Gary Jeurink wrote: > Problem is ... I had a catastrophic accident in 1983 and I am alive > because of medicare and Medicaid. Take em away and I'll be dead in > about a month!
Hi Gary, Crux of the problem. They use "right to life" issues such as health care to bump the budget, then divert it to yachts, private jets and limousines for themselves and their buddies. Bastards! > Exactly, now what has grown in the last 12 years that can be cut... > > Inflation... pesky little thing can't get rid of that Oh a recession > that has cut tax revenues and increased federal spending Yup stop > spending on Iran and Iraq.. pull the troups back.. that'll get some > votes Well might as well close the camp at Gitmo... save a fortune on > orange boiler suits... send them all back to Iran / Pakistan / > Afghanistan Homeland Security.. hell no need for that when we're > looking to save money... just make sure everyone can carry a gun and > then no one will dare attack us. Education and healthcare... let > everyone provide for themselves.. "there is no such thing as society" > Care for seniors... shit they should of provided for themselves... > low paid jobs .. well tough.. > > Next? > http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45242 > > Democrats incessantly boast that “Bill Clinton balanced the budget.” > Since they give him so much credit for this achievement, and have > never been known to describe President Clinton as heartless and > cruel to the helpless dependents of Big Government, they can hardly > denounce his levels of government spending as “irresponsible” or > “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” > > <snip> > > Clinton spent only $1.7 trillion in 1999. The Obama budget baseline > is a staggering $3.7 trillion. The CBO would score a return to > Clinton levels of spending as a $20 trillion spending “cut.” > > <snip> > > This proposal has it all – and by simply proposing it, Republicans > would raise awareness about the absurdity of baseline budgeting. > > Even if the Bill Clinton Budget Act of 2011 dies in the House, the > arguments against it would be highly educational for a public that > thinks the phrase “spending cut” means something entirely different > than its Beltway meaning. The public is, quite literally, not even > speaking the same language as its ruling class. Bill Clinton would > make an excellent translator. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
