LET THEM STARVE

The Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush

Published on June 11, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Bush in his 2007 budget has proposed ending a program started in 1968 to distribute Federal Surplus Food to needy seniors. That program CSFP provides boxes of surplus food each month to 420, 000 of the poorest American seniors in 32 states and Washington D.C. The total cost of this program is $107 Million per year and is one of the ways Bush plans to deal with a $600 Billion dollar deficit. Bush claims that this is an overlapping program with food stamps. However when AARP looked at how much many of the people receiving this Surplus Food is receiving from Food Stamps, they found they receive $10 or $20 per month from the Food Stamp Program. How the Hell is this an OVERLAPPING program? The fact is it is supplemental and if an elderly poor person receives the $20 from Food Stamps and the Surplus Food at a value of $55 they receive the GRAND SUM per month of $75. I bet we, as tax payers, spend MORE then $75 per day to feed George W. Bush in the White House!

Bottom line, this Cut is unlikely to survive the GOP in Congress since many are concerned about their own reelection in November 2006. I hope Our Lord Jesus is looking upon his servant George W. Bush to see what Bush is trying to do to the LEAST of his people!

Comments (Page 4)

COL Gene

on Jun 13, 2006

IslandDog

I NEVER said taxes should only be paid by one class of people. Now you LIE. What I said is the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy should be reversed and return to old rates. That would apply the Federal Income tax all but the poor who have a hard time LIVING without Federal Income Taxes. Even the poor pay sales. Payroll and local taxes.

Island Dog

on Jun 13, 2006

I NEVER said taxes should only be paid by one class of people. Now you LIE. What I said is the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy should be reversed and return to old rates.

That is just what you are saying. Returning to the old rates IS A TAX INCREASE. Increasing taxes on the WEALTHY CLASS is what you propose. Your obsession with Bush is blinding you.

That would apply the Federal Income tax all but the poor who have a hard time LIVING without Federal Income Taxes. Even the poor pay sales. Payroll and local taxes.

And a minimal tax should be placed on the poor to help make up for the services they use. Although you the socialist believe peoples wealth should be tied to the federal government.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 13, 2006

And a minimal tax should be placed on the poor to help make up for the services they use. Although you the socialist believe peoples wealth should be tied to the federal government.

I believe every wage earner in America should pay a minimal tax. Many of the poor, however, DO actually pay taxes when it balances out. Sure, they may receive an EIC check, but many pay sales taxes, property taxes, state income tax, vehicle registration, gasoline tax, and various other hidden taxes that lead to some financial contribution to the community.

COL Gene

on Jun 13, 2006

IslandDog

That is correct returning to the old rates is a tax increase on that group that can afford to pay a little more. The two reasons for this are first, we need to balance the budget and no amount of cuts alone will produce the $600 Billion we are out of balance. Second, the tax cuts were to return a surplus that Bush claimed existed. That was not true and therefore the basic reason for the tax cuts did not exist and they were not justified in the first place. There was NOTHING to give back. WE were not being OVER TAXED as Bush Claimed because his surplus was nothing but HOT AIR!

COL Gene

on Jun 13, 2006

Gideon

You are correct as I pointed out the Poor actually pay a large portion of their income in the taxes you mentioned and may pay a greater portion then the very wealthy relative to their income!

We need to return to the advice both O'Neil and Greenspan gave us when the tax cut talk began in 2001. They both said the tax cuts should be tied to the available SURPLUS with which to pay for them. They BOTH told this to Bush and WARNED him about returning to annual budget deficits which Bush ignored!

Island Dog

on Jun 13, 2006

That is correct returning to the old rates is a tax increase on that group that can afford to pay a little more

Please stop telling somebody what they can and can't afford col. You sound more and more like a true socialist everyday. YOU ARE NOBODY to tell a SUCCESSFUL AMERICAN that they should pay more in taxes just because you think they "can afford it".

