COL Gene COL Gene

LET THEM STARVE

▼

LET THEM STARVE

The Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush

from JoeUser Forums


Bush in his 2007 budget has proposed ending a program started in 1968 to distribute Federal Surplus Food to needy seniors. That program CSFP provides boxes of surplus food each month to 420, 000 of the poorest American seniors in 32 states and Washington D.C. The total cost of this program is $107 Million per year and is one of the ways Bush plans to deal with a $600 Billion dollar deficit. Bush claims that this is an overlapping program with food stamps. However when AARP looked at how much many of the people receiving this Surplus Food is receiving from Food Stamps, they found they receive $10 or $20 per month from the Food Stamp Program. How the Hell is this an OVERLAPPING program? The fact is it is supplemental and if an elderly poor person receives the $20 from Food Stamps and the Surplus Food at a value of $55 they receive the GRAND SUM per month of $75. I bet we, as tax payers, spend MORE then $75 per day to feed George W. Bush in the White House!

Bottom line, this Cut is unlikely to survive the GOP in Congress since many are concerned about their own reelection in November 2006. I hope Our Lord Jesus is looking upon his servant George W. Bush to see what Bush is trying to do to the LEAST of his people!
politics
22,454 views 73 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is correct returning to the old rates is a tax increase on that group that can afford to pay a little more


Please stop telling somebody what they can and can't afford col. You sound more and more like a true socialist everyday. YOU ARE NOBODY to tell a SUCCESSFUL AMERICAN that they should pay more in taxes just because you think they "can afford it".
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Col has made a few points and everyone seems to be tearing into him. I sometimes find that the Col is accused of saying things he did not.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
landDog

The PROOF that the wealthy can afford to pay a little more is that they had a very productive time during the 1990's when the tax rates were at the levels I have said they should be at today! That has NOTHING to do with socialism. You do not know what the Hell you arte talking about. If you think the process in America in the 1990's was Socialism you are a NUT!
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bahu

Thank You.

Some of the people on this Web Site like to put words in my mouth for their own purposes.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
The PROOF that the wealthy can afford to pay a little more is that they had a very productive time during the 1990's when the tax rates were at the levels I have said they should be at today! That has NOTHING to do with socialism. You do not know what the Hell you arte talking about. If you think the process in America in the 1990's was Socialism you are a NUT!


All you keep talking about is the 90j's. It has nothing to do with right now. You want to raise taxes on somone just because YOU think they can "afford" it. I guess you and Hillary are the same when you believe you must take from someone because of the "common good".

Just because someone was "productive" many years ago doesn't mean it will apply now. You list no reasons why they were "productive" either.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Exactly.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

It has everything to do with NOW. You claim to return to the tax rates in effect before 2001 for the wealthy is a problem. I am documenting that with the tax rates I am suggesting the wealthy did JUST FINE. Thus the higher tax rate on the top 10% is NOT A PROBLEM as you and a few others on this Blog Site claim!

The benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy will help all the country by reducing the Annual deficit that will cause higher taxes in the future on ALL of us to pay the soaring interest! Add eliminating the Pork, ending the Iraq war and making sure that everyone pays their taxes and is not allowed to avoid paying what the law requires and we could have a balanced budget!
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
It has everything to do with NOW. You claim to return to the tax rates in effect before 2001 for the wealthy is a problem. I am documenting that with the tax rates I am suggesting the wealthy did JUST FINE. Thus the higher tax rate on the top 10% is NOT A PROBLEM as you and a few others on this Blog Site claim!


Col, you are totally lost in your hatred for Bush. If the "evil rich" did better in the 90's it wasn't because of taxes or the federal government. It's already been explained to you what higher taxes now will do, this is something you never seem to address. Probably because it counters your "tax the rich" obsession.


The benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy will help all the country by reducing the Annual deficit that will cause higher taxes in the future on ALL of us to pay the soaring interest!


How does that help the poor now? Isn't that what you keep complaining about? Raising taxes on successful Americans and America's employers are not going to help the "average American" you keep speaking for here. I love how you say the wealthy Americans will help "all the country". So you are pretty much spending their money for them just because you think they can afford it. Why don't you send your extra money to the federal government since it's so important to you.

How about this....

If you ever sell a book why don't you send all the money to the federal government? Surely a big time author like yourself can afford it.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I have already shown you that the tax cuts are COSTING MORE then they bring in new revenue. Increasing the tax rates on the wealthy will NOT impact spending and help balance the budget. In addition "Evil Rich" is your term not my term. There is nothing evil about being rich but they can afford to return to the higher tax rates to help balance the budget without creating ANY financial problems for their families!!!

I am not suggesting SPRNDING more money just to PAY for what we are SPENDING!
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know what Gene's worried about. The rich will always be there - to be tapped at will by folks like Gene, once there are enough of them. Or, some real conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) will garner enough strength in Congress to get us out of the spending morass we are in, though it will take some time, & we won't need to increase taxes on anyone.

Problem solved.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

WRONG. The harm has already been done. The increase in the debt under Bush will take the interest on the debt from $230 Billion to $500 Billion EVERY year until the debt is repaid! Under the Bush objective, we will still be adding to the debt when he leaves office and will drive the annual interest above $500 Billion per year because Bush NEVER balances the budget. His objective is to cut the annual deficit in half!
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes. I agree - let them starve.

It's not the government's job to feed the people.

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

You are a great example of what is WRONG with some people in our great country! You should a ashamed to partake of the benefits this
Nation has provided its citizens. What selfish GREED!
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not suggesting SPRNDING more money just to PAY for what we are SPENDING!


