The Great Iraq Swindle: For-Profit Contractors Allowed to Invade the U.S. Treasury

H

Harry Hope

Guest
What did America's contractors give us for that money?

They built big steaming **** piles, set brand-new trucks on fire,
drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped
bags of nails in ditches.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle/print

Aug 23, 2007

The Great Iraq Swindle

How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S.
Treasury


How is it done?

How do you screw the taxpayer for millions, get away with it and then
ride off into the sunset with one middle finger extended, the other
wrapped around a chilled martini?

Ask Earnest O. Robbins -- he knows all about being a successful
contractor in Iraq.

You start off as a well-connected bureaucrat:

in this case, as an Air Force civil engineer, a post from which
Robbins was responsible for overseeing 70,000 servicemen and
contractors, with an annual budget of $8 billion.

You serve with distinction for thirty-four years, becoming such a
military all-star that the Air Force frequently sends you to the Hill
to testify before Congress -- until one day in the summer of 2003,
when you retire to take a job as an executive for Parsons, a private
construction company looking to do work in Iraq.

Now you can finally move out of your dull government housing on
Bolling Air Force Base and get your wife that dream home you've been
promising her all these years.

The place on Park Street in Dunn Loring, Virginia, looks pretty good
-- four bedrooms, fireplace, garage, 2,900 square feet, a nice starter
home in a high-end neighborhood full of spooks, think-tankers and
ex-apparatchiks moved on to the nest-egg phase of their faceless
careers.

On October 20th, 2003, you close the deal for $775,000 and start
living that private-sector good life.

A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a
contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design
and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to
house and train at least 4,000 police recruits.

But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning
police academy but one of the great engineering cluster****s of all
time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that
its walls and ceilings are literally caked in **** and piss, a result
of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.

You've done such a terrible job, in fact, that when auditors from the
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction visit the college in
the summer of 2006, their report sounds like something out of one of
the Saw movies:

"We witnessed a light fixture so full of diluted urine and feces that
it would not operate," they write, adding that "the urine was so
pervasive that it had permanently stained the ceiling tiles" and that
"during our visit, a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an
assessment team member's shirt."

The final report helpfully includes a photo of a sloppy brown splotch
on the outstretched arm of the unlucky auditor.

When Congress gets wind of the fiasco, a few members on the House
Oversight Committee demand a hearing.

To placate them, your company decides to send you to the Hill -- after
all, you're a former Air Force major general who used to oversee this
kind of contracting operation for the government.

So you take your twenty-minute ride in from the suburbs, sit down
before the learned gentlemen of the committee and promptly get asked
by an irritatingly eager Maryland congressman named Chris Van Hollen
how you managed to spend $72 million on a pile of ****.

You blink.

**** if you know.

"I have some conjecture, but that's all it would be" is your deadpan
answer.

The room twitters in amazement.

It's hard not to applaud the balls of a man who walks into Congress
short $72 million in taxpayer money and offers to guess where it all
might have gone.

Next thing you know, the congressman is asking you about your
company's compensation.

Touchy subject -- you've got a "cost-plus" contract, which means
you're guaranteed a base-line profit of three percent of your total
costs on the deal.

The more you spend, the more you make -- and you certainly spent a
hell of a lot.

But before this milk-faced congressman can even think about suggesting
that you give these millions back, you've got to cut him off.

"So you won't voluntarily look at this," Van Hollen is mumbling, "and
say, given what has happened in this project . . . "

"No, sir, I will not," you snap.

". . . 'We will return the profits.' . . ."

"No, sir, I will not," you repeat.

Your testimony over, you wait out the rest of the hearing, go home,
take a bath in one of your four bathrooms, jump into bed with the
little woman. . . .

