you can’t pull troops out of iraq, yet
you can’t remove the bases around the world, they are needed
you can give a nice big “Fuck you” to Israel though and solve the majority of the problems in the middle east.
It’s going to take a lot more than a president to unfuck this country, can anyone say revolution?
You CAN pull troops out of Iraq. You shouldn’t remove the bases around the world, and you can’t give a nice FU to Israel. I don’t think Ron Paul is the person to do it though if that’s what you mean 
The Iraqi war costs the US and estimated 9 BILLION dollars A MONTH. By the time George Duubbaya’s term is over, he would’ve spent 4 TRILLION DOLLARS. That is…
$4,000,000,000,000.00
yeah?
That’s a lot of zero’s that we don’t have.
And this is why Hillary can’t be pres.
Hillary’s Socialistic Spending Plan
Worried about Deficit Spending? Start worrying more if Hillary Clinton is elected President with a Democrat run Congress.
Breakdown Of Hillary’s Spending Proposals, Which Total Over $724 Billion:
Hillary’s Health Care Plan Would Cost $110 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years (One White House Term) = $440 Billion. “Clinton’s price tag is $110 billion a year, but analysts say her [health care] plan will cost a lot more than that.” (Donald Lambro, Op-Ed, “Health Care Nightmare,” The Washington Times, 9/24/07)
Hillary Pledged To Create A “$50-Billion Strategic Energy Fund.” “As president, Clinton said she would … Create a $50-billion strategic energy fund to research ways to boost energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.” (Beth Fouhy, “Clinton Would Fund Stem Cell Research,” The Associated Press, 10/4/07)
Hillary Has Proposed 401(k) For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion. “Hillary Clinton unveiled her second-biggest proposal of the campaign so far – after health care – a plan to make 401(k) retirement savings plans available to all Americans. … Clinton’s ‘American Retirement Accounts’ would cost about $20 to 25 billion each year, Clinton’s advisors said yesterday.” (Marcella Bombardieri, “Clinton Targeting Middle Class,” The Boston Globe, 10/9/07)
Hillary’s Baby Bond Proposal Would Give $5,000 To Each Of The 4 Million Babies Born In The U.S. Each Year, Totaling $20 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $80 Billion. “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said … that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 ‘baby bond’ from the government … Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.” (Devlin Barrett, “Clinton: $5,000 For Every U.S. Baby,” The Associated Press, 9/28/07)
- “It Would Be Expensive – About $20 Billion A Year – And Clinton Offered No Way To Pay For It.” (Editorial, “Clinton’s Baby Boondoggle,” The Chicago Tribune, 10/2/07)
For Public Transit, Hillary Would Spend $1.5 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $6 Billion. “[S]he proposed spending $1.5 billion per year for public transit …” (Christina Bellantoni, “Democrats Can’t Afford ‘08 Promises,” The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
Hillary Would Spend $10 Billion On Bridges Over 10 Years, Equal To $1 Billion Per Year; $1 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $4 Billion. “After the Minnesota bridge collapse last month, she proposed … $10 billion over 10 years to redesign and reconstruct ailing bridges.” (Christina Bellantoni, “Democrats Can’t Afford ‘08 Promises,” The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
Hillary Plans To Spend $1 Billion For At-Risk Mortgage Borrowers. “She has proposed $1 billion to help at-risk mortgage borrowers avoid foreclosure.” (Christina Bellantoni, “Democrats Can’t Afford ‘08 Promises,” The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
Hillary Would Commit $10 Billion For Education In Developing Countries Over 5 Years, Equal To $2 Billion Per Year; $2 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $8 Billion. “Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants the U.S. government to commit $10 billion over five years to get young children in developing countries into school …” (Amy Fagan, “Hillary Seeks ‘Education For All,’” The Washington Times, 5/2/07)
Hillary Pledged $300 Million For “Second Chance Education.” “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, vowing to ‘stop the revolving door from the streets to prison,’ pledged to invest $300 million as president into public-private programs for ‘second chance education’ and reintegrating ex-offenders into communities.” (Peter Hecht, “Clinton Vows To Back Programs For ‘Second Chance Education,’” Sacramento Bee, 10/1/07)
Hillary Committed $36 Million For School Phys-Ed Programs. “Smaller-ticket items … [include] $36 million for school physical-education programs.” (Christina Bellantoni, “Democrats Can’t Afford ‘08 Promises,” The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
Hillary’s Universal Pre-K Would Cost $5 Billion The First Year, And Over The Next 5 Years Annual Expenditures Would Increase To $10 Billion, Meaning At A Minimum It Would Cost $5 Billion Per Year Over The First 4 Years; $5 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $20 Billion. Hillary Clinton’s “Fact Sheet” On Universal Pre-K: “The federal government will allocate $5 billion in the first year to states to establish and administer universal Pre-K. Over the next five years, the federal commitment will increase to $10 billion as states increase their commitment to Pre-K.” (Hillary Clinton For President Website, hillaryclinton.com, Accessed 9/28/07)
