PDA

View Full Version : Par for the course..#2



Qtec
05-24-2011, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are targeting domestic nutrition programs and international food assistance as they try to control spending in next year's budget.

In a bill released Monday, Republicans proposed cutting $832 million – or 12 percent – from this year's budget for the federal nutrition program that provides food for low-income mothers and children. The 2012 budget proposal for food and farm programs also includes a decrease of almost $457 million, or 31 percent, from an international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development dollars to poor countries.

The legislation would provide $71 billion for food stamps, $2 billion less than the Obama administration projected would be necessary for next year.

Republicans who wrote the bill said the cuts in domestic food programs are taken from excess dollars in those accounts, and participants won't see a decrease in services.

Domestic nutrition programs are mined for dollars in tight budget times because they often have extra money sitting in their accounts. Money is allocated for the programs based on projections of need and food costs, and those needs are sometimes overestimated.

Hunger advocates have warned against stripping those programs of those reserves. Two analysts from the liberal research and advocacy group Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Zoe Neuberger and Robert Greenstein, said Monday that the cuts could mean turning away as many as 475,000 people from the Women, Infants and Children program if food prices continue to rise. </div></div>

..and in the same breath they say,

<span style='font-size: 17pt'> "More tax cuts for the super wealthy and the oil Corps!"</span>

In America, <u>the ruling party </u>would rather take food out of the mouths of babes rather than close a tax loop that costs billions every year.
They held the whole country hostage until they got their tax cuts for the rich. Now they are doing the same on raising the debt ceiling.
link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/house-gop-proposes-budget_n_865915.html)


Q

pooltchr
05-24-2011, 05:57 AM
Domestic nutrition programs? LMAO!
Our government is spending $2million on a test program in a Texas school that will photograph the lunch trays of students as they go through the line, and then again when they are at the trash can. Using food recognition software, they will be able to determine exactly what the students eat, and how many caleries they consumed. Reports will be sent home to the parents.

DAMN RIGHT WE NEED TO CUT THEIR BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve

Sev
05-24-2011, 05:59 AM
Perhaps they should go get a second and third job. And consider stop breeding.

Gayle in MD
05-24-2011, 06:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are targeting domestic nutrition programs and international food assistance as they try to control spending in next year's budget.

In a bill released Monday, Republicans proposed cutting $832 million – or 12 percent – from this year's budget for the federal nutrition program that provides food for low-income mothers and children. The 2012 budget proposal for food and farm programs also includes a decrease of almost $457 million, or 31 percent, from an international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development dollars to poor countries.

The legislation would provide $71 billion for food stamps, $2 billion less than the Obama administration projected would be necessary for next year.

Republicans who wrote the bill said the cuts in domestic food programs are taken from excess dollars in those accounts, and participants won't see a decrease in services.

Domestic nutrition programs are mined for dollars in tight budget times because they often have extra money sitting in their accounts. Money is allocated for the programs based on projections of need and food costs, and those needs are sometimes overestimated.

Hunger advocates have warned against stripping those programs of those reserves. Two analysts from the liberal research and advocacy group Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Zoe Neuberger and Robert Greenstein, said Monday that the cuts could mean turning away as many as 475,000 people from the Women, Infants and Children program if food prices continue to rise. </div></div>

..and in the same breath they say,

<span style='font-size: 17pt'> "More tax cuts for the super wealthy and the oil Corps!"</span>

In America, <u>the ruling party </u>would rather take food out of the mouths of babes rather than close a tax loop that costs billions every year.
They held the whole country hostage until they got their tax cuts for the rich. Now they are doing the same on raising the debt ceiling.
link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/house-gop-proposes-budget_n_865915.html)


Q
</div></div>

And economists from the left and the right, are saying the Repiglicans obstructionism on raising the debt ceiling, is having a very negative impact on the recovery, and would produce disastrous results, if they continue to use it for political bribery!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Congressional Budget Office estimates that seniors' medical costs would rise twice as fast under the GOP Medicare plan as they are rising now, hitting more than $12,000 in out-of-pocket costs in 2021.

Democrats have been pounding the GOP relentlessly on the issue, and it's become a central issue in Tuesday's special election in New York's Republican-leaning 26th Congressional District, where the Democrat took the lead over the weekend.


</div></div>

Gee, wonder what will happen to all of those overweight Christians, in the Bible Belt, ah, the Diabetes Belt?

Not to worry, the "End times" Evangelical predictor, has now admitted to being five month off on the date!