You are suggesting spending someones elses money to pay for it. You are picking on one class of people just because YOU think they "can afford it". What a load of bs.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

"You are suggesting spending someones elses money to pay for it." What I am suggesting is we PAY FOR those expenditures OUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT has APPROVED! How is that using "someones elses" money?

Yes I am suggesting that we obtain the added money to pay for the APPROVED SPENDING by those that have the ability to pay a little more for the following reasons:

They are the group that got the BIG tax cuts that were to return a SURPLUS that DID NOT EXIST!

Increasing the tax rates on the wealthy will not adversely impact spending and the economy.

An increase in tax rates on the wealthy WILL NOT harm their families the way an increase would on the middle in come Americans!




By the way you need to use spell check. I did not correct your errors because I put then in quotations!
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
And that's all a load of bs. You are a typical democrat who uses class warfare. If you want to raise taxes, raise them on everybody. Picking on one class of peopel becaue YOU think they can afford it is ridiculous.

An increase in tax rates on the wealthy WILL NOT harm their families the way an increase would on the middle in come Americans!


A minimal tax increase on the poor and middle class will not HARM THEM at all. If the middle class can afford to give their 12 year olds cell phones, then a minimal tax increase will not HARM THEM either.


By the way you need to use spell check. I did not correct your errors because I put then in quotations!


If you want to talk about spelling errors go ahead. I can make 100 posts from yours.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

Draginol

You are a great example of what is WRONG with some people in our great country! You should a ashamed to partake of the benefits this
Nation has provided its citizens. What selfish GREED!


That comment just proves to me how utterly clueless you are Col. You know jack shit about Draginol but you make a hateful statement like that. Maybe what he is saying is that we all have to take responsibility for taking care of our family, friends and neighbors and stop suckling at the govt teet.

I know for a fact that Draginol does exactly that. He is an extremely generous person and takes very good care of others. He gives to charity all the time. He sees to it that his family and friends don't need to rely on the govt. That's a lot more than most of the bleeding heart libs can say.

Our country doesn't need to continue the gravy train. Maybe having some people actually starve is what is needed for the wake up call. That is the sort of thing that urges families in China (for instance) to take responsibility for caring for their elders.

Selfishness and greed is pinned only on people who are well off. That is the problem. Most the people I know who aren't able to take care of themselves are in that position because of selfishness and greed. They only thought of themselves when cranking out babies. They only thought of themselves when they spent the rent or grocery money on booze, gambling, etc. Their greed leads them to believe that they are owed money simply because they have less than others. Maybe those others have more because they saved and sacrificed....no, that's right, it's just selfishness and greed that makes you wealthy.

Bringing John Edwards into the discussion also proved to me how clueless you are Col. He talks about two Americas when he knows nothing about one of them and lives very happily in the other. He preaches higher taxes while at the same time using his wealth to take every slimy tactic out there to dodge them himself.

Instead of preaching about a better govt, why don't you try talking about a better society? Praise people who take responsibility. Reward people who take care of themselves and others. Inspire those who don't to start. Take away the safety nets that cushion them from having to take care of themselves.

Our govt is not the answer to our ills.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are a great example of what is WRONG with some people in our great country! You should a ashamed to partake of the benefits this
Nation has provided its citizens. What selfish GREED!

Want to compare notes on who gave more to charity last year, Gene?

Anyone who would starve unless the federal government hands them food deserves to starve.  Obesity is a major health issue with the poor in the United States. They ain't going hungry.

What you fail to grasp is that many Americans so the federal government as qualified to handle welfare as say the local cable company. You want to raise taxes to balance the budget but then name-call people who object to the government wasting money on things it isn't good at such as giving food to people. It's not the job of the federal government to feed its citizens.

And btw, the "nation" doesn't provide benefits to its citizens. Its citizens provide benefits to the nation. You have it backwards.

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And btw, the "nation" doesn't provide benefits to its citizens. Its citizens provide benefits to the nation. You have it backwards."


*wild applause*
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
A nation and those that have abundance have a moral responsibility to help those that NEED help. I am not talking about handouts to those that can and choose NOT to do their part. Charity is great but the NEED exceeds that which charity alone can provide. In addition there were things like the mechanics of the country, defense and other common agencies that enable the system to operate and to maintain our freedom. Those too must be paid for and that is what we are not doing. We can not continue to spend $600 billion more then we tax! Bush started a war and has paid the hundreds of billions by borrowing the money.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

nation and those that have abundance have a moral responsibility to help those that NEED help. I am not talking about handouts to those that can and choose NOT to do their part. Charity is great but the NEED exceeds that which charity alone can provide. In addition there were things like the mechanics of the country, defense and other common agencies that enable the system to operate and to maintain our freedom. Those too must be paid for and that is what we are not doing. We can not continue to spend $600 billion more then we tax! Bush started a war and has paid the hundreds of billions by borrowing the money.

What does a moral responsibility to help those that need help have to do with the federal government?  I have probably given more in charity than you make in a year, Gene.  But I am interested in helping people EFFECTIVELY. You understand that concept? The reason those of us live in abundance is because we are efficient, productive, etc.  The federal government is incredibly inefficient at helping people. Private charities are much better.

The military is one of the handful of things the federal government is charged to do.  Giving food to the needy is not the job of the federal government.

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
A nation and those that have abundance have a moral responsibility to help those that NEED help.


I love this line, Col. If I talk about our moral responsibility to prevent the death of the unborn, you will sanctimoniously proclaim "you can't legislate morality". And guess what? You'd be right. No matter how strong our MORAL responsibility to care for the poor and needy may be (and we do have a moral responsibility in that regard), you simply can't legislate morality. And it is a CRIME to rob the pockets of the rich to feed the poor, no matter how altruistic your motives may be. God loves a cheerful giver, col, not a forced one.