A year later, Iraq is still in flames, and your president's
administration is safely focused on reclaiming $485 million in aid
money from a bunch of toothless black survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

But the house you bought for $775K is now
 
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:u063d3d36kps7rr7t57t16vlnppccohtm3@4ax.com...
>
> What did America's contractors give us for that money?
>
> They built big steaming **** piles, set brand-new trucks on fire,
> drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped
> bags of nails in ditches.
>
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle/print
>
> Aug 23, 2007
>
> The Great Iraq Swindle
>
> How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S.
> Treasury
>
>
> How is it done?
>
> How do you screw the taxpayer for millions, get away with it and then
> ride off into the sunset with one middle finger extended, the other
> wrapped around a chilled martini?
>
> Ask Earnest O. Robbins -- he knows all about being a successful
> contractor in Iraq.
>
> You start off as a well-connected bureaucrat:
>
> in this case, as an Air Force civil engineer, a post from which
> Robbins was responsible for overseeing 70,000 servicemen and
> contractors, with an annual budget of $8 billion.
>
> You serve with distinction for thirty-four years, becoming such a
> military all-star that the Air Force frequently sends you to the Hill
> to testify before Congress -- until one day in the summer of 2003,
> when you retire to take a job as an executive for Parsons, a private
> construction company looking to do work in Iraq.
>
> Now you can finally move out of your dull government housing on
> Bolling Air Force Base and get your wife that dream home you've been
> promising her all these years.
>
> The place on Park Street in Dunn Loring, Virginia, looks pretty good
> -- four bedrooms, fireplace, garage, 2,900 square feet, a nice starter
> home in a high-end neighborhood full of spooks, think-tankers and
> ex-apparatchiks moved on to the nest-egg phase of their faceless
> careers.
>
> On October 20th, 2003, you close the deal for $775,000 and start
> living that private-sector good life.
>
> A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a
> contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design
> and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to
> house and train at least 4,000 police recruits.
>
> But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning
> police academy but one of the great engineering cluster****s of all
> time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that
> its walls and ceilings are literally caked in **** and piss, a result
> of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.
>
> You've done such a terrible job, in fact, that when auditors from the
> Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction visit the college in
> the summer of 2006, their report sounds like something out of one of
> the Saw movies:
>
> "We witnessed a light fixture so full of diluted urine and feces that
> it would not operate," they write, adding that "the urine was so
> pervasive that it had permanently stained the ceiling tiles" and that
> "during our visit, a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an
> assessment team member's shirt."
>
> The final report helpfully includes a photo of a sloppy brown splotch
> on the outstretched arm of the unlucky auditor.
>
> When Congress gets wind of the fiasco, a few members on the House
> Oversight Committee demand a hearing.
>
> To placate them, your company decides to send you to the Hill -- after
> all, you're a former Air Force major general who used to oversee this
> kind of contracting operation for the government.
>
> So you take your twenty-minute ride in from the suburbs, sit down
> before the learned gentlemen of the committee and promptly get asked
> by an irritatingly eager Maryland congressman named Chris Van Hollen
> how you managed to spend $72 million on a pile of ****.
>
> You blink.
>
> **** if you know.
>
> "I have some conjecture, but that's all it would be" is your deadpan
> answer.
>
> The room twitters in amazement.
>
> It's hard not to applaud the balls of a man who walks into Congress
> short $72 million in taxpayer money and offers to guess where it all
> might have gone.
>
> Next thing you know, the congressman is asking you about your
> company's compensation.
>
> Touchy subject -- you've got a "cost-plus" contract, which means
> you're guaranteed a base-line profit of three percent of your total
> costs on the deal.
>
> The more you spend, the more you make -- and you certainly spent a
> hell of a lot.
>
> But before this milk-faced congressman can even think about suggesting
> that you give these millions back, you've got to cut him off.
>
> "So you won't voluntarily look at this," Van Hollen is mumbling, "and
> say, given what has happened in this project . . . "
>
> "No, sir, I will not," you snap.
>
> ". . . 'We will return the profits.' . . ."
>
> "No, sir, I will not," you repeat.
>
> Your testimony over, you wait out the rest of the hearing, go home,
> take a bath in one of your four bathrooms, jump into bed with the
> little woman. . . .
>
> A year later, Iraq is still in flames, and your president's
> administration is safely focused on reclaiming $485 million in aid
> money from a bunch of toothless black survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
>
> But the house you bought for $775K is now
 
On Aug 26, 9:11 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> What did America's contractors give us for that money?
>
> They built big steaming **** piles, set brand-new trucks on fire,
> drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped
> bags of nails in ditches.
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_sw...
>
> Aug 23, 2007
>
> The Great Iraq Swindle
>
> How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S.
> Treasury


I sent a link to my senators and demanded they do something about
this.

