotten that however much such loans may temporarily relieve the situation, the Government is still indebted for the amount of the surplus thus accrued, which it must ultimately pay, while its ability to pay is not strengthened, but weakened by a continued deficit. ...

The best way for the Government to maintain its credit is to pay as it goes -- not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out of debt -- through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external or internal, or both."

Hint - It isn't a quote by GW.

[skate]

Some debt is good, there is no question about that. The question that no one really knows is how much is too much. When does the point come when investors in government issued securities lose confidence because of the high level of debt accumulated? If such a thing ever happened you would see a market crash unlike anything we have ever witnessed. Governemnt debt is of course not like personal debt. At some point we have to pay ours off, while the government can theoretically roll it forward whenever it needs to. The whole concern about the level of debt is not that we can pay it all off some day (that would likely be foolish to try as well and would also cause big problems in the markets) the problem is the possibility that investors lose confidence that the governemnt is able to continue to service current debt (ie make coupon payments, retire matured instruments etc), which will blow the interest rates on these bonds and bills sky high as the price drops, which will have a massive ripple effect.

OTM AL:

wow, thanks for the understanding and i mean that babe!

yes, some debt is good. and the USA has what i would consider to be a very very low debt. while the economy is very strong. so we should handle the overal situation, very easily.

now your quarry ( if i read you) as to what could happen, is of coarse correct also. but since we've not been held to the fire, we can only assume the outcome.

this point is irksome, do the half-way reports from the media and politicians trying to make foolish issues.

so, correct me where wrong, please.
the total amount owed by the USA is Smaller than the share of GDP in the 90s. yet we are forever being reminded about the (false) balence in our economy during the 90s.
yes, of coarse we have more debt now, but the wealth of our economy has been increasing at a higher percentage.

if the Gov. would run a surplus, what will it do with the money? (this strengthens my point that debt is good).
to prevent deflation of currency, the Gov. would monetize private assets. it would buy private debt, private equites or buy bonds from other countrys.,
sounds good, but the result would be Gov. ownership of the means of production, which we call Socialism.
now maybe that is what we want. what i'm saying is "call it what it is ".

our debt is very small. that debt is being put to use, whereby we can deliver to our children a wealthy inheritance. future generations will receive beter highways, hospitals, schools, military etc. which will all be paid for and delivered. at a very small cost.

[OTM Al]

Skate-

Okay, so you posted nicely so I will continue to respond. I will also say that Lefty may be missing the arguement form one "direction", but I think a few others are missing it form the other direction as well. There is no politics in what I have been saying here and I do find the single minded partisanship on these issues quite disturbing, especially since what we are dealing with here may have impact on the course of OUR country. That aside, let us return to a civil discussion of these matters

You have touched on a very important point. One very good way to judge the level of debt, and how much may be too much, is what percentage debt is to income. Income in this case as you correctly point out is GDP. Here is a pdf that shows this relationship since 1940 and the projections for the next couple years.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-Historical-Table-7-1.pdf

I am going to appoligize here as this is linked from what is probably a partisan web site, but this is the actual table from the report by the Office of the Budget. I Googled for what I wanted and found it quickly and don't feel like tackling the actual gov website to find the exact same thing...so...

Yes, as a percenatge of GDP, debt is now lower than it was in the mid 90s...BUT....two items of possible concern here. Notice the gov't is projecting the percentage to grow and grow above those levels in the next couple years. What is also somewhat disturbing is where this increase is being held. There has been a big jump in what is being held in federal accounts. This includes things like social security and trusts. Is this a big problem? I can't answer that with certainty, nor can any other economist out there who does not have some sort of agenda.

Is this amount small as skate claims? Well, that is a matter of perspective. In the post WW2 years (1946 in particular) we peaked out at over 121% of GDP and we did live to tell the tale. The key to the whole picture here is not really the gross amount or the % of GDP, but rather how that gross amount and % of GDP affects confidence. Beliefs are everything here and are often self fulfilling. If people lose confidence because of the amount of debt, they will react in such a way that they will cause the very situation they are concerned about to occur and we will have a market collapse. This is why no one really knows how much is to much, but the general feeling is that the more debt that is accumulated, the closer we get to that point of loss in confidence.

