paladin77

You are afraid to look at the Treasury site and be confronted with the reality that your BOY George has lied again.

I came home from work in my petty little job with Homeland security posted on JU, then cut the grass took dinner over to some old people in the hood that need help but are too proud to ask. came home again read your trash, laughted at the childish baiting you tried. It would work if I was still in the second grade. I will look up the site when I have the time. You are not important enough for me to break my daily routine just to please you. You will wait your turn. You are not the first colonel I have out ranked as a sergeant and you won't be the last. You see when I went out on a mission I ran the show. I had a little get out of jail free card. Once sent out on a mission for operational purposes only the Sec-Def out ranked me or could call me back until I finished my mission. If you were a command officer in Europpe or the west pacific you would have seen me or one of the teams that showed the orders that started off, " TO: Commanding Generals, Commanding Officers, Commaders of ships and stations" and the bottom was signed by the assisitant Sec-Def or sometimes the Sec-Def himself. My commanding officer was Presidednt Carter, President Reagan, and Presidednt Bush. Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force was the father of Spec Ops Command or SOCOM. Not bragging Just letting you know I don't take trash from people as low on the poll as a colonel outside my personal chain of command.

Paladin77

DREAM ON. YOU DO OUT RANK ANYONE. Your support of Bush proves you live in a dream world and are totally devoid of reality!

Taxing the wealthy more than the non wealthy is something I agree with when it comes to contributing something that helps us all.

But I don't support being taxed so that mony is literally transferred to someone who didn't earn it.

You keep, wrongly, asserting that increasing taxes doesn't harm the families. Yes they do. As I have indicated, when you raise taxes, the wealthy simply have less money to invest which in turn costs jobs.

After a couple hundred grand, the wealthy aren't spending it on consumables in general. They're investing it. And those who produce wealth tend to be better at investing money than a government that has demonstrates an incompetence with managing money.

The majority doesn't support increasing taxes. But taxes may eventually be raised and as I said, it won't affect me or my lifestyle one bit, it'll simply cost people jobs because that's what will happen.

And if you increase taxes enough on the wealthiest earners, they'll either find ways to shelter that wealth or they'll simply quit producing.  The people who do stuff are always the ones who have ultimate control, Gene. Not the government.  The government can only function as long as the top earners choose to produce.

I don't need the federal government but the federal government needs me and people like me.  People like you would do well to remember that.

Frogboy

"As I have indicated, when you raise taxes, the wealthy simply have less money to invest which in turn costs jobs.”

I have acknowledged that SOME of the added funds the wealthy have from tax cuts do go into investments. However, that does not always end up in added income for workers and as the Comptroller General has documented, that ADDED tax revenue from the increased income resulting from the investment is only yielding $.50 0n the dollar. We have cut Federal revenue by a Dollar and the added tax revenue from those increased investments has produced $.50. That is the same argument Reagan made in 1981. He claimed the tax cuts would produce GPD growth at 6% and that would replace the lost tax revenue and fund his increased spending. He got his tax cuts passed by a democratically controlled Congress. What resulted is GDP Growth that was about 3% not 6%. That meant that instead of a balanced budget as Reagan promised, he added $3 Trillion to the national Debt in 8 years. The lager driver is Demand caused by spending. That is why if we need added tax revenue it is more effective to get that added money from the wealthy that will not cut their consumption from a tax increase. The middle income taxpayers will be forced to cut spending to pay the higher taxes.

Frogboy

Here is another example of why Supply Side economics (Voodoo Economics) may not benefit our country.

Let’s say some business owners who receive a large tax cut under the Bush policy decide to invest it in more productive equipment. Chances are that new more productive equipment will come from a foreign company and what we will do is use federal revenue from the tax cut to help a foreign producer. Thus American labor does not benefit from this new investment and the balance of trade gets worse.

When this new more productive equipment goes on line the company cuts labor hours from the increased productivity. Now we have an ongoing loss in wages that reduces consumption. What a GREAT Plan—We took tax cuts to the wealthy and screwed American workers that did not make the new equipment and then screw the production workers with lower wages forward. That is called a LOSE, LOSE for our economy from the tax cuts to the wealthy!

Paladin77 DREAM ON. YOU DO OUT RANK ANYONE. Your support of Bush proves you live in a dream world and are totally devoid of reality!

