So you finally admit you are a socialist?

who are you to say how much someone is worth. oh thats right your a col in the army. a col who doesnt know how to fight a battle.





the only theives in this country are the ones that want to raise income tax. even a bank robber doesn't get away with that much money.



this should read. let's steal that money and give it to the middle income working families that didn't earn it.

That's pretty unfair to Artysim. 

It's a fine line between having an honest debate and simply demonizing people because they have different opinions.

People can look at the same data and come to different conclusions.

Gene is intellectually dishonest. It has already been shown to him how the budget could be balanced in any number of ways without even cutting programs or raising taxes (simply slow the rate in which spending increases and the problem goes away).

By contrast, Artysim is a thoughtful and intelligent debater who expresses his points of view with considerable insight.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
When any corporate executives make excessive salaries or other compensation it come from the prices charged for their goods or services. Let’s recapture that money and give tax cuts to the middle income working families!!!!!!!


So you finally admit you are a socialist?
I am nothing of the sort. When someone can overcharge the users so they can be paid an outrageous compensation, there needs to be an offset to that abuse. NO ONE is worth $100 Million. In addition many of them receive most of that compensation as capital gains and only are paying 17% tax not the 34% rate on earned income. It is wrong and is a good example of the abuse and shift in the wealthy to the top income people that Bush and the GOP support. That must change. It is not socialism but balance and fairness.

By contrast, Artysim is a thoughtful and intelligent debater who expresses his points of view with considerable insight.


He uses a different style. That does not chgange the fact that what I have said and shown is not true. Style is a factor but the correctness of the argumenty is the more salient issue! There is nothing wrong with the style of this Blog you just do want to accept the truth:



We Need to CUT Spending!

By COL Gene
Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics


This is the cry of most Republicans and some Democrats. It is time to stop making this generalized statement and take an HONEST look at the Federal Budget. To help with that please take a look at the following Web Site: www.thebudgetgraph.com . It will give you a very clear picture of just where the Federal Government is spending YOUR tax dollars.

I have looked at this issue as well at the major issues that face our country and will impact spending for the foreseeable future. The objective was to see just where the spending cuts can be made to solve the nation’s fiscal problems.

First we need to understand ALL Federal spending falls into one of two types. One is “mandatory spending” and the other is termed “discretionary spending”. Both types have been increasing at a fast pace. When we talk about cutting the budget we must understand the items which are mandatory are NOT subject to cutting without violating promises that have been made by the Government of the United States. The three biggest elements in this category are Interest on the National Debt, Medicare and Social Security. In round numbers that mandatory spending is about $2 Trillion Dollars per year.

The other category is discretionary spending and is made up of elements that CAN be cut without violating the promises made by our country. The amount of that type of spending is about $800 Billion per year. If you fail to look at what is included in that $800 Billion one can come to the conclusion we can solve our fiscal problems by simply cutting this discretionary spending. Now it is time to take a look at the budget graph I referenced.

You will see the largest element in that category which comprises more then half of discretionary spending is National Defense. Another large component is Homeland Security. Help for the poor for Food Stamps and Medicaid rounds out the major items. These three make up MOST of the discretionary spending.

Let’s take a look at the largest spending items within the budget and the prospect for cutting them in the future.

Mandatory Items:

Social Security- this will increase at a growing rate as the Baby Boomers retire which will start in February 2008.

Medicare – This will increase for the same reason as Social Security plus the addition of the Prescription Drug Program and the increasing cost of health care. This will increase far more then Social Security.

Interest – This will continue to increase so long as we add to the National Debt. The national debt on Sept 30, 2006 was $8.5 Trillion. The National Debt on September 30, 2007 was $9 Trillion. Despite the lie Bush told that the annual deficit was $168 Billion that actual amount we added to the total debt was $500 Billion in FY 2007. Go to the U.S. Treasury web site for the actual amounts to the penny.

Discretionary Items:

National Defense – That will increase substantially because of the increase in the Active Duty strength, pay increases and because of the replacement of most of the equipment for the ground forces.

VA- This will expand in a major way to pay for the injured veterans from the Iraq war.

Homeland Security - That will need to increase as we build the border fence and add the needed border guards. The new equipment and new ID cards and systems will also require added spending. The Coast Guard will see an increase in spending as will federal law enforcement and intelligence services.

Medicaid - As more and more people are becoming eligible and medical cost increase, the cost of this program will increase.

Pell Grants – The lower interest rates for student loans will increase the overall cost of this program.

Federal Road and Bridge maintenance – This will increase given the condition of the ageing roads and bridges.

The above are the areas that surely will require added spending. These items make up the BULK of the overall spending. When you look at the magnitude of these items it will not be a surprise that spending will continue to increase. I would like to have ANYONE provide specifics as to where and by how much the so called “spending cuts” can take place that will both balance the budget and then provide a REAL Surplus to be used to pay down the over $9 Trillion dollar national debt.


The time has passed for statements like - “the problem is our Spending”. We need to provide specifics areas and amounts where spending can be CUT to come up with the money needed to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt! I believe the chance of spending cuts solving our fiscal problems to be about the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery! Remember, mandatory spending is just that!