Tartarus
 
In article <u063d3d36kps7rr7t57t16vlnppccohtm3@4ax.com>,
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> What did America's contractors give us for that money?



They kept the SSS from resurrecting.

--
NeoLibertarian

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."
--- Benjamin Franklin
 
Taylor wrote:

>
> And you want them to run our health care system...
>


A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They want
slogans, not solutions.

On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats and
Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read books.
(conservatives know their books have to be filled with one-line slogans
because they've been dumbed down for so many years)

Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care. What
First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was supported by 70%
of the American people (as long as it didn't have the name Clinton in
front of it) in which all Americans have health insurance. The Clinton
plan was almost the exact same plan the congress and the president have.
It's not run by the government.

So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal health
care etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have destroyed our
political discourse and created nothing but more problems?

We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the $3.25
trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare Rx plan
pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and will cost us
trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of debt. Today, we
have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in just 26 years and you
think the problem is the government taking over health care?

Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our future?
If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a Republican
needs is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).


--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com

Impeach Search Engine
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
 
On Aug 26, 9:11 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> What did America's contractors give us for that money?
>
> They built big steaming **** piles, set brand-new trucks on fire,
> drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped
> bags of nails in ditches.
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_sw...
>
> Aug 23, 2007
>
> The Great Iraq Swindle
>
> How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S.
> Treasury
>
> How is it done?
>
> How do you screw the taxpayer for millions, get away with it and then
> ride off into the sunset with one middle finger extended, the other
> wrapped around a chilled martini?
>
> Ask Earnest O. Robbins -- he knows all about being a successful
> contractor in Iraq.
>
> You start off as a well-connected bureaucrat:
>
> in this case, as an Air Force civil engineer, a post from which
> Robbins was responsible for overseeing 70,000 servicemen and
> contractors, with an annual budget of $8 billion.
>
> You serve with distinction for thirty-four years, becoming such a
> military all-star that the Air Force frequently sends you to the Hill
> to testify before Congress -- until one day in the summer of 2003,
> when you retire to take a job as an executive for Parsons, a private
> construction company looking to do work in Iraq.
>
> Now you can finally move out of your dull government housing on
> Bolling Air Force Base and get your wife that dream home you've been
> promising her all these years.
>
> The place on Park Street in Dunn Loring, Virginia, looks pretty good
> -- four bedrooms, fireplace, garage, 2,900 square feet, a nice starter
> home in a high-end neighborhood full of spooks, think-tankers and
> ex-apparatchiks moved on to the nest-egg phase of their faceless
> careers.
>
> On October 20th, 2003, you close the deal for $775,000 and start
> living that private-sector good life.
>
> A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a
> contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design
> and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to
> house and train at least 4,000 police recruits.
>
> But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning
> police academy but one of the great engineering cluster****s of all
> time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that
> its walls and ceilings are literally caked in **** and piss, a result
> of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.
>
> You've done such a terrible job, in fact, that when auditors from the
> Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction visit the college in
> the summer of 2006, their report sounds like something out of one of
> the Saw movies:
>
> "We witnessed a light fixture so full of diluted urine and feces that
> it would not operate," they write, adding that "the urine was so
> pervasive that it had permanently stained the ceiling tiles" and that
> "during our visit, a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an
> assessment team member's shirt."
>
> The final report helpfully includes a photo of a sloppy brown splotch
> on the outstretched arm of the unlucky auditor.
>
> When Congress gets wind of the fiasco, a few members on the House
> Oversight Committee demand a hearing.
>
> To placate them, your company decides to send you to the Hill -- after
> all, you're a former Air Force major general who used to oversee this
> kind of contracting operation for the government.
>
> So you take your twenty-minute ride in from the suburbs, sit down
> before the learned gentlemen of the committee and promptly get asked
> by an irritatingly eager Maryland congressman named Chris Van Hollen
> how you managed to spend $72 million on a pile of ****.
>
> You blink.
>
> **** if you know.
>
> "I have some conjecture, but that's all it would be" is your deadpan
> answer.
>
> The room twitters in amazement.
>
> It's hard not to applaud the balls of a man who walks into Congress
> short $72 million in taxpayer money and offers to guess where it all
> might have gone.
>
> Next thing you know, the congressman is asking you about your
> company's compensation.
>
> Touchy subject -- you've got a "cost-plus" contract, which means
> you're guaranteed a base-line profit of three percent of your total
> costs on the deal.
>
> The more you spend, the more you make -- and you certainly spent a
> hell of a lot.
>
> But before this milk-faced congressman can even think about suggesting
> that you give these millions back, you've got to cut him off.
>
> "So you won't voluntarily look at this," Van Hollen is mumbling, "and
> say, given what has happened in this project . . . "
>
> "No, sir, I will not," you snap.
>
> ". . . 'We will return the profits.' . . ."
>
> "No, sir, I will not," you repeat.
>
> Your testimony over, you wait out the rest of the hearing, go home,
> take a bath in one of your four bathrooms, jump into bed with the
> little woman. . . .
>
> A year later, Iraq is still in flames, and your president's
> administration is safely focused on reclaiming $485 million in aid
> money from a bunch of toothless black survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
>
> But the house you bought for $775K is now
 
