A Personal Note from T. Boone Pickens

[J.Pope]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

First, I'm glad that you admit that you don't have the facts. According to Wikipedia, "The total Congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion." Even though that number is the highest in history, it is chump change compared to the total federal budget of $2.5 trillion or the deficit at about $500 billion. Claiming that eliminating earmarks is going to have a dramatic effect on reducing the budget deficit is pure nonsense. If that is what McCain is claiming you should re-think your support of him.

Second, some of the earmarks are for good causes. In 2000, candidates Bush and McCain spared over a cancer research earmark because McCain is against earmarks. Stopping all earmarks sometimes throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Third, there is a big difference between "disarming" and spending $400 billion on the military. That's already more than the rest of the world spends combined. Spending another $200 billion, besides being 10 times the funds spent on earmarks, makes the rest of the world suspicious of what we're up to and results in destabilizing nuclear proliferation.

Earmark spending is a problem that if done away with wake a big difference. By your own facts, 18.3 billion dollars worth of difference.

Don't stop with the earmarks though. What about the government programs that are useless. How much do we spend on people who are just plain lazy and don't want to go out and get a job. We give them free housing, food stamps, and pay their doctor bills. How do you justify this? If someone truly needs help I can understand that, but there are far too many out there just living off the government just because they can.

Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with supporting cancer research, but the American people donate far more than the government ever will to this cause. There aren't many people who wouldn't give more if they had it. Americans are among the most charitable and generous people on the planet.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by J.Pope

Americans are among the most charitable and generous people on the planet.

And conservatives are far more generous than liberals.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

[J.Pope]

Originally Posted by osprey4

I, for one, am looking forward to President Obama's fiscal restraint. His pledge to balance the budget in his first term despite all those special interests demanding more money is especially courageous. And his promise to lower regulatory barriers to make energy innovation profitable is most forward-thinking.

Obama wants to balance the budget? How is that going to happen when he is going to add around a trillion dollars in new spending? When your taxes shoot through the roof then come back and tell us all how much you enjoy Obama's "fiscal restraint".

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by J.Pope

Obama wants to balance the budget? How is that going to happen when he is going to add around a trillion dollars in new spending? When your taxes shoot through the roof then come back and tell us all how much you enjoy Obama's "fiscal restraint".

A trillion dollars in new spending? You mean like we incurred jumping into Iraq with both feet? I presume you are referring to health care costing a trillion dollars. If so, the other side of the balance sheet saves Americans on insurance premiums and medical costs. Overall, those plans are less expensive than what we are paying now.

Getting back to earmarks, what I was saying didn't address whether the earmarks were wise or not. They merely addressed their cost. McCain has said that he'll cut out earmarks to balance the budget. My point was that cutting $18 billion in earmarks isn't going to solve a $500 billion deficit. McCain's math doesn't work.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

My point was that cutting $18 billion in earmarks isn't going to solve a $500 billion deficit. McCain's math doesn't work.

So it shouldn't be done?

[MTAtech]

Without reviewing the individual earmarks, who knows? My point it is next to irrelevant. All the earmarks together are small change compared to the Pentagon's cost overruns.

The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages.

[J.Pope]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

A trillion dollars in new spending? You mean like we incurred jumping into Iraq with both feet? I presume you are referring to health care costing a trillion dollars. If so, the other side of the balance sheet saves Americans on insurance premiums and medical costs. Overall, those plans are less expensive than what we are paying now.

Getting back to earmarks, what I was saying didn't address whether the earmarks were wise or not. They merely addressed their cost. McCain has said that he'll cut out earmarks to balance the budget. My point was that cutting $18 billion in earmarks isn't going to solve a $500 billion deficit. McCain's math doesn't work.

Do you know how much I pay for health coverage? $47.00 a month. That covers me and my family. I want you to show me where I can find coverage for me my wife and up to 4 children for less. Democrats say there is a problem with the cost of health insurance because there are a lot of people uninsured. The fact of it is that many of those that are uninsured can afford it they simply choose not to.

Cutting the $18 billion in earmarks may not eliminate the deficit, but it is a start. Adding more spending is only going to make the deficit worse.

Our liberation of Iraq cost us money there is no question there. Just like Afghanistan is costing us money. The war on terror has cost a total of $507 billion so far. Do not be mistaken, Saddam may or may not have had WMDs, but he was funding terrorism and committing genocide. The only thing that has stopped more attacks, like September 11th, on the U.S. is that we are taking the fight to them. With Saddam gone that is just that much less that terrorists have to fund their fight against us.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by J.Pope

The only thing that has stopped more attacks, like September 11th, on the U.S. is that we are taking the fight to them.

Do you have any studies, research or information to back that claim up or is this just your opinion?

I only mention this because the intelligence services don't agree. CIA Director Porter Goss said in 2005 (two years after Saddam's capture,) "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists."
In 2006, "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." link

[J.Pope]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Do you have any studies, research or information to back that claim up or is this just your opinion?

I only mention this because the intelligence services don't agree. CIA Director Porter Goss said in 2005 (two years after Saddam's capture,) "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists."
In 2006, "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." link

The point is that the terrorists are being engaged by our military forces over there and haven't been attacking our citizens in their homes or at work over here. When they are on the defensive side of the fight over seas then they are less likely to launch an attack on us here. It is common since.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by J.Pope

The point is that the terrorists are being engaged by our military forces over there and haven't been attacking our citizens in their homes or at work over here. When they are on the defensive side of the fight over seas then they are less likely to launch an attack on us here. It is common since.

You must be right. The way to defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries is by occupying Iraq.

al Qaeda first attacked the WTC in 1993. When was the next attack?