Hillary Would Increase The Number Of National Science Foundation Fellowships And Increase The Size Of Each Award, At An Annual Cost Of $378 Million; $378 Million Multiplied By 4 Years = Over 1.5 Billion. “Triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by 33 percent. … It is estimated that this would increase the annual cost of the program from $122 million to $500 million.” (Hillary Clinton For President Website, hillaryclinton.com, Accessed 10/10/07)
She Would Double The NIH’s Budget Over 10 Years – An Additional $28 Billion, Equal To 2.8 Billion Per Year; $2.8 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $11.2 Billion. “At a recent cancer forum, Mrs. Clinton said she would ‘double’ the National Institute of Health’s $28 billion budget … over 10 years.” (Christina Bellantoni, “Democrats Can’t Afford ‘08 Promises,” The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
And Would Double The National Cancer Institute’s Budget Over 10 Years – An Additional $5 Billion, Equal To $500 Million Per Year; $500 Million Multiplied By 4 Years = $2 Billion. “At a recent cancer forum, Mrs. Clinton said she would ‘double’ … the National Cancer Institute’s nearly $5 billion budget over 10 years.” (Christina Bellantoni, “Democrats Can’t Afford ‘08 Promises,” The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
I know, I know…Jeeves 
He doesn’t come off as having the balls to do it. I agree he would make an excellent advisor tho.
yeah…could have made every american citizen a millionaire + some.
it a number so big you can even grasp it.
think of what we could have done here with that money…fix schools, health care, etc…
no we are paying for an invasion & occupation of iraq.
check out this site…its pretty interesting
shows you what your area paid towards iraq & want could have been done with that money…here is what i got doing alleghney co.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=4&state=42&town=0.003803111269682770000000000000&program=282&tradeoff_item_item=999&submit_tradeoffs=Get+Trade+Off
Actually, a lot of those things are what is needed in this country. I just hope we can be fiscally conservative enough in other areas and politically savvy enough to remove ourselves from Iraq to reap the benefits of these goals.
The education system sucks, so improving it is always great.
Improving the NIH/NSF/NCI budgets will actually help economic growth, and I am not saying that because it would help out my job as well. (The reason is because a lot of this money goes to research and a lot of the researchers doing the work are immigrants who live here and spend money here!)
Improving the lending/mortgage situation is only a plus, we need to stay away from needed bandaid fixes like what the fed did on Tuesday.
Hilary has a good HealthCare plan, I have some friends who can’t afford it, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have it. Ron Paul wants to privatize this industry who would be most interested in capital gain in the end, not the well being of all citizens.
Hilary wants to improve public transit, well Living in PGH, we deff. need that ish, considering PA Transit has been dealing with their union and pensions for a while now and has been in the negative for some time.
Improve bridges she says. Well, we have so many bridges here in PGH that need help, I don’t see why it would be a bad idea.
In the end she wants to pull out of Iraq and her $724 Billion proposal is < what we spend in Iraq under Bush 4 TRILLION DOLLARS 
However, throwing more and more money at the problem for the past 4 decades has only made the problem worse…so much for Hilary’s plan…
Oh…in that case, let’s get Pittspeed in the federal budget so we can research cars…we’ll spend the money here, it has to be a good idea. Tax everyone more…so some people can do an easy job that doesn’t actually produce anything…now that’s the way to build an economy.
How is Hilary’s plan good?
I have friends who can’t afford their cell phone bills, rent, or (insert item here). That doesn’t mean I should be taxed to pay for it. How about car insurance? Mine keeps going up because I get in accidents and drive too fast. I have an idea, the government should pay for it, because I can’t afford it. It would benefit all citizens…so it must be good.
Nope, people need to move the f&*% out of Pittsburgh until the leadership here is able to do something other than raise taxes every 3 months and still go broke.
And what the hell is wrong with bringing our troops home from the foreign bases? Why don’t China, Japan, and Britain set up bases all around the world and maintain them until we get our debt under control. In fact they can put some on our soil too, that would be great…
Why do Americans think that our shit doesn’t reek as bad as the next country’s? Why is it ok for us to have bases there, but not ok for them to have bases here?
Ron Paul’s view on taxes is extremist. Without taxes their is no public service. Remember the Government is there to help us as a nation. Most of these corporations that run our country currently are for free markets and capitalism. I think I’ve already mentioned this in another thread, but I’ll repeat: “Privatizing the gov means putting the public commons into the hands of people whose primary goal is profit over service.” How is that beneficial to our country???
