This web site is turning my stomach, it is so chock full of BIG government Republicans, who just can't be bothered to pay for their version of BIG government. Just answer one question. How would you have paid for the social engineering in Iraq and the nation building in Afghanistan the past ten years, other than by selling US treasury securities to foreign countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Japan that our children will be forced to pay off decades from now? You see, Republicans have a slobbering love affair with BIG government, they just can't be bothered to pay for it.

From 2001-2007, when Republicans held the levers of power in DC, they increased pork-barrel spending from 3,000 to 14,000 projects a year, doubled the size of the Department of Education, added yet another whole layer of entitlement (MedPrescD) spending costing $50 billion a year, mandated $6 billion a year in ethanol. Would anyone here be willing to actually pay for the war in Iraq, now....with some tax....or just continue to place the entire cost on the national credit card? Talk about gutlessness in the face of the enemy!

Yes, many here can artfully criticize our foreign born Islamic leader. Well done! And George Bush...during his eight years? Wasn't the Speaker of the House, where tax and spend Constitutional power is given, a Republican from January, 1995 through January of 2007? The war in Iraq cost upwards of $120 billion a year for eight years, but Republicans are always droning on about their tax precious cuts, they were unwilling to cut spending on anything.

As we all know, seven of the eight of George W. Bush's budgets excluded the costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was very important to the Republican Party due to the fact that they relished their most cherished and precious Bush tax cut. Also included in our Islamic president's 2010 budget was to pay for the wars in the annual budget, an idea very anathema to all card-carrying Republicans. I mean, if you 'cost' a war 'off' budget, then good Republicans can consider it to be free in monetary terms and fiscal costs. Bravo! And if a card-carrying member of the Republican Party moved casualties 'off' the casualty list then a war could be considered 'bloodless?'

As we all know, seven of the eight of George W. Bush's budgets excluded the costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was very important to the Republican Party due to the fact that they relished their most cherished and precious Bush tax cut. Also included in our Islamic president's 2010 budget was to pay for the wars in the annual budget, an idea very anathema to all card-carrying Republicans. I mean, if you 'cost' a war 'off' budget, then good Republicans can consider it to be free in monetary terms and fiscal costs. Bravo! And if a card-carrying member of the Republican Party moved casualties 'off' the casualty list then a war could be considered 'bloodless?'

Republicans say, "America's first-ever federal progressive income tax started in 1913." Point of fact, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, implemented the nation's first income tax. He was a fiscal conservative, knowing that modern wars are expensive and should be paid for. Today's Republicans believe wars can be run on the cheap. While they are willing to sacrifice the lives of our young soldiers they attend Tea Parties and constantly prattle on about their precious tax cuts.

Republicans say "tax cuts increase revenues." Growing tax receipts, I suspect, are usually due to a growing economy. (There are many factors.) Unfortunately a lot of the growth was financed with too much leverage. Do taxpayers change their economic behavior because of a 3% tax decrease? Actually, for most Americans I think the opposite is true. Say there is a 10% tax increase. People will not work less, people will work more. Americans are addicted to their lifestyle. If the government takes more of people's money, then Americans will attempt to work more to maintain the lifestyle. Otherwise, you need to downsize, the last resort. I am not advocating a tax increase.

Republicans say "tax cuts increase revenues." Growing tax receipts, I suspect, are usually due to a growing economy. (There are many factors.) Unfortunately a lot of the growth was financed with too much leverage. Do taxpayers change their economic behavior because of a 3% tax decrease? Actually, for most Americans I think the opposite is true. Say there is a 10% tax increase. People will not work less, people will work more. Americans are addicted to their lifestyle. If the government takes more of people's money, then Americans will attempt to work more to maintain the lifestyle. Otherwise, you need to downsize, the last resort. I am not advocating a tax increase.

Republicans say, "The poor pay nothing in taxes." It is a lie. I suggest you take a look at a document at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.PDF On page 30 of the document (page 34 of 329 of the pdf file) look at Table 2.1 RECEIPTS BY SOURCE. Let's look at the row for fiscal year 2009. You will see that income tax collections was $1.26 trillion and social security receipts were $981 billion. Just because Republicans constantly tell the lie that only 50% of Americans pay taxes doesn't make it true. Can't all my fellow conservative friends here agree that $981 billion is quite a big lie? Let's answer the following questions. Are social security taxes, taxes? Are Medicare taxes, taxes?

Many Republican frequently tell us that 50% of Americans pay NO taxes. They forget the word 'income' before the word 'taxes.' That would make it a true statement. However, a person making $20,000 pays $3060 every year in social security and Medicare taxes. And these are taxes, too! Receipts for fiscal year 2008 were $2.66 trillion. The top three sources are: * $1.25 trillion - Individual income tax * $927.2 billion - Social Security/payroll taxes * $314.9 billion - Corporate income tax Republicans may casually dismiss Social Security taxes as not a "real" tax, but $927 billion is a real number, and EVERYONE pays that on their first dollar earned.