Bahu Virupaksha

on Jun 14, 2006

The Col has made a few points and everyone seems to be tearing into him. I sometimes find that the Col is accused of saying things he did not.

COL Gene

on Jun 14, 2006

landDog

The PROOF that the wealthy can afford to pay a little more is that they had a very productive time during the 1990's when the tax rates were at the levels I have said they should be at today! That has NOTHING to do with socialism. You do not know what the Hell you arte talking about. If you think the process in America in the 1990's was Socialism you are a NUT!

COL Gene

on Jun 14, 2006

Bahu

Thank You.

Some of the people on this Web Site like to put words in my mouth for their own purposes.

Island Dog

on Jun 14, 2006

The PROOF that the wealthy can afford to pay a little more is that they had a very productive time during the 1990's when the tax rates were at the levels I have said they should be at today! That has NOTHING to do with socialism. You do not know what the Hell you arte talking about. If you think the process in America in the 1990's was Socialism you are a NUT!

All you keep talking about is the 90j's. It has nothing to do with right now. You want to raise taxes on somone just because YOU think they can "afford" it. I guess you and Hillary are the same when you believe you must take from someone because of the "common good".

Just because someone was "productive" many years ago doesn't mean it will apply now. You list no reasons why they were "productive" either.

Island Dog

on Jun 14, 2006

Exactly.

COL Gene

on Jun 14, 2006

IslandDog

It has everything to do with NOW. You claim to return to the tax rates in effect before 2001 for the wealthy is a problem. I am documenting that with the tax rates I am suggesting the wealthy did JUST FINE. Thus the higher tax rate on the top 10% is NOT A PROBLEM as you and a few others on this Blog Site claim!

The benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy will help all the country by reducing the Annual deficit that will cause higher taxes in the future on ALL of us to pay the soaring interest! Add eliminating the Pork, ending the Iraq war and making sure that everyone pays their taxes and is not allowed to avoid paying what the law requires and we could have a balanced budget!

Island Dog

on Jun 14, 2006

It has everything to do with NOW. You claim to return to the tax rates in effect before 2001 for the wealthy is a problem. I am documenting that with the tax rates I am suggesting the wealthy did JUST FINE. Thus the higher tax rate on the top 10% is NOT A PROBLEM as you and a few others on this Blog Site claim!

Col, you are totally lost in your hatred for Bush. If the "evil rich" did better in the 90's it wasn't because of taxes or the federal government. It's already been explained to you what higher taxes now will do, this is something you never seem to address. Probably because it counters your "tax the rich" obsession.

The benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy will help all the country by reducing the Annual deficit that will cause higher taxes in the future on ALL of us to pay the soaring interest!

How does that help the poor now? Isn't that what you keep complaining about? Raising taxes on successful Americans and America's employers are not going to help the "average American" you keep speaking for here. I love how you say the wealthy Americans will help "all the country". So you are pretty much spending their money for them just because you think they can afford it. Why don't you send your extra money to the federal government since it's so important to you.

How about this....

If you ever sell a book why don't you send all the money to the federal government? Surely a big time author like yourself can afford it.

COL Gene

on Jun 14, 2006

IslandDog

I have already shown you that the tax cuts are COSTING MORE then they bring in new revenue. Increasing the tax rates on the wealthy will NOT impact spending and help balance the budget. In addition "Evil Rich" is your term not my term. There is nothing evil about being rich but they can afford to return to the higher tax rates to help balance the budget without creating ANY financial problems for their families!!!

I am not suggesting SPRNDING more money just to PAY for what we are SPENDING!

Daiwa

on Jun 14, 2006

I don't know what Gene's worried about. The rich will always be there - to be tapped at will by folks like Gene, once there are enough of them. Or, some real conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) will garner enough strength in Congress to get us out of the spending morass we are in, though it will take some time, & we won't need to increase taxes on anyone.

Problem solved.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!