Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (73802)	1/14/2007 9:19:34 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 89467

Technically, it's up to Henry Waxman, my congressman. I heard his first major investigation will into corrupt Halliburton contracts and price-gouging. That will nail cheney because obviously this is texctbook corruption. Remember Cheney lied in 2001 saying he'd divested 100%, but secretly kept 650 K HAL options and a six figure salary. Therefore, those no-bid contracts were directly making him money. He only gave the options to the University Of Wyoming (to build a Dickhead Cheney Library) after he was busted. All that said, Kerry will certainly assist in the sacking of Dick Cheney, perhaps the most corrupt and dangerous man ever to be VP. Can you think of one thing positive thing Cheney has done since he's been in office? I can't.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (73802)	1/15/2007 6:06:37 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The message to the White House should be perfectly simple: tax and surge, George. No tax, no surge. _____________________________________________________________ Memo to Pelosi and Reid: Why Not Back the Surge -- But Only If We're All Taxed to Pay for It? huffingtonpost.com By James Heffernan* Isn't it time to stop splurging on credit? If winning the war in Iraq is crucial to the war against global terrorism, and if we can't win this war without twenty-one thousand more troops, why don't we raise taxes to pay for them--or least end the tax cuts that have left us drowning in red ink? That's the question you should put to the Bush administration right now. It's hard to think about the financial costs of this war when the human costs are so high. But now that we're being asked to splurge on a surge that will probably just deliver more provocation--and more American targets--to the insurgents of Baghdad, isn't it time we took a hard look at the costs of our runaway borrowing under President George W. Bush? Let's tote up the bill so far. After inheriting a surplus of $284 billion dollars from the morally depraved Clinton administration (the cost of cleaning Monica's dress alone must have exceeded ten dollars!), the Bush administration has just achieved an estimated deficit of $296 billion in 2006--the fourth largest deficit of all time. And guess who has already scored the THREE highest deficits of all time in the previous three years? By combining huge tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans with runaway spending on the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration has driven our national debt to 8.6 trillion dollars, which is more than $28,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. (When you get the chance, kindly explain to your children and grandchildren why you are sticking them with that bill.) Last year the year the interest payments on this debt were $406 billion. That's $1350 per person, more than SIX times federal spending on education in the same year (see here). The war in Iraq, which has so far cost us $355 billion, now consumes nearly two billion dollars a week, or $3,749 per Iraqi--more than double their average annual income per person (source). If the Bush administration really believes that we must now raise that level of spending by many billions more, why shouldn't we raise our taxes to pay for the bill? So don't let the president and his team accuse you of shortchanging our troops, of cutting and running, or of trying to tie the hands of the commander-in-chief when he demands more troops. Let him splurge on the surge--but only on condition that he raise our taxes to do so. Make the splurger-in-chief honestly calculate the cost of the surge, and make him explain what new taxes will pay for it. Up to now, the only Americans who have been asked to make tangible sacrifices for the war in Iraq are the tiny percentage of our population who have actually fought in it, along with their families and friends and employers. Nearly four years into this war, the president has asked no meaningful sacrifice from anyone else. If he can't persuade the American people that additional troops for this war deserve and demand from all of us the sacrifice of higher taxes, then he doesn't deserve to put one additional soldier into this war. So your message to the White House should be perfectly simple: tax and surge, George. No tax, no surge. ________________________________________________ *Having taught English at Dartmouth for almost forty years, James Heffernan has left the classroom to concentrate on writing and outside lecturing on various topics. For the Teaching Company has has taped 24 lectures on James Joyce's ULYSSES and another 24 on great authors from Wordsworth to Albert Camus. His books include critical studies of literature and visual art such as CULTIVATING PICTURACY: VISUAL ART AND VERBAL INTERVENTIONS (Baylor University Press, 2006, www.baylorpress.com). His avocational addiction to political news periodically drives him to comment on it.