Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Federal spending

May 21, 2013

Dear editor: Members of the Senate sub-committee have predicted an 80% increase in various welfare payouts in the next decade....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-21-13 5:27 AM

Well said Mr. hallock!!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 9:46 AM

There is just so much wrong with this letter! Every single line cries out for enlightenment. Just a couple obvious points: do you think the projected increases in needed "safety net" have anything to do with the large numbers of people being laid off because of the sequester, hm? And with less demand for goods by the masses (cutting back their own budgets out of necessity), the economy's spiral down the drain goes faster. Duh. The Keystone pipeline is just a way for Canadians to avoid poisoning themselves processing their tar sands; they don't want to do it to themselves. Relatively few jobs, in the big picture. We are simply their third world nation ready to*****it up, or at least the letter writer would like to. We already have a surplus of gas and energy, don't be fooled. And your outrage on taxes is upside down too. If one percent of the population has 95% of the income, wouldn't you expect them to pay 95% of the taxes as well, at least? Or aren't you a believer in flat

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 9:48 AM

"****" = something a vacuum cleaner does, nothing that should have been censored from my comment.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 9:49 AM

The very last word was cut off: "...taxes?"

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 10:07 AM

Unc: Are you saying there is no wasteful federal spending?? How about this one? $1,000,000 for "someone", I really don't know who is getting this money, to create a menu for people if and when we land on Mars!! Are you serious here?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 10:23 AM

Plus! WE NEED OIL!! If you don't think so, Uncle of 5, maybe you and your 5 would like to be the first to travel cross country on a solar powered aircraft.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 11:11 AM

Play: I did not say there is no wasteful spending. Am I serious? Yes. (I wasn't the one who brought up eating dinner on Mars.) After 30 years of pushing for - and getting - supply side / deregulated /neoliberal economics, what did we get? Offshore (cheap) labor and offshore accounts for a few. For the many, unemployment, white collar larceny leaving many without their hard-earned safety net, endless wars, and an increasingly toxic environment. We need to see the USA as a nation together, not as a fear-driven moral morass in which we pillage our neighbors to get ours. Sorry if you disagree. But some just have that knee-jerk response, I know, to anyone who seems to care.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 11:43 AM

Shifting profits overseas to avoid US taxes. This is what is going on at the Senate hearings right now. Apple CEO, who voted for Obama and BIG government NOW wants to shift a portion of Apple's profits overseas to avoid paying huge taxes here. Hysterical!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 11:50 AM

Mr. Hallock's opinions remind me of a piece of swiss cheeese--Filled with holes. Where to start. How about with his CBO figures. He nicely notes that the top 20% pay 68% of the tax dollars. What he conveniently leaves out is most analysis shows the top 20% also earn somewhere between between 60-70% of the total income. He might also want to check out some of the recent news stories about Democratic Senator Max Baucus and all the work he has done in his chairmanship position to ensure that legislation is written to lower tax burdens on very rich and corporate America. All presidents hobnob with celebrities, to take a cheap shot at Obama is to show that the writer didn't have as many true debate points as he would have liked. The writer is typical of the right wing that wants a balanced budget on the back of the working class who truly have no advocate in Washington or Harrisburg.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 11:52 AM

Lastly it's folks like the writer who laud the voters when they elect Reagan and the Bush's but consign them to the trash heap of stupidity when they don't vote the way they want them to vote.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 12:08 PM

Play: What's your point? That's exactly what I am talking about. Beneficiaries acting like they owe no one. Don't tell me you thought Obama and Apple are socialists? Hahahaha! Tat is such a great and mistaken joke. Of course you knew that Wall Street was Obama's biggest ally? That his economic team (Summers, Geithner, etc.) are all "Chicago School", which basically invented and perpetrates neoliberal (neocon, to Americans) policies, bringing economies to their knees the world over to benefit World Bank investors? Give me a break.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 1:10 PM

I don't care if you tax the rich at 90%, it is still not going to generate enough money to keep the rate of spending of this government in check. Untill spending is cut, and the economy improves, the deficit is reduced, and jobs are created, nothing is going to change! I am still waiting (5 1/2 years now)for "change".