On Aug 26, 12:00 pm, Tartarus <tarta...@rome.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 9:11 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > What did America's contractors give us for that money?

>
> > They built big steaming **** piles, set brand-new trucks on fire,
> > drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped
> > bags of nails in ditches.

>
> >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_sw...

>
> > Aug 23, 2007

>
> > The Great Iraq Swindle

>
> > How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S.
> > Treasury

>
> I sent a link to my senators and demanded they do something about
> this.
>
> Tartarus


I hope he or she wasn't a republickcan senator, because if it was it
will never get past some temp hire lackey (who most likely deleted it
2 minutes after it arrived)!
 
On Aug 26, 4:58 pm, Tab182 <tabernacle2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 12:00 pm, Tartarus <tarta...@rome.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 9:11 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
> > > What did America's contractors give us for that money?

>
> > > They built big steaming **** piles, set brand-new trucks on fire,
> > > drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped
> > > bags of nails in ditches.

>
> > >http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_sw...

>
> > > Aug 23, 2007

>
> > > The Great Iraq Swindle

>
> > > How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S.
> > > Treasury

>
> > I sent a link to my senators and demanded they do something about
> > this.

>
> > Tartarus

>
> I hope he or she wasn't a republickcan senator, because if it was it
> will never get past some temp hire lackey (who most likely deleted it
> 2 minutes after it arrived)!


We have one Democrat and one Republican.

Tartarus
 
"zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fasa8e12s86@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> And you want them to run our health care system...
>>

>
> A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They want
> slogans, not solutions.
>
> On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats and
> Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read books.
> (conservatives know their books have to be filled with one-line slogans
> because they've been dumbed down for so many years)
>
> Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care. What
> First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was supported by 70%
> of the American people (as long as it didn't have the name Clinton in
> front of it) in which all Americans have health insurance. The Clinton
> plan was almost the exact same plan the congress and the president have.
> It's not run by the government.
>
> So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal health care
> etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have destroyed our political
> discourse and created nothing but more problems?
>
> We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the $3.25
> trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare Rx plan
> pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and will cost us
> trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of debt. Today, we
> have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in just 26 years and you
> think the problem is the government taking over health care?
>
> Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our future?
> If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a Republican needs
> is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).
>
>
> --
> Impeach Bush
> http://zzpat.bravehost.com
>
> Impeach Search Engine
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm


Uh, "for-profit contractors" are not government either. You can read, but
apparently you can't understand.