Ah yes, you libeals and your "fairness".  You want to redistribute someones income because you think it's "fair".  What nonsense.  Nobody takes you seriously gene. 

you cannot over charge someone unless they let you. for instance if brad charges 50 dollars for galciv2 and everyone is still buying it. then he isn't over charging. the only exception to this rule is a monopoly. and right now there is only one monopoly in this country and that is government. or as they say in civ 4 the fair price for a product is what ever the consumer is willing to pay for it.(that may not be an exact quote).

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
It is not socialism but balance and fairness.


Ah yes, you liberals and your "fairness". You want to redistribute someone’s income because you think it's "fair". What nonsense. (Bush and the GOP have done more to redistribute income then anyone) Nobody takes you seriously gene. Just about 80% of All Americans who do not agree with the current policies. It may be that many on thus Blog side to not agree but the vast majority hold views similar to my views.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
When someone can overcharge the users so they can be paid an outrageous compensation



You cannot over charge someone unless they let you. For instance if brad charges 50 dollars for galciv2 and everyone is still buying it. Then he isn't over charging. The only exception to this rule is a monopoly. And right now there is only one monopoly in this country and that is government. or as they say in civ 4 the fair price for a product is what ever the consumer is willing to pay for it.(that may not be an exact quote). THAT IS BS!


The OIL Companies overcharge us EVERY DAY and then pay their top executives’ outrageous salaries and their stock holders bigger and bigger profits. If you invest in a mutual fund you have no control of the outrageous compensation the top officials receive. If you want to invest you have no options and since all the funds do the same thing you can not just switch to funds that pay their top people more reasonable compensation.

Um...no they haven't.  Nothing has been taken away from me to give to anybody.





Gene and his media polls again.  I highly doubt 80% of Americans have your socialist views, and want the government to control every aspect of business and income.

And yet, if the field grade officer is an incompetent fool, $70,000 is as much a waste of money as the $100 Million going to another incompetent fool.

I'm sure your income far exceeds your needs Gene, I think the government should decide what your excess is and just take it away. Because that is what you demand the government does to others... but not you, of course.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
(Bush and the GOP have done more to redistribute income then anyone)


Um...no they haven't. Nothing has been taken away from me to give to anybody.


YES IT HAS-- YOU and YOUR Children not owe much more because of the added $4 trillion in debt that his policies created.


Just about 80% of All Americans who do not agree with the current policies. It may be that many on thus Blog side to not agree but the vast majority hold views similar to my views.


Gene and his media polls again. I highly doubt 80% of Americans have your socialist views, and want the government to control every aspect of business and income.

If you believe the vast majority do not want our policies changed you are living in a DREAM world!

OK, I take back what I said. Brad makes a good point and it's not fair to tag Artysim as a Col puppet.

I'm sorry Artysim. We may disagree but comparing you to Col was going a bit to far.

Maybe you can explain to me what is wrong with that? The executive does his work and make the company lots of money and is then compensated for his work. The company feels a certain large amount of money is adequate as compensation for the large amounts of money this executive help the company make. How is this a bad thing? Maybe you should be questioning the people who are buying these goods or paying for these services. they are the ones making the companies rich. Ever wonder how HD TV companies are making so much money? Maybe because people who can't afford them are buying them anyways? What I don't get is how come you don't blame the average citizen for mishandling their budgets but instead you blame the companies that profit from these peoples stupidity.

Who would you blame if a person put their hands in fire and got burn, the person or the fire?

Sorry gene, but Bush has not taken any additional income away from me.  As a matter of fact, the best years I have had in taxes I have had under Bush and I'm not rich.  Try again comrade.





I'm sure people do want policies changed, nothing groundbreaking about that.  However, I don't believe America wants to head more into a socialist nanny state where we take income away from Americans to give to others.  That is ridiculous to even suggest it.

But keep going with your logic gene, it will only help us.

Complain about budget, then complain about how we need more social programs, and then try to convince people you want to balance the budget.  LOL!

I tire of people who blame the people who make money but never once point the finger at the irresponsibility of those who spend their money unwisely. I should now, I'm one of those people, but i am working on changing that and as I have said before I have improved somewhat. I may even be able to buy a new car soon if all goes well. But this was not due to help from the Federal Gov't, this was from hard work and learning responsibility. I have enough proof that Gov't help creates more lazy blood sucking people than it helps. I should know I come from a welfare family where everyone in my family has lived off of welfare, abused the system or has used it much longer than they should have. Perfectly capable people BTW.

We provide real life examples that we have lived of being able to make it on low incomes, and you say the average family can't make it on that amount. Gid's family should have a lot MORE expenses than the AVERAGE family, Gene. He DOES not. So, why do you CONTINUE to INSIST that an average family, with 4.5 less kids in it has MORE expenses than him?

I think this average family you're talking about has a lot more debt than the average family can afford, and that's why they're not making it.

The only situation I really feel bad about is a change in situation family, where someone lost a job or got an unexpected pay or benefits cut. I would support a charity that helps them, until they are able to readjust their standard of living to fit their new income level. Not until they can afford the same standard of living again.

