paladin77

You are afraid to look at the Treasury site and be confronted with the reality that your BOY George has lied again.

I came home from work in my petty little job with Homeland security posted on JU, then cut the grass took dinner over to some old people in the hood that need help but are too proud to ask. came home again read your trash, laughted at the childish baiting you tried. It would work if I was still in the second grade. I will look up the site when I have the time. You are not important enough for me to break my daily routine just to please you. You will wait your turn. You are not the first colonel I have out ranked as a sergeant and you won't be the last. You see when I went out on a mission I ran the show. I had a little get out of jail free card. Once sent out on a mission for operational purposes only the Sec-Def out ranked me or could call me back until I finished my mission. If you were a command officer in Europpe or the west pacific you would have seen me or one of the teams that showed the orders that started off, " TO: Commanding Generals, Commanding Officers, Commaders of ships and stations" and the bottom was signed by the assisitant Sec-Def or sometimes the Sec-Def himself. My commanding officer was Presidednt Carter, President Reagan, and Presidednt Bush. Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force was the father of Spec Ops Command or SOCOM. Not bragging Just letting you know I don't take trash from people as low on the poll as a colonel outside my personal chain of command.

Paladin77

DREAM ON. YOU DO OUT RANK ANYONE. Your support of Bush proves you live in a dream world and are totally devoid of reality!

Taxing the wealthy more than the non wealthy is something I agree with when it comes to contributing something that helps us all.

But I don't support being taxed so that mony is literally transferred to someone who didn't earn it.

You keep, wrongly, asserting that increasing taxes doesn't harm the families. Yes they do. As I have indicated, when you raise taxes, the wealthy simply have less money to invest which in turn costs jobs.

After a couple hundred grand, the wealthy aren't spending it on consumables in general. They're investing it. And those who produce wealth tend to be better at investing money than a government that has demonstrates an incompetence with managing money.

The majority doesn't support increasing taxes. But taxes may eventually be raised and as I said, it won't affect me or my lifestyle one bit, it'll simply cost people jobs because that's what will happen.

And if you increase taxes enough on the wealthiest earners, they'll either find ways to shelter that wealth or they'll simply quit producing.  The people who do stuff are always the ones who have ultimate control, Gene. Not the government.  The government can only function as long as the top earners choose to produce.

I don't need the federal government but the federal government needs me and people like me.  People like you would do well to remember that.

Frogboy

"As I have indicated, when you raise taxes, the wealthy simply have less money to invest which in turn costs jobs.”

I have acknowledged that SOME of the added funds the wealthy have from tax cuts do go into investments. However, that does not always end up in added income for workers and as the Comptroller General has documented, that ADDED tax revenue from the increased income resulting from the investment is only yielding $.50 0n the dollar. We have cut Federal revenue by a Dollar and the added tax revenue from those increased investments has produced $.50. That is the same argument Reagan made in 1981. He claimed the tax cuts would produce GPD growth at 6% and that would replace the lost tax revenue and fund his increased spending. He got his tax cuts passed by a democratically controlled Congress. What resulted is GDP Growth that was about 3% not 6%. That meant that instead of a balanced budget as Reagan promised, he added $3 Trillion to the national Debt in 8 years. The lager driver is Demand caused by spending. That is why if we need added tax revenue it is more effective to get that added money from the wealthy that will not cut their consumption from a tax increase. The middle income taxpayers will be forced to cut spending to pay the higher taxes.

Frogboy

Here is another example of why Supply Side economics (Voodoo Economics) may not benefit our country.

Let’s say some business owners who receive a large tax cut under the Bush policy decide to invest it in more productive equipment. Chances are that new more productive equipment will come from a foreign company and what we will do is use federal revenue from the tax cut to help a foreign producer. Thus American labor does not benefit from this new investment and the balance of trade gets worse.

When this new more productive equipment goes on line the company cuts labor hours from the increased productivity. Now we have an ongoing loss in wages that reduces consumption. What a GREAT Plan—We took tax cuts to the wealthy and screwed American workers that did not make the new equipment and then screw the production workers with lower wages forward. That is called a LOSE, LOSE for our economy from the tax cuts to the wealthy!

Paladin77 DREAM ON. YOU DO OUT RANK ANYONE. Your support of Bush proves you live in a dream world and are totally devoid of reality!

Col you "are" an IDIOT! Since you "obviously" don't know much about Spec War (such as Seal Teams) Ops I would suggest you just drop the subject. Because on this one I believe Paladin77 will "shred" you like a piece of confetti!

