Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy

Published on December 22, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics

I have placed my Blogs on JoeUser into a file and in that process looked at many of the comments and complaints about the increased spending, welfare, pork and taxes people posted in response to my Blogs. When I took a look at just what parts of the Federal Budget have increased since 2001, the word that is front and center about all the budget and tax complaints is HYPOCRISY!

The largest increase in our spending since 2001 is not on pork or welfare. It is not on the administrative costs or waist. Below are the things that have increased or that are about to show the largest increase:

Interest on the debt. UP $150 Billion; by 2009 will be up $200 Billion per year.

The Iraq War. Up about $140 Billion and this will end when we end the war.

VA Administration. That budget is up 82% and will spend $700 Billion more.

Military Equipment. Over the next 10 years we will need to spend $200 Billion More.

Our problem is not the increased amount we spend on Medicaid or pork projects. It is not what we spend on education. It is not even all the waist in the various government projects. Every one of the above is the DIRECT result of George W. Bush and the GOP controlled Congress since 2001. All this increased spending is because of the financial and tax policies we have adopted and to fight a war that has not made America any safer from an attack by the radical terrorists who hate us. For all those who hate to pay taxes, you will be happy to know you will be paying far more in taxes for decades to come because of GWB. The legacy of President Bush will be the cost of his policies and will continue long into the future. We are still paying the interest on the added debt Reagan created in the 1980’s.

I would like to propose a tax credit for all those Americans who did not vote for George W. Bush. Let’s say a 10% credit if you did not vote for him in 2000 and a 50% credit if you did not vote for him in 2004. Fair is fair. Why should those of us who did not support Bush and his policies be responsible to pay for them? To pay for the proposed tax credits we should add a surtax on all that voted for Bush since they are responsible for the higher taxes because of electing him president!

Comments (Page 6)

COL Gene

on Jan 03, 2008

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Wednesday, January 02, 2008

My late stepson was disabled and could not have existed without Medicaid and section 8 housing.

Not to be cold-hearted, but that's simply not true. There was a time when Medicaid & section 8 housing did not exist and the disabled were still taken care of, either by their families or the state.

The cost of his medical was beyond anything we could afford. To get the help with the medical, he could NOT LIVE with any member of his family. The need for people like my step son was real and there were no other options.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, January 02, 2008

That is a lie. My late stepson was disabled and could not have existed without Medicaid and section 8 housing.

so you were not willing to help your stepson.

We did help him but the cost of his medical treatment was not something anyone short of a multi millionaire could afford. If I had the income of Bush or Cheney then I could have afforded his medical treatment.

danielost

on Jan 03, 2008

you see gene this is what i have been talking about. what if some of this rich people have a family member in the same shape as your stepson was. do you still think you won't hurt the rich by taking more money from them. not that you really will.

Daiwa

on Jan 03, 2008

Gene has decided (for us) who can have money confiscated from them & who can't. Pretty straigtforward.

Draginol

on Jan 03, 2008

My late stepson was disabled and could not have existed without Medicaid and section 8 housing.

Why didn't you support him? You said elsewhere you send money to Mexico for poor people there. Why weren't you taking care of your stepson?

Draginol

on Jan 03, 2008

The cost of his medical was beyond anything we could afford. To get the help with the medical, he could NOT LIVE with any member of his family. The need for people like my step son was real and there were no other options.

You don't see the idiocy of a system that actively prevents families from helping one another? He couldn't even live with you to get any assistance?

And what medical care did he need that you couldn't afford?

Draginol

on Jan 03, 2008

The elderly who have very limited means who can not heat their homes of have enough to eat—the Conservative answer- they are poor because they want to be poor.

The elderly already receive Social Security and Medicare. Moreover, what were they doing for the first 65 years of their life that they couldn't save some trivial amount?

Did you know that someone who saves $20 a week starting when they're 30 will have $200,000 in the bank (or more) by the time they're 65? Twenty bucks.