The tax cuts increased government revenue. Thus, the deficit was caused by
increased government spending.
 
"Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
news:46d2df42$0$23568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fasa8e12s86@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And you want them to run our health care system...
>>>

>>
>> A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They want
>> slogans, not solutions.
>>
>> On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats and
>> Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read books.
>> (conservatives know their books have to be filled with one-line slogans
>> because they've been dumbed down for so many years)
>>
>> Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care. What
>> First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was supported by 70%
>> of the American people (as long as it didn't have the name Clinton in
>> front of it) in which all Americans have health insurance. The Clinton
>> plan was almost the exact same plan the congress and the president have.
>> It's not run by the government.
>>
>> So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal health
>> care etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have destroyed our
>> political discourse and created nothing but more problems?
>>
>> We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the $3.25
>> trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare Rx plan
>> pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and will cost us
>> trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of debt. Today, we
>> have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in just 26 years and you
>> think the problem is the government taking over health care?
>>
>> Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our future?
>> If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a Republican
>> needs is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).
>>
>>
>> --
>> Impeach Bush
>> http://zzpat.bravehost.com
>>
>> Impeach Search Engine
>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

>
> Uh, "for-profit contractors" are not government either. You can read, but
> apparently you can't understand.
>
> The tax cuts increased government revenue. Thus, the deficit was caused
> by increased government spending.


There is absolutely no proof that the tax cuts increased revenue. NONE.
 
"Lamont Cranston" <lamont.cranston@theshadowknows.com> wrote in message
news:fauvvf$n3s$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
> news:46d2df42$0$23568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fasa8e12s86@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you want them to run our health care system...
>>>>
>>>
>>> A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They want
>>> slogans, not solutions.
>>>
>>> On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats and
>>> Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read books.
>>> (conservatives know their books have to be filled with one-line slogans
>>> because they've been dumbed down for so many years)
>>>
>>> Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care. What
>>> First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was supported by 70%
>>> of the American people (as long as it didn't have the name Clinton in
>>> front of it) in which all Americans have health insurance. The Clinton
>>> plan was almost the exact same plan the congress and the president have.
>>> It's not run by the government.
>>>
>>> So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal health
>>> care etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have destroyed our
>>> political discourse and created nothing but more problems?
>>>
>>> We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the $3.25
>>> trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare Rx plan
>>> pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and will cost us
>>> trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of debt. Today, we
>>> have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in just 26 years and you
>>> think the problem is the government taking over health care?
>>>
>>> Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our future?
>>> If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a Republican
>>> needs is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Impeach Bush
>>> http://zzpat.bravehost.com
>>>
>>> Impeach Search Engine
>>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

>>
>> Uh, "for-profit contractors" are not government either. You can read,
>> but apparently you can't understand.
>>
>> The tax cuts increased government revenue. Thus, the deficit was caused
>> by increased government spending.

>
> There is absolutely no proof that the tax cuts increased revenue. NONE.
>


Hello! Bush cuts taxes, government revenues increase. You do the math.
 
"Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
news:46d82f04$0$32557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <lamont.cranston@theshadowknows.com> wrote in message
> news:fauvvf$n3s$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
>> news:46d2df42$0$23568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fasa8e12s86@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you want them to run our health care system...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They want
>>>> slogans, not solutions.
>>>>
>>>> On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats and
>>>> Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read books.
>>>> (conservatives know their books have to be filled with one-line slogans
>>>> because they've been dumbed down for so many years)
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care. What
>>>> First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was supported by
>>>> 70% of the American people (as long as it didn't have the name Clinton
>>>> in front of it) in which all Americans have health insurance. The
>>>> Clinton plan was almost the exact same plan the congress and the
>>>> president have. It's not run by the government.
>>>>
>>>> So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal health
>>>> care etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have destroyed our
>>>> political discourse and created nothing but more problems?
>>>>
>>>> We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the $3.25
>>>> trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare Rx plan
>>>> pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and will cost us
>>>> trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of debt. Today, we
>>>> have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in just 26 years and
>>>> you think the problem is the government taking over health care?
>>>>
>>>> Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our
>>>> future? If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a
>>>> Republican needs is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Impeach Bush
>>>> http://zzpat.bravehost.com
>>>>
>>>> Impeach Search Engine
>>>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
>>>
>>> Uh, "for-profit contractors" are not government either. You can read,
>>> but apparently you can't understand.
>>>
>>> The tax cuts increased government revenue. Thus, the deficit was caused
>>> by increased government spending.

