介绍会员加入每个提成一元，总共八级下线，轻松月赚三千。

在学习中赚钱才是今后网赚的王道。

亿利网络，不能不看看：

http://www.eli888.com/?fengyun

打扰咯！

http://www.eli888.com/?wozhuan

Damn I am glad to be smart enough not to be mindwashed by See It Feel It The Dawn of the New New Era?

TW has great seats but then again who doesnt? LOL

“…neutering the military with drastic cuts….”

Have any specific example on that, Sam?

Huh, after 5 minutes on here, most folks can figure it out.

Others need a $10,000 Government grant, and another year of Publik Edukashion.

I don’t mean this with any hostility, but that is just plain silly. To ignore such an employment affiliation as if it matters not just flies in the face of simple logic.

I have no problem with advocates acting on behalf of any entity. Just be honest about it. Otherwise, everything they write is suspect, and any sense they might make is lost in the conflicting interests.

In the war of words, it seems the cons are so much more willing to deceive, and regardless of their veracity on some issues, that nullifies their claim to any high ground they pretend to own.

Yes, and it’s not as if I haven’t seen this tendancy in the counselor before.

“If you support cutting spending, then why not support that?”

Actually, I do support cutting spending where it counts (defense and long term entitlements). What is a pipe dream is the idea that you can just cut spending first, then raise revenues. One informs the other. That is Budget 101.

“Taxes need not be raised simultaneously to support spending cuts.”

Taxes aren’t raised to support spending cuts, they are raised on increase revenues. That is how they reduce the deficit, just as how spending cuts reduce the deficit by reducing spending. Are you arguing that we can reduce the deficit first by spending cuts? If you are, that is wrong on several counts.

1) Many of the spending cuts that will count are in entitlement reform, and that will be phased in gradually. Military spending is much the same way.

2) Discretionary spending, where cuts can presumably be made much more quickly, won’t impact the deficit much, and in fact their impact on deficit spending is much more difficult to predict than is commonly thought. Much of the discretionary spending generates substantial return in economic activity and future development, more than even most self proclaimed liberals and moderates realize, much less conservatives, especially faux fiscal conservatives. Cutting spending on the wrong infrastructure or basic as well as applied research can cost billions in economic activity, increasing rather than reducing the deficit.

3) Cutting spending will be painful, as painful as raising taxes. Both require a political courage and constituant sacrifice I sure haven’t seen yet. The idea that we can do one painful thing and defer the other is wishful thinking.

Raise taxes, cut spending, all else is bullsh*t.

Enough blame to go around. Including citizens who wanted more, more, more and elected the politicians who would see to it that they got it.