Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The 93 WTC plot literally came within 10 feet of killing 30,000 people outright.
The truck bomb was intended to crack the floating foundation of the fully occupied tower and send it toppling into its fully occupied sister tower at the height of rush hour.
It was an act of war, it was the equivalent of someone trying to detonate a nuclear weapon and having it misfire. It required an immediate, massiv, overwhelming response, and the attackers themselves should have been subject to enhanced interrogation for the next decade, instead we get a new episode of "Law and Order
Epic Fail and it got 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and we lost the WTC anyway.
And now you expect other nations to love us and give us intel AND financing because we have a Muslim Marxist as President, I don't know weather you're more naive than stupid and I don't think it matters
Forget for a minute you're an uneducated partisan right winger, and tell us who, in your opinon and by what means the United States ought to have overwhelmed?
And, btw, when one of our soliders or sailors, marines or airmen is tortured and there is great outcry in America, it's people like you and Chency, cowards who never served in uniform, who are responsible.
You forgot to add the phrase "imperialist running dog." That would make your post more credible than what it was.
Was revenue received from the taxpayers and their employers put in a locked box, or was it spent to fund the Iraq adventure?
"End government pensions as well, especially unfunded pension guarantees, but no government worker wants to hear that......."
Posted by Rabbi
Well, post that as a thread Rabbi, we'll see what profanity gunny throws your way.
Envy is on of the seven deadly sins, Rabbi.
"End government pensions as well, especially unfunded pension guarantees, but no government worker wants to hear that......."
Posted by Rabbi
Well, post that as a thread Rabbi, we'll see what profanity gunny throws your way.
Envy is on of the seven deadly sins, Rabbi.
What a dumbshit. You can't think. You can't write. And now you prove you can't read either.
It was Titanic Sailor who posted that, not me.
Your response to contrary evidence is to call names and obfuscate (look up the word if you need to). What does that say about any of your views? Frank is a model of clarity and thought, especially compared to a brain-dead hack like yourself.
Was revenue received from the taxpayers and their employers put in a locked box, or was it spent to fund the Iraq adventure?
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
The debate over debt really turns on how much is "too much".
Between 1935 and 1981 the only significant increases in the deficit occurred during world war II and the Vietnam War.
Between 1981 and 1989 the Reagan Administration consistently ran annual deficits of $167 Billion and more than doubled the nations outstanding gross debt.
The Clinton Administration posted four straight years of surpluses and wiped out the annual deficit in 1998; But, the total national debt never decreased because the interest on the debt was highter than the surpluses.
Bush's tax cut in 2002 turned a $126 Billion annual surplus into a $158 Billion deficit and pushed the total federal debt over $6 Trillion.
These are facts, what follows is opinion.
The only way to resolve our current problem is to reduce spending, raise revenue and stop the hysterical emotion based bickering. The Congress needs to look at all ways to increase revenue and all programs to reduce spending. Spending must have a positive cost benefit., based on reason and not emotion.
Cut spending. Absolutely.
But how do you intend to raise government revenues.
I have a time proven way.
Cut taxes.
Three times in the past tax cuts have increased government revenue
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Hmmm would you approve of such a proven strategy?The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.
The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to bracket creep, the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.
My post stated, forget for a minute who controlled Congress...all presidents have the power to veto legislation. This is why your a liar Frank, everything you post is based on propaganda you hear and nothing is based on an honest evaluation of anything.
Those who attacked the WTC in the first month of the Clinton Administration are in jail, and will be until they die.
After 9/11 there were 16 major attacks by radical Islamic terrorists. See the list: Major terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001
Instead of calling for a crusade as Bush did, dozens of other victim nations would have been willing to commit intelligence sources, police agencies and expecially fiscal detectives to work on who, what and where the command and control of terror activites was occuring. Instead cowboy diplomacy prevailed, and implemented a plan against Iraq developed in the mid 90's. And fools like you still believe Bush acted responsibly.
The 93 WTC plot literally came within 10 feet of killing 30,000 people outright.
The truck bomb was intended to crack the floating foundation of the fully occupied tower and send it toppling into its fully occupied sister tower at the height of rush hour.
It was an act of war, it was the equivalent of someone trying to detonate a nuclear weapon and having it misfire. It required an immediate, massiv, overwhelming response, and the attackers themselves should have been subject to enhanced interrogation for the next decade, instead we get a new episode of "Law and Order
Epic Fail and it got 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and we lost the WTC anyway.
And now you expect other nations to love us and give us intel AND financing because we have a Muslim Marxist as President, I don't know weather you're more naive than stupid and I don't think it matters
Forget for a minute you're an uneducated partisan right winger, and tell us who, in your opinon and by what means the United States ought to have overwhelmed?
And, btw, when one of our soliders or sailors, marines or airmen is tortured and there is great outcry in America, it's people like you and Chency, cowards who never served in uniform, who are responsible.
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
The debate over debt really turns on how much is "too much".