>>
>> There is absolutely no proof that the tax cuts increased revenue. NONE.
>>

>
> Hello! Bush cuts taxes, government revenues increase. You do the math.


Hello! If you don't do anything, government revenues increase. You do the
math.

Hello! If you increase taxes, government revenues increase more. You do
the math.
 
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@CloudYourMind.com> wrote in message
news:fb9ilj$aaa$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
> news:46d82f04$0$32557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Lamont Cranston" <lamont.cranston@theshadowknows.com> wrote in message
>> news:fauvvf$n3s$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46d2df42$0$23568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fasa8e12s86@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you want them to run our health care system...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They want
>>>>> slogans, not solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats and
>>>>> Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read books.
>>>>> (conservatives know their books have to be filled with one-line
>>>>> slogans because they've been dumbed down for so many years)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care. What
>>>>> First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was supported by
>>>>> 70% of the American people (as long as it didn't have the name Clinton
>>>>> in front of it) in which all Americans have health insurance. The
>>>>> Clinton plan was almost the exact same plan the congress and the
>>>>> president have. It's not run by the government.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal health
>>>>> care etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have destroyed our
>>>>> political discourse and created nothing but more problems?
>>>>>
>>>>> We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the $3.25
>>>>> trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare Rx plan
>>>>> pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and will cost
>>>>> us trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of debt. Today,
>>>>> we have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in just 26 years
>>>>> and you think the problem is the government taking over health care?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our
>>>>> future? If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a
>>>>> Republican needs is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Impeach Bush
>>>>> http://zzpat.bravehost.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Impeach Search Engine
>>>>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
>>>>
>>>> Uh, "for-profit contractors" are not government either. You can read,
>>>> but apparently you can't understand.
>>>>
>>>> The tax cuts increased government revenue. Thus, the deficit was
>>>> caused by increased government spending.
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no proof that the tax cuts increased revenue. NONE.
>>>

>>
>> Hello! Bush cuts taxes, government revenues increase. You do the math.

>
> Hello! If you don't do anything, government revenues increase. You do
> the math.
>
> Hello! If you increase taxes, government revenues increase more. You do
> the math.
>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
 
"Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
news:46d864af$0$6440$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@CloudYourMind.com> wrote in message
> news:fb9ilj$aaa$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
>> news:46d82f04$0$32557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "Lamont Cranston" <lamont.cranston@theshadowknows.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fauvvf$n3s$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46d2df42$0$23568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fasa8e12s86@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you want them to run our health care system...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They want
>>>>>> slogans, not solutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats
>>>>>> and Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read
>>>>>> books. (conservatives know their books have to be filled with
>>>>>> one-line slogans because they've been dumbed down for so many years)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care. What
>>>>>> First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was supported by
>>>>>> 70% of the American people (as long as it didn't have the name
>>>>>> Clinton in front of it) in which all Americans have health insurance.
>>>>>> The Clinton plan was almost the exact same plan the congress and the
>>>>>> president have. It's not run by the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal health
>>>>>> care etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have destroyed our
>>>>>> political discourse and created nothing but more problems?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the $3.25
>>>>>> trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare Rx
>>>>>> plan pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and will
>>>>>> cost us trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of debt.
>>>>>> Today, we have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in just 26
>>>>>> years and you think the problem is the government taking over health
>>>>>> care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our
>>>>>> future? If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a
>>>>>> Republican needs is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Impeach Bush
>>>>>> http://zzpat.bravehost.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Impeach Search Engine
>>>>>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, "for-profit contractors" are not government either. You can read,
>>>>> but apparently you can't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tax cuts increased government revenue. Thus, the deficit was
>>>>> caused by increased government spending.
>>>>
>>>> There is absolutely no proof that the tax cuts increased revenue.
>>>> NONE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello! Bush cuts taxes, government revenues increase. You do the math.