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 1:11 PM

I'm impressed to see by all the down-votes that everyone here is opposed to the scam of flat taxes. :)

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 1:18 PM

I actually agree with the flat tax. I mean the earth is flat, why shouldn't our taxes be?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 1:23 PM

I agree with you, justobserving. Still, your complaint against taxes is a conundrum as far as I can see. Let's say we gut the military, our single biggest outlay. Then all those dollars are not spent on dominating other countries (Ron Paul has a good argument here), but what about the danger of all those newly unemployed? Do we simply send them to the streets since we don't want to pay for a social safety net either? A high tax rate at least has the virtue of making CEOs want to reinvest in their businesses (eliminate tax burden by hiring) instead of simply taking profits and socking it away as they are doing now. This is historical fact when the rates were high, is economically/psychologically sound.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 1:26 PM

Perfect sense, MTOMTO.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 1:36 PM

To make it clear CEO's are not investing "their" money they are investing the corporation's money. They keep those accounts separate for a reason whether it is a small outfit or General Motors. That is why the whole thing about less taxes on the wealthy results in economic development is false. What are they going to do, employ another person to rake leaves in the Fall at their estate? Now targeted corporate tax breaks directly related to business expansion or business stability (New machinery to keep current) moves I'm fully supportive of tax breaks. Unfortunately our two corrupt parties are in the back pocket of the top 1% and corporations so tax breaks have little to do with actual economic stimulation. Publicly traded companies have had tremendous investment in them over the past 30-40 years through 401K programs. Hey by the way Mr. Hallock you didn't mention the evil Obama and the stock market more than doubling since the Bush depression.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 2:03 PM

Gotta love those who disagree no matter what you write, just to be um, what?, disagreeable? A friendly joke, a filled in missing word, a considered argument, a compliment, are all the same to those clever folks who vote you down just because of who wrote it. You're winning me over, smart guy. I am starting to see your point. Very clever.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 2:13 PM

Brazil, of course it is investors' money, and not their personal money, CEOs are supposed to be responsible for. Obvious, I thought. Principle would be the same either way. Someone (CFO, whoever) makes decisions based on how smart money would move to make more.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 2:44 PM

Does Obama even know that he's the president? Or does someone have to tell him everyday? He thinks he's going to be starring in Steven Spielberg's next movie. Oh, the swagger, and the pep in his step while hopping up the stage to the teleprompter. The press with their cups of Kool-Aid! They are so lazy and stupid!

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 2:50 PM

"I found out the same time you all did." "IDK" "I absolutely did not know." "I was not informed." "I can assure you that I did not hear about this." HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE SUCH CRAP??

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 3:06 PM

Just reported: Apple paid $6,000,000,000 in taxes last year. Is it ever enough for you Libs??

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 3:33 PM

Roundup, are you waiting for me to bring up the October Surprise devised by Reagan/BushI, keeping American hostages held captive by giving the Iranians arms, so Carter would be discredited and he could be elected? Or did you mean the Bush II fiasco, where he lied us into war and hundreds of thousands are dead, millions of people displaced and homeless, three trillions of our Treasury wasted on a pointless war, and thousands of our own military dead? Is that the one you wanted me to compare for you? If so, you lose.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 3:42 PM

If you want to destroy the middle class and ultimately this country, follow the Liberal dream. Tax the rich you say, not such a good idea. All that would do is cause the price of everything to go up for the rich would pass it right onto the middle class. Blame Bush for the recession you say, and yet it began shortly after he took office. Which was a result of Clinton's bank policies, assistance to companies heading to China, and huge increases in minimum wage in which middle class wages never went up to keep up with the inflation created by doing so. If people used their heads and thought about stuff they would see the truth. Bush's downfall was the fact that he was left powerless to do anything about the economy as a result of Rep. and Dems refusing to work together, much like today.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-21-13 3:49 PM

Hm. Bush never got anything done his way? What about starting two hellishly wasteful wars in the near east promised to oil producers by Dick Cheney in Jan or was is Feb 2000 ("energy task force")? How about Bush's famous pledge in Jan 2000 to get rid of the projected $10 trillion dollar surplus by promising to (and accomplishing) giving tax breaks to the wealthiest? Mission Accomplished.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 54 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web