Col you "are" an IDIOT! Since you "obviously" don't know much about Spec War (such as Seal Teams) Ops I would suggest you just drop the subject. Because on this one I believe Paladin77 will "shred" you like a piece of confetti!

Mainly because he's right. Once a spec war op is in motion no matter who's in command of the team, no matter if it's a lowly SGT or an LT you couldn't "give" them an order. Once they are in the field no other officer, col or otherwise can give them an order countermanding their mission. I've seen it tried once, and the SGT laughed in the Captain"s face. Not a wise thing to do....but he got away with it because of what Paladin77 spoke of. Once the orders have been given and the op commander is named in the orders BTW, and the op is set in motion...he would effectively outrank you and while he "might" not ( unsure of this. I think this would depend whether or not you were in the field) be able to give "you" an order..."you", could not give one to him either.

drmiler

That is not the issue. My point was that he was at a level of receiving orders and I was at the level of giving orders. Paladin77 may have knowledge of small unit tactics and spec war operations, but he has NO understanding of strategy that governs our actions in Iraq. Neither did Bush and that is why he has put us in a no win situation in Iraq. Bush has all but destroyed the National Guard and has brought the Army and Marines close to the breaking point. Some Commander-in-Chief - Bush is an IDIOT!

This is where you have no clue.  You have already declared loss and it's pathetic.  Iraq is not lost, and the only ways it will be lost is if we give up, which is what you and your democrat allies want.  You guys are the party of defeat!

Under normal situations you are correct a lowly sergeant is forced to follow a chain of command. In special operations those rules don’t apply. When in 1978 two Japanese businessmen were kidnapped in the Philippines. My team came in and took over Clark AFB. I was a corporal at the time and I owned the Commanding General. I told him what I wanted and he got it for me. I planned the strategy for the retrieval of businessmen because we had to find them first. An army colonel provided intelligence, the navy provided 24/7 communications and the Air Force provided aircraft and a place to work from. Who gave the orders? Not the Commanding General, a Major General in fact took orders from me, because I had a simple letter from the Sec-Def who out ranks everyone in the military saying that as far as the operation went the only person that out ranked me as a corporal was the Secretary of Defense. I was the one that set the plan, gave the orders, and made it happen. I had no officers that told me what to do or how to do it, once the mission started. I have permission to publish this account and with luck it will go to print before the end of the year.

In 1979 when the hostage situation happened in Iran it was my plan the Marine Corps submitted to the JCS for consideration. For political reasons they went with a Joint forces plan called eagle claw.
When the Marine Corps wanted to go into spec ops a colonel I had worked with on several operations tapped me to help write the charter for FAST Company. Fleet, Anti-terror Security Team. I was out of the military by the time the teams were fully up and running but I heard this report from a Marine home on leave. “Yeah, I was near that town when FAST came rolling through. Not much left when they rolled out.” You need to understand my pride, the teams were supposed to be small. A Fast company had a T.O. of 58 people from company commander to the lowest rank. There were two companies that were responsible for world wide coverage. 116 people charged with the responsibility of stopping all terrorist in the world. Until President Clinton we had kept them off our shores.
So col you are correct and completely wrong at the same time.

Let's bottom line this: Why has tax revenue increased so quickly in the past couple of years then despite lower taxes?

Answer: Because more money is being produced because there is more money flowing.

You deal with hypotheticals. I deal with the reality every day, Gene.

As a reminder, the only reason you have this site to post on is because of the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts left me with enough capital to hire additional workers who I then put them into writing this site as part of their initial training.

The irony is that if you had had your way, you wouldn't have this site to post your socialist dogma.

Paladin77

The IRAQ WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE KINDS OF OPERATIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The Strategic choices in Iraq regarding troop levels and the actual conduct of the occupation are nothing like what you are talking about. My training at the Command and General staff and War College provide me with a perspective you do not have!!!

Frogboy

I deal with this reality. The GDP growth level from the tax cuts was NEVER achieved by Reagan or Bush and the Bottom Line is that they both added to the National Debt BIG TIME using the supply side Voodoo Economic Policy!

Frogboy I deal with this reality. The GDP growth level from the tax cuts was NEVER achieved by Reagan or Bush and the Bottom Line is that they both added to the National Debt BIG TIME using the supply side Voodoo Economic Policy!

