"2790 Dead" <zepp22112790@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:ldfnj2dl2nh17vr7q2un6q4dbkk1k0iigr@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:57:22 GMT, "shrikeback"
<hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote:

"2790 Dead" <zepp22112790@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:p41nj2tncjc2n88qb9kk6esm5uds636ovh@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 06:29:22 GMT, "shrikeback"
<hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote:

"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QaE_g.337$gZ2.1@trndny07...

"FIRE BUSH, NOW!" <PissedOff@the white house.org> wrote in message
news:ejs_g.1524$T_1.414@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"Kurt Nicklas" <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1161437830.288309.111720@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

From the new book by Peter Schweizer:

"Do As I Say(Not As I Do)"


Another of Kennedy's great causes has been support of the estate or
inheritance tax. But, he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate
web
of trusts and private foundations that have kept most of the family
pie
from ever ending up in the hands of the IRS

You'll be paying America back for Bush's Iraqi fiasco for
generations.
Get a good job now and avoid the suicide lines.

Not really. We spend five times that every year on our welfare state,
anyway.

Okay. It's only about 3 times that now. But that is every year.

Keep in mind that Shrinkback, on of the more pitiful free market
ideologues, regards "welfare state spending" to be any government
outlay that doesn't go to the military, corporations, or the rich.

The largest single expenditure of the US government is, of course,
Social Security (and it's growing exponentially). Is this not part of
the welfare state? The total spending on all entitlements amounts
to about half of the federal government's annual spending.

Only a Republican would sneer that an old-age pension is "welfare"
while simultaneously arguing that employers have a right to keep wages
at a level where nobody can save for retirement.

How is referring to Social Security as a part of the welfare state sneering,
exactly? If you don't like the appellation "welfare state," perhaps we
should, instead, refer to it as the "social security state," since that is
the
largest part of our entitlement spending. Welfare, per se, was always
a tiny portion of the "welfare state."

If you don't want to call it the welfare state, that works for me, just so
long as we all know what the hell you're referring to.

I would consider subsidies to the rich to be part of the welfare
state. But Zippy considers letting people keep their own money
to be a government outlay "for the rich". They do have the most
of their own money, after all, and the gummint made that money,
so they're keeping the property of the State. Does that about
sum it up, Zippy?

They would not be rich if it were not for the state and the workers.
Yes, they owe soemthing back.

And, as has been pointed out before, they pay the vast majority of
the taxes. So what's the beef?

Interestingly, I don't think that one trillion dollar a year figure
includes the negative tax for working families known as Earned
Income Credits (which was increased under the Bush tax cuts,
putting to lie the claim that the tax cuts were only "for the rich").

Nonsense. Putsch tried to eliminate the earned income tax credit.

Horseshit. There is one tried and true response to the sort of claims
you download from Uranus, and that is: "cite, please". The crickets
will sing for longer than Uranus stays in one piece.

Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:57:22 GMT, "shrikeback"
<hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote:

"2790 Dead" <zepp22112790@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:p41nj2tncjc2n88qb9kk6esm5uds636ovh@4ax.com...

Keep in mind that Shrinkback, on of the more pitiful free market
ideologues, regards "welfare state spending" to be any government
outlay that doesn't go to the military, corporations, or the rich.

The largest single expenditure of the US government is, of course,
Social Security

Social Security also brings money into the government, military
operations bring government money into a few private pockets.

Military spending also brings money into the gummint, for
the same reason that SocSec does.

just as Keynesian as SocSec is.

referring to the fact that recipients of SocSec spend the
money, which causes a few private pockets to make a
profit (and pay their employees, who also spend the
money). Ironically, SocSec is generally not taxable
itself, so it is only taxed when it changes hands, but
those who receive military funding are taxed, so there
is one more layer of taxation.

Also, military spending has fallout aside from the
gainful employment of engineers, technicians,
scientists, etc. One such example is the media
we are currently using.

Talk
about the NET expenditure. Military spending includes all military
spending, including off-budget items. Spending is spending, whether
it's listed in the official budget or not.

Regardless, spending on Iraq is not expected to grow,
nor is it expected to continue indefinitely, SocSec is
spending is expected to grow exponentially, even as
the demographics shift such that payers of the SocSec
tax grow fewer as a percentage of the population.

Military spending also brings money into the gummint, for
the same reason that SocSec does. Military spending is
just as Keynesian as SocSec is. Presumably, you are
referring to the fact that recipients of SocSec spend the
money, which causes a few private pockets to make a
profit (and pay their employees, who also spend the
money).

Regardless, spending on Iraq is not expected to grow,
nor is it expected to continue indefinitely

SocSec is spending is expected to grow exponentially