So yea, I tend to think that most people who are 65 and are poor are poor because they made decisions that led to that. It's not up to my family to take care of other people's kids.

COL Gene

on Jan 04, 2008

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, January 03, 2008

NO it will not harm the rich to return to the 1990 tax rates. That would be an increase in the top rate of 4%. If a person had $250,000 in income, which is about the point the higher rates would begin, that is an added $10,000. If the person had an income like Cheney of $1.7 Million it would add $68,000. Tell me a person with an income of $250,000 would be harmed by an added $10,000 in tax or $68,000 more tax on an income of $1.7 Million! That is just BS!

danielost

on Jan 04, 2008

We did help him but the cost of his medical treatment was not something anyone short of a multi millionaire could afford.

NO it will not harm the rich to return to the 1990 tax rates

ok so gene which one of your above statements is a lie.

Draginol

on Jan 04, 2008

It won't harm the rich one bit because the rich will simply pass down the costs down.

Like I've said before, if my taxes go up, I will find some other place to cut costs such as employees.

You seem to be arguing from the stand point that you think those who oppose tax increases on the rich do so out of a feeling of sympathy for rich people. Come on. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the rich are somehow going to go without something if their taxes are increased.

What we are TRYING to get through to you is that when you raise taxes on the rich, you end up with unintended consquences. Raising taxes on the rich WILL cost jobs (much in the same way that other increased costs can cost jobs or a recession can cost jobs).

Raising taxes won't stave off a recession, that's for sure. It will simply cost jobs and provide the government some short-term tax revenue gains which they'll use to bloat up government further and still have a big deficit.

COL Gene

on Jan 07, 2008

ok so gene which one of your above statements is a lie.

Neither is a lie. They are BOTH TRUE. We are not multi Millionaires and could not have paid my step sons medical bills. People in the top 10% can afford to return to the tax rates on the 1990's.

COL Gene

on Jan 07, 2008

It won't harm the rich one bit because the rich will simply pass down the costs down.

That is BS. First millions of individuals in the top 10% do not have the power to increase prices. Price increases are possible only if there is no alternative like for gas prices. Prices are higher today then in the 1990's when the tax rates on the wealthy were higher. As usual you do not know what you are talking about.

danielost

on Jan 07, 2008

gene you said

We did help him but the cost of his medical treatment was not something anyone short of a multi millionaire could afford.

and then you said

NO it will not harm the rich to return to the 1990 tax rates

and i have been saying how do you know. a rich person might have a family member with a medical problem that is taking all of their money.

now i want to know. which is true, that it would have taken a multi-millionaire to take care your sons medical expenses or was that a lie.

COL Gene

on Jan 07, 2008

and i have been saying how do you know. a rich person might have a family member with a medical problem that is taking all of their money.

They most likely have insurance and if not they can afford to pay for the medical care they need. You can not make a case to say the rich can not afford to pay the tax rates that were in effect in the 1990's. Any such argument is a lot of HOT AIR! They Just do not want to pay the higher taxes!!!!

Island Dog

on Jan 07, 2008

You can not make a case to say the rich can not afford to pay the tax rates that were in effect in the 1990's.

This is classic gene spin. Nobody ever argues that the "rich" can't afford a tax increase, the point is they will pass it down as actual business owners have pointed out to you.

Only a liberal thinks that taxing employers and producers is a bright idea to help the economy.

Draginol

on Jan 07, 2008

That is BS. First millions of individuals in the top 10% do not have the power to increase prices. Price increases are possible only if there is no alternative like for gas prices. Prices are higher today then in the 1990's when the tax rates on the wealthy were higher. As usual you do not know what you are talking about.

Companies either have to increase revenue to deal with the increased expense or they have to cut costs.

One way or the other, the tax increase gets passed on to others.

A person who makes a thing has power over that thing.

Your best case scenario is that the prices would go up. Otherwise, we'll just have to cut jobs.

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!