"You" deal in fantasy! Are you an owner/operator of a business? I have never heard you say you did. Frogboy on the otherhand DOES own/operate a business. And he does so on a daily basis! So unless you can say the same about yourself, I suggest you find something else to squawk about. Lest you forget, "Frogboy" holds the very heart of your palace of lies in his hand. And it is "his" to chrush at his whim.

drmiler

I formed and successfully operated two small companies. I successfully ran the operations of a 2 Billion dollar bank. I ran a $120 Million dollar per year public school system. I was responsible for a division at a major teaching Hospital. I was successful in EVERY one of those positions for over 30 YEARS. What I have presented as the results of the Reagan and Bush fiscal policies is 100 % correct and I have posted the Treasury Web Sites that you and anyone can go to and verify the numbers I have presented. You just do not want to admit the failure of the Bush policies no matter how clear that failure has been over the past 6 years!

Sure they do. You don’t think that there are no special forces in country? No Special Operators anywhere, you seriously think that only conventional forces are in both countries. When I was in the service we had two and three man teams scattered in almost every country in Europe. The first time I saw China was from the North Korean border. I would be willing to bet that the operators are already in Iran sending back live feed. I won’t go into who turns up missing over there.



As I told you months ago your facts are facts but your conclusions from looking at the facts are flawed. Remember the frog I wrote about.



When mistakes have been made I have had no problems criticizing the president or members of his administration. Some things that look like mistakes or bone headed screw-ups are sometimes planned to look that way to gain an advantage. It is not blind faith that causes me to support the president it is support of my president as I did with the last president. If Mr. Bush was a true screw up I would not have voted for him a second time. You col political hack screamed that Mr. Rumsfield should have been fired for botching up the military. Yet he and Mr. Bush were the only ones asking for more troops before 9/11 and it is on record that the 9/11 breakfast meeting with the congressional leadership asking for more money because of AQ and others. The man revamped the military in a short time that saved lives. He was such a screw up how come he is the only Sec-Def that served twice?

paladin77

There are Special Forces in Iraq but that is not the bulk of the forces our objective. We were engaged in a traditional military campaign that brought Saddam and his military to defeat. What we then did is allowed the sectarian violence to turn in to a civil war for the control of Iraq. The decision to not send more troops at the outset was Bush not Rummy. The error to Invade in the first place was Bush. This war has not made us safer and was not justified from day one. In addition, Bush ignored all the warnings of how our invasion would be accepted by the people of Iraq and the greater Moslem World. His lack of experience and refusal to heed the council of those with the experience has brought our military into a NO WIN situation and that has needlessly cost us over 3,100 lives and many more injuries. Bush and Cheney should be IMPEACHED for taking us to a war that was unneeded and unjustified. EVERY person who was sent to Iraq was LIED to about why they were being asked to risk their life. It was not to make us safer. It was not because we were in danger from Saddam. It was to satisfy the decision of GWB who had decided to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11 for reasons only he knows.

An issue that you Bushies never address is the Pentagon Assessment in 2002 that Saddam had very limited military capability. That report said Saddam was ONLY capable of conducting military operations in the central section of Iraq. That assessment and that fact that Bush knew Saddam had no nuclear weapons take away ANY pretext that Saddam was a threat that warranted our invasion!

Only if they listened to you. You tell this lie evey chance you get even though it has een refuted ecery time you tell it.



In one article you scream that AQ has a training camp in Iraq so the President should be impeached. But when it is pointed out to you that before the invasion of Iraq there were three AQ bases in Iraq you say that the President lied to get us in a war. but the threat of AQ expanding and finding a new country to harbor them was a valid reason to invade. So according to you we should have impeached the President because Iraq was not a threat and according to you AQ was not in Iraq before we invaded. But with three bases in Iraq AQ was there and now that they have been reduced to only one camp left in Iraq you want the President impeached because the military destroyed two of the three bases and shut down their growth. Good job you want to get rid of people that do the right thing.



Yes, by using the German Blitz Krieg to start the invasion, followed by an occupation and repatriation, then start an entirely new political system that has never been tried in that part of the world. You and all your friends said it would be a failure and that those people could not handle freedom. At each stage of development people on the left cheered for failure. As if losing is good for the nation. Let me say that I don’t believe that the left, no matter how stupid they may sound at times, want to see America lose a war, any war, but the hard left are so set on making the President look like a loser in order to gain politically. It seems their desire is winning at all cost they forget that winning for them is losing for America.

Paladin77

The failure in Iraq has nothing to do with the left. Bush got his way in this WAR from getting Congress to give him a blank check to the way he chose to fight this war. The results are TOTALLY on the Bush Plate.