>>
>> Hello! If you don't do anything, government revenues increase. You do
>> the math.
>>
>> Hello! If you increase taxes, government revenues increase more. You do
>> the math.
>>

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve



The Laffer curve only has meaning when tax rates are confiscatory. They
weren't confiscatory when Bush took office and haven't been confiscatory for
45 years. Even if they were, the Laffer curve applies only to the very
wealthy and cutting the taxes of the very wealthy doesn't do anything to
affect the economy.
 
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@CloudYourMind.com> wrote in message
news:fb9pji$nj6$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
> news:46d864af$0$6440$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@CloudYourMind.com> wrote in message
>> news:fb9ilj$aaa$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46d82f04$0$32557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <lamont.cranston@theshadowknows.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fauvvf$n3s$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46d2df42$0$23568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fasa8e12s86@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you want them to run our health care system...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A book publisher recently lamented what conservatives want. They
>>>>>>> want slogans, not solutions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other side of the spectrum (where book are sold), Democrats
>>>>>>> and Liberals speak in paragraphs and they're more likely to read
>>>>>>> books. (conservatives know their books have to be filled with
>>>>>>> one-line slogans because they've been dumbed down for so many years)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, no one is suggesting the government run our health care.
>>>>>>> What First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed was a plan that was
>>>>>>> supported by 70% of the American people (as long as it didn't have
>>>>>>> the name Clinton in front of it) in which all Americans have health
>>>>>>> insurance. The Clinton plan was almost the exact same plan the
>>>>>>> congress and the president have. It's not run by the government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if we're going to discuss complicated issues like universal
>>>>>>> health care etc. can we move beyond the one-liners that have
>>>>>>> destroyed our political discourse and created nothing but more
>>>>>>> problems?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We got our taxes cut and those tax cuts are responsible for the
>>>>>>> $3.25 trillion of new debt in just 6 1/2 years and we had a Medicare
>>>>>>> Rx plan pushed by Bush and the GOP that is completely unfunded and
>>>>>>> will cost us trillions. Before Reagan we had about $900 billion of
>>>>>>> debt. Today, we have nearly $9 trillion of debt. All that debt in
>>>>>>> just 26 years and you think the problem is the government taking
>>>>>>> over health care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really care about the damage the GOP has inflicted on our
>>>>>>> future? If you did, you'd stop being a Republican (but then all a
>>>>>>> Republican needs is a slogan to justify being wrong all the time).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Impeach Bush
>>>>>>> http://zzpat.bravehost.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Impeach Search Engine
>>>>>>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, "for-profit contractors" are not government either. You can
>>>>>> read, but apparently you can't understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tax cuts increased government revenue. Thus, the deficit was
>>>>>> caused by increased government spending.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is absolutely no proof that the tax cuts increased revenue.
>>>>> NONE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello! Bush cuts taxes, government revenues increase. You do the
>>>> math.
>>>
>>> Hello! If you don't do anything, government revenues increase. You do
>>> the math.
>>>
>>> Hello! If you increase taxes, government revenues increase more. You
>>> do the math.
>>>

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

>
>
> The Laffer curve only has meaning when tax rates are confiscatory. They
> weren't confiscatory when Bush took office and haven't been confiscatory
> for 45 years. Even if they were, the Laffer curve applies only to the
> very wealthy and cutting the taxes of the very wealthy doesn't do anything
> to affect the economy.
>


I didn't see those limitations in the article.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_side_economics
 
Back
Top