And then what happens when they own all of our debt and decide they want to collect that debt?
yes, you can.
you can’t remove the bases around the world, they are needed
for what?
you can give a nice big “Fuck you” to Israel though and solve the majority of the problems in the middle east.
If you combine that with getting rid of out military bases in the middle east, then I concur.
It’s going to take a lot more than a president to unfuck this country, can anyone say revolution?
you’re half right. see my signature.
This country existed just fine without a income tax. It was supposed to be temporary to fund WWI and then go away again. And even then it was only a few percent, not the ridiculous amounts it is now. And since when is eliminating the income tax eliminating taxes all together? Last time I checked I pay the federal government money in a lot of ways other than my income tax.
Who really collects national debt, especially from the country (USA) that provides social programs to other countries, ie Brazil? All we do is pay interest on it. Check this out: Who Owns the National Debt? - zFacts
Well, that was before. After WWI, we were starting a slow decline into the Great Depression which was saved by War of all things. The income tax is very necessary and I don’t know how to get rid of it. You can pay all the other taxes but the income tax pays for national security/health care programs etc…you can’t just abolish those things. Luckily, the SSI sector has been doing well along with Medicare which are in surplus and are helping, otherwise we’d be farked!!!
Current Congressionally created debt:
11/1/2007 $9,080,228,573,291.65 7% (R)
9/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7% (R)
9/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 8% (R)
9/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 9% (R)
9/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 9% (R)
9/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 7% (R)
9/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 2% (R)
9/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 0% (D)
9/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 2% (D)
9/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62 2% (D)
9/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34 4% (D)
9/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73 5% (D)
9/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39 6% (D)
9/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 6% (D)
9/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 9% (D)
9/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66 11% (R)
9/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03 13% (R)
9/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25 13% (R)
9/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32 10% (R)
9/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16 11% (R)
9/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)
Average ('R) 9%
Average ('D) 4%
The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt’s web site: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
You can check the growth of this BORROWED DEBT by party here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
As you can see, it doesn’t matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips.
A “balanced budget” is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it’s a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can’t. It’s just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified.
lol
talking like your intelligent or something, get real.
very interesting read
fuck social security, fuck medicare and medicaid. You don’t have to straight pull the plug on them now, but they need to be phased out. Which is exactly what Ron Paul wants to do. People in this country need to take care of themselves. When I was in Jamaica I talked to lots of the local folks there about politics and shit. They have no social programs like that to prop people up. They were amazed by the notion of it. The only reason we THINK that we HAVE to have social services like this is because they’ve been here for so long that we think we can’t live without them. We were just fine before them, and we’ll be MUCH better off after them. Socialism doesn’t work!
Actually it does, just like communism or fascism, but only in a much smaller group where everyone shares a similar stake. Think of indian tribes that roamed this continent before the settlers came. Each was some form of shared/distributed wealth and/or military dictatorship, but it worked in smaller groups.
For a country our size, the concept is preposterous. If the Apache’s had a free-loader who kept eating everyone else’s food for 3 years after an injury, they’d fix the problem, and I don’t mean give him more food/money until he got “better.”
communal anarchy != socialism
but I agree with you
fuck social security, fuck medicare and medicaid. You don’t have to straight pull the plug on them now, but they need to be phased out. Which is exactly what Ron Paul wants to do. People in this country need to take care of themselves. When I was in Jamaica I talked to lots of the local folks there about politics and shit. They have no social programs like that to prop people up. They were amazed by the notion of it. The only reason we THINK that we HAVE to have social services like this is because they’ve been here for so long that we think we can’t live without them. We were just fine before them, and we’ll be MUCH better off after them. Socialism doesn’t work!
What about people that ahve worked all their lives and need SSI or DLA and have been investing money into these programs? What about their healthcare which they obviously struggle to afford because they are already getting other assistance? What about retiring with dignity. These people didn’t have 401K options when they started working.
Jamaica is doing so great…Palease. They only really became their own country in 1962. Most of their people immigrated to USA, Canada and UK. Poor bastids even immigrated to Cuba! I don’t think they can really afford to have social reforms and support like the USA. The country is very poor as I am sure you saw.
Communal anarchy isn’t socialism exactly. Minor details though I guess?
Communism or Fascism exist because the government can suppress and control the people.
China is not a true republic, rather a Communist state 
Russia is moving back toward this. 2 very big countries!
Socialized medicine is collapsing in Canada and Europe if you’d care to do some research you would see this is true.
Also…2 very big countries!
one where they kill children to control the population and one where the average adult male drinks nearly 2 liters of vodka per day…those are some good examples!
And even if that system did work, it doesn’t matter because we have a Constitution, and this Republic is not set up that way, so love Socialism all you want, but don’t lie to people and tell them that’s the way this country was designed.