The problem in America, though, is that a low standard of living is becoming outlawed.

Best quote in this whole thread.

Island Dog, if I may respond to the following;



What has been happening in the last few years has been that public money, your tax dollars, have been leaving public institutions and going into private hands far more than previous. This is money that needs to be spent on essential services regardless, but instead of being spent in a transparent manner a lot of it is now going to private companies on no-bid contracts, quite often on cost plus arrangements, meaning that the government has to pay more for the same service. What cost-plus means is that the contractor is guaranteed a certain percentage of profit, if he exceeds the agreed upon contract then the government will eat the costs with public tax dollars to ensure the contractor gets his 20% profit.

This is not because private industry is providing a wonderful service that the gov. is incapable of.... it's because for the private companies this is a wonderful opportunity to make a massive amount of profit, all being paid for by your taxes, and it is being implemented because it marches in lockstep with the ideology that all government functions should be performed by the private sector (but, of course still paid for with public money, right?)

A prime example is Blackwater security. They only have approximately 1000 plus combat arms folks in Iraq but if you look at the costs per contractor the U.S government is paying through the nose for each and every one several times the amount of money it takes to keep one uniformed service member in the field... where is the logic in that?

Also, the massive amount of support services that have been contracted out under Rummy when he was SECDEF is astounding. KBR has always been a support contractor for the U.S military but nothing like what's recently happened. In the last few years just about every and any non-combat role that can be imagined has been largely outsourced which is part of the reason why you now have Burger King running outlets on U.S bases in Iraq. You might think that's a great thing but keep in mind that it is costing way more than the services previously provided "in house" and it's all being paid for with public money!

Gene, I have a question about the Death and Taxes Graph. For each department it gives an amount budgeted, then it gives a detailed list of amounts budgeted for the offices and agencies within the department. The problem is, the total of the budgets for the agencies are far greater that the budget for the department.

(for example, the Department of Agriculture has a budget of $20,226 billion. But the total sum of all the agencies in the department is $35.3325 billion.)

The question is, why is there a discrepency?

Gene is intellectually dishonest. It has already been shown to him how the budget could be balanced in any number of ways without even cutting programs or raising taxes (simply slow the rate in which spending increases and the problem goes away).

I have shown that without violating the promises made by the Government, cuts alone will not balance the budget. I have also shown WHY to keep those promises the idea of “slowing the rate at which spending increases” is not possible. Given the Baby Boomers and the ever increasing Debt, MOST of the mandatory spending will need to increase substantially and thus “slowing spending” for those items (Interest, Social Security and Medicare) is not possible UNLESS the Government fails to keep the promises made to the retired and the people who have purchased the Debt of this country. The portion of the Budget that is not the result of promises is about $800 Billion and the vast majority of that $800 Billion is being spent on Defense and Homeland Security which can not be cut without jeopardizing our security. In fact unless the Iraq War Ends NOW we will be spending more on Defense and we will be spending more on Homeland Security.

Thus the “solve the budget problem by slowing the spending is a smoke screen. If it were not for the Boomers and if we had kept the Debt at the $1 Trillion dollar level that is was in 1981, we could balance the budget by “slowing spending” Such is NOT THE CASE and anyone that makes such an argument must be on DRUGS!

then stop buying their product. there are electric cars and bicycles.

i don't know if anyone else remembers but i do. that trillion dollar debt in 81 was a smoke screen. the government was printing money to make the debt look smaller than it was.

"your evil twin brother Artysim"

Maybe they're fraternal twins?

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007

The OIL Companies overcharge us EVERY DAY and then pay their top executives’ outrageous salaries and their stock holders bigger and bigger profits.



Then stop buying their product. There are electric cars and bicycles.


That is the type of response that proves you and anyone else with s similar position is not interested in a debate. We do not have the option to stop using oil and gasoline. We may become LESS dependent in the future but I will not see the day when we will not NEED oil and this the Oil Companies have a strangle hold on the consumer and that needs to be offset by the Government!

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
“If it were not for the Boomers and if we had kept the Debt at the $1 Trillion dollar level that is was in 1981



I don't know if anyone else remembers but I do. That trillion dollar debt in 81 was a smoke screen. The government was printing money to make the debt look smaller than it was.”

Again you response has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The statement was made that we can balance the budget by simply “SLOWING the spending”. That is a nice idea and might work but given the 68 Million Boomers and the fact that the debt has gone from $1 Trillion to $9 Trillion and is still GROWING, it simply is not possible to "slow THE RATE OF SPENDING”. IN FACT THE RATE of spending WILL INCREASE AT AN ALARMING RATE.

That is what the Comptroller General has said. It is what the FED CHAIERMAN AND SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAVE SAID. I will take their opinion over ANYONE on this Blog site as to the impact of the Boomers on future spending. These three men have also said without either tax increases or cutting promised benefits, we are rapidity come to the point where we will be unable to meet the obligations of this country!

I have said we have an obligation to keep the PROMISES we have made and that means even after we cut where we can from the discretionary spending, we will not be close to solving the fiscal problems of this country. The longer we wait to act the more of an increase in taxes it will require to meet our obligations.