Mainly because he's right. Once a spec war op is in motion no matter who's in command of the team, no matter if it's a lowly SGT or an LT you couldn't "give" them an order. Once they are in the field no other officer, col or otherwise can give them an order countermanding their mission. I've seen it tried once, and the SGT laughed in the Captain"s face. Not a wise thing to do....but he got away with it because of what Paladin77 spoke of. Once the orders have been given and the op commander is named in the orders BTW, and the op is set in motion...he would effectively outrank you and while he "might" not ( unsure of this. I think this would depend whether or not you were in the field) be able to give "you" an order..."you", could not give one to him either.

drmiler

That is not the issue. My point was that he was at a level of receiving orders and I was at the level of giving orders. Paladin77 may have knowledge of small unit tactics and spec war operations, but he has NO understanding of strategy that governs our actions in Iraq. Neither did Bush and that is why he has put us in a no win situation in Iraq. Bush has all but destroyed the National Guard and has brought the Army and Marines close to the breaking point. Some Commander-in-Chief - Bush is an IDIOT!

This is where you have no clue.  You have already declared loss and it's pathetic.  Iraq is not lost, and the only ways it will be lost is if we give up, which is what you and your democrat allies want.  You guys are the party of defeat!

Under normal situations you are correct a lowly sergeant is forced to follow a chain of command. In special operations those rules don’t apply. When in 1978 two Japanese businessmen were kidnapped in the Philippines. My team came in and took over Clark AFB. I was a corporal at the time and I owned the Commanding General. I told him what I wanted and he got it for me. I planned the strategy for the retrieval of businessmen because we had to find them first. An army colonel provided intelligence, the navy provided 24/7 communications and the Air Force provided aircraft and a place to work from. Who gave the orders? Not the Commanding General, a Major General in fact took orders from me, because I had a simple letter from the Sec-Def who out ranks everyone in the military saying that as far as the operation went the only person that out ranked me as a corporal was the Secretary of Defense. I was the one that set the plan, gave the orders, and made it happen. I had no officers that told me what to do or how to do it, once the mission started. I have permission to publish this account and with luck it will go to print before the end of the year.

In 1979 when the hostage situation happened in Iran it was my plan the Marine Corps submitted to the JCS for consideration. For political reasons they went with a Joint forces plan called eagle claw.
When the Marine Corps wanted to go into spec ops a colonel I had worked with on several operations tapped me to help write the charter for FAST Company. Fleet, Anti-terror Security Team. I was out of the military by the time the teams were fully up and running but I heard this report from a Marine home on leave. “Yeah, I was near that town when FAST came rolling through. Not much left when they rolled out.” You need to understand my pride, the teams were supposed to be small. A Fast company had a T.O. of 58 people from company commander to the lowest rank. There were two companies that were responsible for world wide coverage. 116 people charged with the responsibility of stopping all terrorist in the world. Until President Clinton we had kept them off our shores.
So col you are correct and completely wrong at the same time.

Let's bottom line this: Why has tax revenue increased so quickly in the past couple of years then despite lower taxes?

Answer: Because more money is being produced because there is more money flowing.

You deal with hypotheticals. I deal with the reality every day, Gene.

As a reminder, the only reason you have this site to post on is because of the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts left me with enough capital to hire additional workers who I then put them into writing this site as part of their initial training.

The irony is that if you had had your way, you wouldn't have this site to post your socialist dogma.

Paladin77

The IRAQ WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE KINDS OF OPERATIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The Strategic choices in Iraq regarding troop levels and the actual conduct of the occupation are nothing like what you are talking about. My training at the Command and General staff and War College provide me with a perspective you do not have!!!

Frogboy

I deal with this reality. The GDP growth level from the tax cuts was NEVER achieved by Reagan or Bush and the Bottom Line is that they both added to the National Debt BIG TIME using the supply side Voodoo Economic Policy!

Frogboy I deal with this reality. The GDP growth level from the tax cuts was NEVER achieved by Reagan or Bush and the Bottom Line is that they both added to the National Debt BIG TIME using the supply side Voodoo Economic Policy!

"You" deal in fantasy! Are you an owner/operator of a business? I have never heard you say you did. Frogboy on the otherhand DOES own/operate a business. And he does so on a daily basis! So unless you can say the same about yourself, I suggest you find something else to squawk about. Lest you forget, "Frogboy" holds the very heart of your palace of lies in his hand. And it is "his" to chrush at his whim.