2009

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
what could be and I fail to see any "change" -looks like same ole same ole liberal agenda
--cut military--increase social programs--raise taxes:shrug:

NEW BEDFORD ? After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.

"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."

"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.

And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over ? likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting.

The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said.

"There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze."

States have many infrastructure projects ? bridges, highways, etc. ? that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go.

Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only thing he left out is increase corporate taxes and gas tax--which will come.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
At least they are laying it out there, not that Barney Frank really has the 'power' or authority to speak for Obamas agenda.

I guess it's better than Bush 41 wagging his finger at us and telling us to 'Read my lips.' :nono:
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,784
256
83
54
BG, KY, USA
At least they are laying it out there, not that Barney Frank really has the 'power' or authority to speak for Obamas agenda.

I guess it's better than Bush 41 wagging his finger at us and telling us to 'Read my lips.' :nono:

geeze... Why must you always live in the past? :shrug:
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
geeze... Why must you always live in the past? :shrug:

lol- touche'.

Maybe if I included Clinton in 1992 promising middle class tax cuts, but the financial realities once he got elected became apparent to him, you wouldn't have responded.

Whatever the case, I suppose it's somewhat refreshing that 'promises' aren't ALL viewed through rose-colored glasses and unrealistically implementable.
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,784
256
83
54
BG, KY, USA
lol- touche'.

Maybe if I included Clinton in 1992 promising middle class tax cuts, but the financial realities once he got elected became apparent to him, you wouldn't have responded.

Whatever the case, I suppose it's somewhat refreshing that 'promises' aren't ALL viewed through rose-colored glasses and unrealistically implementable.

nah... all in fun!
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,884
693
113
50
TX
what could be and I fail to see any "change" -looks like same ole same ole liberal agenda
--cut military--increase social programs--raise taxes:shrug:

NEW BEDFORD ? After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.

"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."

"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.

And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over ? likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting.

The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said.

"There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze."

States have many infrastructure projects ? bridges, highways, etc. ? that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go.

Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only thing he left out is increase corporate taxes and gas tax--which will come.

when did Barney FAG get so much power? :s8:

I can't wait to write my big check to the government so more people can have food stamps:rolleyes:
 

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
lol- touche'.

Maybe if I included Clinton in 1992 promising middle class tax cuts, but the financial realities once he got elected became apparent to him, you wouldn't have responded.

Whatever the case, I suppose it's somewhat refreshing that 'promises' aren't ALL viewed through rose-colored glasses and unrealistically implementable.

In any forum, be it thread or post, the award for using two consecutive words with the most possible syllables goes to none other than Ft. Myers finest....Kosar! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
If we just spend a couple bucks on the home land it would be right direction. If we just stop charging 5% of it on a credit card. That would be a good start. If we truely start a energy plan that is differant then just oil. That would be realy wonderful. And if we start letting Iraq take care of more of it's business and pay for it. That would be realy realy great.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,884
693
113
50
TX
If we just spend a couple bucks on the home land it would be right direction. If we just stop charging 5% of it on a credit card. That would be a good start. If we truely start a energy plan that is differant then just oil. That would be realy wonderful. And if we start letting Iraq take care of more of it's business and pay for it. That would be realy realy great.



Oil is abundant and cheaper than any other resource, I vote for ANWAR and offshore now

Iraq has tons of oil, why do we not just take their oil and make them pay us back for the war? :shrug:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
At least they are laying it out there, not that Barney Frank really has the 'power' or authority to speak for Obamas agenda.

I guess it's better than Bush 41 wagging his finger at us and telling us to 'Read my lips.' :nono:

Only have one question on issue--and it is assuming they take their normal road as promised.

I think one thing both sides can agree on is if we don't reduce federal debt we will all be in a world of shit.

If we learned anything from the past--you can't cut defence spending to pay for more social programs--because at some point in time you will have to increase defence spending such as time of war--when that happens they don't cut the social programs to pay for defence but rather tack in on and increase debt.

If we have times when we can cut defense budget how about paying off debt with surplus instead of spending it on social programs that are always under estimated in original cost and escalate yearly.

How about if want to get a hold of debt issue--freeze all budgets and no new ones until we get debt under control--My suggestion would be cut off all foreign aid to countries that continuely vote against our interest in the U.N.

Evidently there are a lot of people who like the opposite as O's plan is to double foreign aid.

I think social programs are certainly necessary but for many its not help when needed but a way of life--75% of all food stamps go to single mothers with children-also 70% of households receiving have done so for 5 years or more.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
just got projections from another party member John Kerry--

John Kerry wants New Deal II
http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...ry_wants_New_Deal_II:_Backs_big_fed_stimulus/
The nation?s battered economy needs an old-fashioned ?Rooseveltian lift? of regulatory reforms and government spending on the infrastructure, clean energy and other sectors, U.S. Sen. John Kerry said yesterday.

The Boston Herald had vote on Kerry's proposal from readers and results were--

Herald Pulse
Do you support Sen. John Kerry?s call for a ?Rooseveltian lift? of regulatory reforms and government spending?

10% - Yes, Kerry has it right on the economy.

88% - No, we need less government spending and less intervention.

1% - Not sure
Poll Closed: 2008-10-25
Total Votes: 3,457
:SIB
 
Last edited:

JT

Degenerate
Forum Member
Mar 28, 2000
3,597
81
48
61
Ventura, Ca.
Make the Iraqis pay us back????? For going in there under false pretenses???? Put down the pipe. God forbid someone cut back the miltary even slightly considering we spend way more on it then anyone else in the world. :rolleyes:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top