A further but also important issue is what are we getting for this money? Is what we are getting the last couple years worth the money we are paying for it, or could we have better spent that money on more infrastructure, education, or whatever your favorite cause is? Here is where politics will jump in and one side will say every dime we have spent fighting overseas is worth being spent while the other side may well disagree. I'm not stating my political opinion because again, that is not what this is about, but suffice it to say that when the government spends this money it is clearly best for all citizens that what is bought is something that will return dividends in the future, rather than something that is one off and is gone tomorrow. I think we can all agree with that as sound basis for any investment strategy.

So basically, if the debt is growing, or even being maintained, if we are not getting something that will give us returns in the future for our investment, than that is also bad for the future economy. However, it is equally possible that the debt can grow, but what is being invested in will bring very good returns, so in such a case an increase in debt is good for the economy, as the returns will more than take care of the current increase in burden.

[skate]

OTM AL;

ok ok , we can agree, at least to the point " no one really knows the outcome". also, i'm not interested in the political end, i do not vote.
with that said, i detest, what i consider to be "fooling the public".

are we told (media) that a (USA) debt is bad? and can we see that if we as individuals, do not go into debt ourselves(house purchase,truck purchase, stock purchase etc.), that we will not stay strong economically. many people do not see this fact. debt is good. or else retire, quit and wait for some other country to take charge.

When in the hands of the Government, things "appear" in balance.
but when in the hands of the working people, money works for the good of the country.
we are not talking about a "balanced country", when we use these "debt figures", being discussed by the politicians and the media. what we are really talking about is a "Balance in the Government".

lots to be said here and i do not pretend to have all the answers.

i've posted this before and receive replys such as " i just put some figures together", well, they could check them thru the net. they expect me to believe whatever web site they quote, as gospel. yet my figures go unanswerd.
these are the figures i refer to;
our country had Six periods of Significant Surplus and Debt Reduction.

from 1817 thru 1930. the last time we reduced debt significantly, started in 1920 and ended 1930. that reduction was by 33%.


Yes, we should at least, put the money into good, long term returns, never hurts to spend wisely, but you gotta spend.
for the most part, that money is "only circulated thru the economy" and as long as we spend Here or For the Good of Here, we will be fine.

the only problem that will accrue, would be, if we cause a stagnate or shrinking economic situation. history tells us, a shrinking economy comes about, after we cut the debt "Significantly".

[Lefty]

Uh...no they don't, but since that's what you want to believe, there is no reason to waste breath. I am glad you are so happy and comfortable under that rock you live beneath...
And you can live under your theoretical rock. I live in the real world with real outcomes.

[Lefty]

Lefty,

What do you think of this liberal?

"The Government should not be permitted to run behind or increase its debt in times like the present. Suitably to provide against this is the mandate of duty -- the certain and easy remedy for most of our financial difficulties. A deficiency is inevitable so long as the expenditures of the Government exceed its receipts. It can only be met by loans or an increased revenue. While a large annual surplus of revenue may invite waste and extravagance, inadequate revenue creates distrust and undermines public and private credit. Neither should be encouraged. Between more loans and more revenue there ought to be but one opinion. We should have more revenue, and that without delay, hindrance, or postponement. A surplus in the Treasury created by loans is not a permanent or safe reliance. It will suffice while it lasts, but it can not last long while the outlays of the Government are greater than its receipts, as has been the case during the past two years. Nor must it be forgotten that however much such loans may temporarily relieve the situation, the Government is still indebted for the amount of the surplus thus accrued, which it must ultimately pay, while its ability to pay is not strengthened, but weakened by a continued deficit. ...

The best way for the Government to maintain its credit is to pay as it goes -- not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out of debt -- through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external or internal, or both."

Hint - It isn't a quote by GW.
Nice try. Sounds like Reagan or some other conservative. I blve spending should be cut and i'm all for cutting the wasteful social prgms but dems fight it, always.

[Secretariat]

Nice try. Sounds like Reagan or some other conservative. I blve spending should be cut and i'm all for cutting the wasteful social prgms but dems fight it, always.