BWA HA HA HA HA! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Repiglicans is de cwaziest nutjobs!

pooltchr
05-24-2011, 06:25 AM
How freaking stupid can you be? We are in a financial crisis, spending far more than we have. It's been going on for years, and it has been worse in the last two years than it has ever been. Even with a big slap in the face of the recession two years ago, our government has continued to over extend.

Now that the Reps managed to get control of the house this year, they are trying to get spending under control. There should be absolutely NOTHING that should not be on the table when it comes to cutting spending. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE...WE DON'T HAVE IT TO SPEND!

Government food nutrition programs, entitlement programs, the education department, ethenol subsidies, there are tons of ways we can cut spending. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact that we can not keep spending money we don't have.

I know! You would rather the government just take more money from the evil rich. Only problem is, that is not an endless supply of money, and is not nearly enough to clean up the mess. We could tax the top 10% of tax payers at a 99% tax rate, and it wouldn't cover it.

Cutting spending, reducing the size of government, getting rid of those "non-essential" government employees and their departments MUST be done. If you can't see that, you are a bigger fool than I ever imagined!

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-24-2011, 07:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are targeting domestic nutrition programs and international food assistance as they try to control spending in next year's budget.

In a bill released Monday, Republicans proposed cutting $832 million – or 12 percent – from this year's budget for the federal nutrition program that provides food for low-income mothers and children. The 2012 budget proposal for food and farm programs also includes a decrease of almost $457 million, or 31 percent, from an international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development dollars to poor countries.

The legislation would provide $71 billion for food stamps, $2 billion less than the Obama administration projected would be necessary for next year.

Republicans who wrote the bill said the cuts in domestic food programs are taken from excess dollars in those accounts, and participants won't see a decrease in services.

Domestic nutrition programs are mined for dollars in tight budget times because they often have extra money sitting in their accounts. Money is allocated for the programs based on projections of need and food costs, and those needs are sometimes overestimated.

Hunger advocates have warned against stripping those programs of those reserves. Two analysts from the liberal research and advocacy group Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Zoe Neuberger and Robert Greenstein, said Monday that the cuts could mean turning away as many as 475,000 people from the Women, Infants and Children program if food prices continue to rise. </div></div>

..and in the same breath they say,

<span style='font-size: 17pt'> "More tax cuts for the super wealthy and the oil Corps!"</span>

In America, <u>the ruling party </u>would rather take food out of the mouths of babes rather than close a tax loop that costs billions every year.
They held the whole country hostage until they got their tax cuts for the rich. Now they are doing the same on raising the debt ceiling.
link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/house-gop-proposes-budget_n_865915.html)


Q
</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bernie Sanders' Top 10 Tax Avoiders
— By Michael Mechanic

| Tue Mar. 29, 2011 3:30 AM PDT


In a Sunday press release calling on wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their share, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont offered a list of what he calls "some of the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders."

Sanders, you'll recall, made headlines for his epic 8.5-hour speech/filibuster this past December, dealing with how Obama's pending tax-cut deal with the GOP would be bad for America. The speech—published this month as a paperback simply titled The Speech—was in vain: Congress passed the deal, extending tax breaks not merely to the poor and middle-class, but to America's richest people.

It also slashed the estate tax from 55 percent to 35 percent and exempted the first $5 million of an estate's value ($10 million for a couple)—up from $1 million pre-Bush. In his speech, Sanders warned against this change, noting, "Let us be very clear: This tax applies only—only—to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich. (Click here for our blockbuster charts showing just how rich the very, very, very rich actually are.)

If the estate tax—which Republicans have cleverly rebranded the "death tax"—were to be eliminated entirely (another GOP goal), Sanders says it would cost US taxpayers $1 trillion over 10 years. "Families such as the Walton family, of Walmart fame, would have received, just this one family, about a $30 billion tax break," he said in the speech.




As one of few voices in Congress calling seriously for balance between cuts and new revenues, Sanders wants to close corporate tax loopholes and get rid of tax breaks for Big Oil. He's put forth a bill that would impose a 5.4 percent surtax on household income north of $1 million, and earmark that money for deficit reduction. He estimates it would bring in $50 billion a year, whereas Congress' recent tax-cut deal will add around $700 billion to the deficit.

So, without further ado, here's Bernie's tax-avoiders list. If you have any quibbles with his facts, let us know in the comments.

1) ExxonMobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. [Note: Our post last April reported that ExxonMobil was owed $46 million by the IRS.]

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK WE SHOULD RAISE TAXES ON THE TOP THREE AND A HALF PERCENT, AND END CORPROATE LOOPHOLES.</span>

</div></div>