Between 1935 and 1981 the only significant increases in the deficit occurred during world war II and the Vietnam War.
Between 1981 and 1989 the Reagan Administration consistently ran annual deficits of $167 Billion and more than doubled the nations outstanding gross debt.
The Clinton Administration posted four straight years of surpluses and wiped out the annual deficit in 1998; But, the total national debt never decreased because the interest on the debt was highter than the surpluses.
Bush's tax cut in 2002 turned a $126 Billion annual surplus into a $158 Billion deficit and pushed the total federal debt over $6 Trillion.
These are facts, what follows is opinion.
The only way to resolve our current problem is to reduce spending, raise revenue and stop the hysterical emotion based bickering. The Congress needs to look at all ways to increase revenue and all programs to reduce spending. Spending must have a positive cost benefit., based on reason and not emotion.
Cut spending. Absolutely.
But how do you intend to raise government revenues.
I have a time proven way.
Cut taxes.
Three times in the past tax cuts have increased government revenue
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Hmmm would you approve of such a proven strategy?The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.
The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to bracket creep, the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.
The key to reducing government debt is to cut spending more then taxes.
The 93 WTC plot literally came within 10 feet of killing 30,000 people outright.
The truck bomb was intended to crack the floating foundation of the fully occupied tower and send it toppling into its fully occupied sister tower at the height of rush hour.
It was an act of war, it was the equivalent of someone trying to detonate a nuclear weapon and having it misfire. It required an immediate, massiv, overwhelming response, and the attackers themselves should have been subject to enhanced interrogation for the next decade, instead we get a new episode of "Law and Order
Epic Fail and it got 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and we lost the WTC anyway.
And now you expect other nations to love us and give us intel AND financing because we have a Muslim Marxist as President, I don't know weather you're more naive than stupid and I don't think it matters
Forget for a minute you're an uneducated partisan right winger, and tell us who, in your opinon and by what means the United States ought to have overwhelmed?
And, btw, when one of our soliders or sailors, marines or airmen is tortured and there is great outcry in America, it's people like you and Chency, cowards who never served in uniform, who are responsible.
Have you read Michael Lind's piece in the Marine Corp Gazette about asymmetrical warfare? Hmmm?
Who? Well we treated it as a criminal act so we never got to find out who now did we.
Oh, by the way, following up on your "logic" why weren't they charged with 30,000 counts of attempted murder?
Forget for a minute you're an uneducated partisan right winger, and tell us who, in your opinon and by what means the United States ought to have overwhelmed?
And, btw, when one of our soliders or sailors, marines or airmen is tortured and there is great outcry in America, it's people like you and Chency, cowards who never served in uniform, who are responsible.
Have you read Michael Lind's piece in the Marine Corp Gazette about asymmetrical warfare? Hmmm?
Who? Well we treated it as a criminal act so we never got to find out who now did we.
Oh, by the way, following up on your "logic" why weren't they charged with 30,000 counts of attempted murder?
Why would I read the "Marine Corp Gazette", I served in the Navy (and jarheads can't read, why do they need a paper?).
As to why they weren't charged with 30,000 counts of attempted murder, I suppose prosecutor descretion, cost and the information alleged was sufficient to put the assholes away for life.
Gingrich Congress ran the "surpluses", Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare, remember?
By your logic, then, Reagan never cut taxes. The Democrats who controlled the House were just as responsible as the Republicans in the Senate for cutting taxes.
The Democrats - party of tax cuts.
That's good to know.
do you know how different it was when Reagan was president? Scalia got 90 votes!!!!!
Everything except Defense. Cut everything by 50% to start. Analyze the savings and then, cut another 25% if it is warranted.Cut spending. Absolutely.
But how do you intend to raise government revenues.
I have a time proven way.
Cut taxes.
Three times in the past tax cuts have increased government revenue
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Hmmm would you approve of such a proven strategy?
The key to reducing government debt is to cut spending more then taxes.
Well, what should be cut? Isn't that the issue? I supported Obama's decision to stop the F-22 production, did you? I didn't support Bush before, during or after the Iraq adventure. Did you? What has that cost so far in lives and treasure? And how did the American people benefit?
As for Kemp's comments, I agree; the issue is at what point? Clinton's targeted tax cuts made sense, a flat tax is nuts.
Have you read Michael Lind's piece in the Marine Corp Gazette about asymmetrical warfare? Hmmm?
Who? Well we treated it as a criminal act so we never got to find out who now did we.
Oh, by the way, following up on your "logic" why weren't they charged with 30,000 counts of attempted murder?
Why would I read the "Marine Corp Gazette", I served in the Navy (and jarheads can't read, why do they need a paper?).
As to why they weren't charged with 30,000 counts of attempted murder, I suppose prosecutor descretion, cost and the information alleged was sufficient to put the assholes away for life.
Lind's piece on Asymmetrical Fourth Generation Warfare happens to be spot on with respect to the 1993 WTC attack.
You ever think of hooking up with Jillian and comparing brain sizes? You too have a lot in common