"A surplus in the Treasury created by loans is not a permanent or safe reliance. It will suffice while it lasts, but it can not last long while the outlays of the Government are greater than its receipts, as has been the case during the past two years. Nor must it be forgotten that however much such loans may temporarily relieve the situation, the Government is still indebted for the amount of the surplus thus accrued, which it must ultimately pay, while its ability to pay is not strengthened, but weakened by a continued deficit. ...

The best way for the Government to maintain its credit is to pay as it goes -- not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out of debt -- through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external or internal, or both."

Lefty, would you be willing to cut Star Wars, end the Iraq quagmire and bring our troops home saving billions of dollars, or do you want to continue borrowing from China? btw..the quote is one of the all time big conservatives William McKinley. Do you think he woulda been in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment or do you think he'd advocate your approach of borrow and spend?

[Lefty]

"A surplus in the Treasury created by loans is not a permanent or safe reliance. It will suffice while it lasts, but it can not last long while the outlays of the Government are greater than its receipts, as has been the case during the past two years. Nor must it be forgotten that however much such loans may temporarily relieve the situation, the Government is still indebted for the amount of the surplus thus accrued, which it must ultimately pay, while its ability to pay is not strengthened, but weakened by a continued deficit. ...

The best way for the Government to maintain its credit is to pay as it goes -- not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out of debt -- through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external or internal, or both."

Lefty, would you be willing to cut Star Wars, end the Iraq quagmire and bring our troops home saving billions of dollars, or do you want to continue borrowing from China? btw..the quote is one of the all time big conservatives William McKinley. Do you think he woulda been in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment or do you think he'd advocate your approach of borrow and spend?
Star wars is a defense prgm. The war fights terrorists. Why would you want to eliminate those and keep costly and ineffective social prgms. Bringing the troops home before Iraaq can defend itself would not save a dime and cost lives in the long run.

[Secretariat]

Star wars is a defense prgm. The war fights terrorists. Why would you want to eliminate those and keep costly and ineffective social prgms. Bringing the troops home before Iraaq can defend itself would not save a dime and cost lives in the long run.

Star Wars is a giant Supercollider project. btw..how does star wars fight terrorists? You're dann right i'd keep those social rpgrams becasue they help Americans, not Iraqis, and no one gets killed along the way.

Lefty, all you want to do is pay your tax dollars (and borrrow from China) for foreign wars to benefit or kill non-Americans.

[Lefty]

sec, yep, I want my tax dollars to go for the defense of this nation and not to fund a bureacracy that eats it all up except for about 21 cents on the buck. There are better ways to help americans who need it.
Yep, wanna kill all who physically attack this country and its citizens or who plan to and not all are non-americans.

[Lefty]

So the pig is collecting more taxes ? Time for another cut don't you think ?
lbj, I was talking about increased revenue because of tax cuts and you said the above.

Thanks Tom, for the assist.

[Secretariat]

sec, yep, I want my tax dollars to go for the defense of this nation and not to fund a bureacracy that eats it all up except for about 21 cents on the buck. There are better ways to help americans who need it.
Yep, wanna kill all who physically attack this country and its citizens or who plan to and not all are non-americans.

Well, Lefty if people who actually pay taxes were allowed to democratically allot them to the programs they want, polls have proven that Iraq would be well down on that list.

So I'm all in favor for all of your tax dollars going to Iraq and none of mine.

[Tom]

Well, Lefty if people who actually pay taxes were allowed to democratically allot them to the programs they want, polls have proven that Iraq would be well down on that list.

So I'm all in favor for all of your tax dollars going to Iraq and none of mine.

That's exactly how it works now, Sec - we all ge tto vote for those who will allot taxes the way we want. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, YOUR candidates never get past the primaries, do they?:lol:

[Lefty]

Well, Lefty if people who actually pay taxes were allowed to democratically allot them to the programs they want, polls have proven that Iraq would be well down on that list.

So I'm all in favor for all of your tax dollars going to Iraq and none of mine.
And right back at ya. You libs fund the wasteful social prgms and leave me out of it. We need defense we don't need to waste money on unsuccesful social prgms. Private charities can do a much better job on social prgms but there is no one that can do a better job of defense than our military.

[lsbets]

So I'm all in favor for all of your tax dollars going to Iraq and none of mine.

Thanks for supporting the troops by wanting to cut off our funding Sec.