The lie Bush told OUR brave military was that they were being sent to Iraq because their country was in such danger from Iraq that we had no choice but to send them into combat. That simply was a lie. Bush knew Saddam had no nuclear weapons. Bush knew Saddam did not have the military capacity in 2002 to conduct military operations beyond the Central Section of Iraq. Please explain HOW Saddam and the Iraq military was so great a danger that we were justified in risking the lives of our military? Show me how Saddam was ANY risk to the world's most powerful nation? YES Bush and Cheney LIED to every member of OUR military. Bush lied to Congress. Bush Lied to the American People. Bush got Powell to use his LIES at the UN which Powell now admits was “The biggest mistake of his career". Just like Bush lies today about the deficit, he lied about the danger Saddam posed to the U.S. in 2002-2003.

The invasion of Iraq was in the planning stage LONG before 9/11. Before the so called “War on terrorism” It was talked about at the very first cabinet meeting in 2001. In 2001 al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan not Iraq. Bush took his desire to remove Saddam and sifted through the Intelligence that provided some support for that course of action. He rejected ALL the Intelligence and military estimate of Saddam's military capability because that did not support what he wanted to do. Bush IGNORED the advice of people that warned him that invading Iraq would not fly in the Moslem world and would cause instability in Iraq. ANYTHING that did not support his preconceived choice to invade Iraq was rejected. He Cherry picked the facts and analysis that he wanted and ignored all the other information. As it turned out, all the facts, Intelligence and advice NOT to invade Iraq were correct. All the Intelligence and advice to invader Iraq has been proven WRONG! Despite this Bush and Cheney still content that invading Iraq war the right thing to do! How can anyone look at the fact that EVERYTHING Bush and Cheney relied upon to make their case to Invade Iraq was WRONG and all the Intelligence and Advice why NOT to invade Iraq has been proven CORRECT? That clearly shows that Bush and Cheney are not swayed by the facts even facts that develop AFTER they followed a policy that many said was a mistake from the outset! They NEVER admit when they were WRONG even when the results clearly prove their error!

The invasion of Iraq was in the planning stage LONG before 9/11. Before the so called “War on terrorism” It was talked about at the very first cabinet meeting in 2001. In 2001 al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan not Iraq. Bush took his desire to remove Saddam and sifted through the Intelligence that provided some support for that course of action. He rejected ALL the Intelligence and military estimate of Saddam's military capability because that did not support what he wanted to do. Bush IGNORED the advice of people that warned him that invading Iraq would not fly in the Moslem world and would cause instability in Iraq. ANYTHING that did not support his preconceived choice to invade Iraq was rejected. He Cherry picked the facts and analysis that he wanted and ignored all the other information. As it turned out, all the facts, Intelligence and advice NOT to invade Iraq were correct. All the Intelligence and advice to invader Iraq has been proven WRONG! Despite this Bush and Cheney still content that invading Iraq war the right thing to do! How can anyone look at the fact that EVERYTHING Bush and Cheney relied upon to make their case to Invade Iraq was WRONG and all the Intelligence and Advice why NOT to invade Iraq has been proven CORRECT? That clearly shows that Bush and Cheney are not swayed by the facts even facts that develop AFTER they followed a policy that many said was a mistake from the outset! They NEVER admit when they were WRONG even when the results clearly prove their error!

WHAT A CROCK OF SH*T!!!
We have "proven" you wrong on this so many times I've lost count. Do you honestly think that you are going to make any difference at all with this? Bush WILL NOT be impeached! No matter how much you wish for it to happen. He's here until 2008! Even though "you" say we'll be feeling this long after he's gone, he won't be gone before his time. So all your whining and crying means NOTHING!!!

drmiler

O'Neil said the invasion of Iraq was discussed at the FIRST cabinet meeting. PROVE HIS STATEMENT WRONG!

drmiler O'Neil said the invasion of Iraq was discussed at the FIRST cabinet meeting. PROVE HIS STATEMENT WRONG!

I'm not going to do it again. We HAVE proven it wrong many many times and not just by me but others also. It's YOU who will not accept the proof.

drmiler

YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING OF THE SORT! O'Neil has said that Iraq was discussed in the First Bush Cabinet meeting and nothing you have said changes his statement. O'Neil is an old line Republican and has no reason to fabricate such a statement.