Poll: Question for Those Opposed to the Tax Cuts...

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Amused

Where does it stop? If I keep paying in more and more, they'll keep speding more and more. You forget, there never WAS a surpluss, only a projected surpluss. At any rate, why should I keep paying in more and more if they can't control their spending? When faced with a pay cut, I minimize expenditures. I do not keep going deeper into debt.

This is not the tax payer's fault.

It's not the taxpayers fault? It's the fault of whoever voted to put this idiot in office.

You're right though, spending should be cut dramarically. Starting with bogus wars.

Correction: Idiots.

If you think the war is alone in sending spending over the top, you're sorely mistaken. If you think Bush is responsible for the current economic situation, you are completely ignorant of recent history.

At any rate, I'd hardly call this war "bogus."

I did not say the war alone is responsible....although it's expense dwarfs many other things at the moment. I said "starting with".

I did not say Bush alone is responsible for the economic situation, but he is the fool pushing the tax cuts while spending like a madman.

...and if you're in favor of the war then you should send your tax rebate back to help pay for the damn thing. I certainly don't want to pay for it.

 

[jahawkin]

Doesn't trickle down economics require that all people who get tax cuts re-invest that money back into the economy. How is the government going to magically get increased revenue when people don't accept their tax cut?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Doesn't trickle down economics require that all people who get tax cuts re-invest that money back into the economy. How is the government going to magically get increased revenue when people don't accept their tax cut?

I dont think there will be many who do not accept their tax cut.

 

[LunarRay]

To be honest, I am happy I am getting 400$ in july and a reduction in my tax. I am not happy that some others may get a tax break of greater amounts. I'd go for everyone who paid tax gets a refund of X $. A check in the mail good only if spent in a local mall or something. Not this dividend issue nor reducing the lower tier income tax for the wealthy. Over 100000$ should have all the 100000$ taxed at the same rate. Maybe 35% would suit me.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HJD1
To be honest, I am happy I am getting 400$ in july and a reduction in my tax. I am not happy that some others may get a tax break of greater amounts. I'd go for everyone who paid tax gets a refund of X $. A check in the mail good only if spent in a local mall or something. Not this dividend issue nor reducing the lower tier income tax for the wealthy. Over 100000$ should have all the 100000$ taxed at the same rate. Maybe 35% would suit me.

So how does one give taxbreaks to those that do not pay taxes?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I'm opposed to tax cuts and I won't be sending it back. Instead I'll probably have to use it buying teaching supplies from my own pocket book since the schools were already in deep sh!t before this cut.

I am glad you found a good way to spend those dollars that would have otherwise likely been wasted by the fed.

Those dollars are still being wasted by the fed. They didn't cut spending, remember?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I'm opposed to tax cuts and I won't be sending it back. Instead I'll probably have to use it buying teaching supplies from my own pocket book since the schools were already in deep sh!t before this cut.

I am glad you found a good way to spend those dollars that would have otherwise likely been wasted by the fed.

Those dollars are still being wasted by the fed. They didn't cut spending, remember?

Well they would have wasted more if those dollars made it to DC.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HJD1
To be honest, I am happy I am getting 400$ in july and a reduction in my tax. I am not happy that some others may get a tax break of greater amounts. I'd go for everyone who paid tax gets a refund of X $. A check in the mail good only if spent in a local mall or something. Not this dividend issue nor reducing the lower tier income tax for the wealthy. Over 100000$ should have all the 100000$ taxed at the same rate. Maybe 35% would suit me.

So how does one give taxbreaks to those that do not pay taxes?

Sorta like t!ts on a boar. What good would they do? If folks don't pay tax you can't very well give them a tax cut. Does not matter what income level. If the deductions etc exceed the taxable threshold they miss out... like all the poor, no tax cut for them and in fact, some miss out on EIC which is a refund even if no tax was paid.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The last time there was "sweeping" reform was from the '94 Freshman.

Let me guess . . . in your history book the Contract With America led to an unprecedented rollback in tax rates?

Those same rebels have become a rock garden in DC. They've been getting pay raises and larger staffs while delivering bigger and less functional government. A few actually served two or three terms and then went home. The majority are perpetual pols feeding at the lobbyist trough and bragging about what trickles back to the home district. The remainder have their eyes on the Senate or have left public service to be fulltime whores as lobbyists and consultants.

Keep the dream alive and pass the blunt to the awesome dude on the left 'cause that sh!t you're smoking is TITE!

 

[UltraQuiet]

OK here's Dave's brilliant plan:

1. We give full tax credit for every dime that corporations spend on employee health care. We even allow them to deduct the cost of keeping laid off employees on the books. Maybe it will increase competition among insurance companies and costs will be lowered. Maybe companies will fund 100% of health care and put more money in everyones pocket. Pick it apart.

2. We form an independent commission, like for example BRAC, who studies goverment waste, duplication of services, etc., etc. and they make reccomendations for reducing. Like BRAC it is an all or nothing deal, you have to take the whole thing or nothing at all. Pick it apart.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

1. We give full tax credit for every dime that corporations spend on employee health care. We even allow them to deduct the cost of keeping laid off employees on the books. Maybe it will increase competition among insurance companies and costs will be lowered. Maybe companies will fund 100% of health care and put more money in everyones pocket. Pick it apart.

1) With the notable exception of Kaiser and some Blues . . . why should the US taxpayer guarantee profits for Aetna, HealthSouth, or a myriad of others who feed at the healthcare trough?

2) Aside from bloodsucking insurance companies and the parasitic trial lawyers, healthcare inflation is a function of an aging population being medicated by 6 drugs prescribed by 3 different doctors . . . not to mention the misuse of technology (MRIs for knee injuries).

3) Although it will take time, people must bare the costs of their behaviors. I've had less than 2 months total experience in the Emergency Room but a good 25% of cases are people who either refuse to use a seatbelt or lack the common sense to avoid locales frequented by people wielding guns, knives, pool cues, frying pans, or broken bottles. Invariably most of these people usually mix a little alcohol in for good measure.

March 14, 2003 -- Treating heart disease cost Americans $58 billion in 1997, making it the single most expensive item on the country's health care bill, followed by cancer, trauma, and mental disorders.


In a new report, researchers analyzed the cost of health care for some of the most common medical problems and came up with the top 15 costliest conditions for the 1997 calendar year. They found that although lung disorders like asthma affected the most Americans (41 million), the cost of treating lung conditions only ranked fifth on the list at $29 billion.


In comparison, the 17 million people diagnosed with heart disease spent $58 billion, 9 million cancer patients spent $46 billion, 37 million who suffered a traumatic injury spent $44 billion, and 20 million with mental disorders shelled out $30 billion.


Not surprising, researchers say the study found that many of the conditions in the top 15 are chronic diseases that require long-term care. Their findings appear in the current issue of Health Affairs.

Rounding out the top 15 were the following conditions (listed with their annual associated price tag and number of Americans affected):


Diabetes, $20 billion, 10 million people
Hypertension (high blood pressure), $18 billion, 27 million people
Stroke-related conditions, $16 billion, 2 million people
Osteoarthritis, $16 billion, 16 million people
Pneumonia, $16 billion, 4 million people
Back problems, $13 billion, 13 million people
Kidney disease, $10 billion, 2 million people
Endocrine disorders, $10 billion, 18 million people
Skin disorders, $9 billion, 20 million people
Infectious diseases, $6 billion, 16 million people

Researchers Joel W. Cohen and Nancy A. Krauss at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality say private insurance paid for about 35% of the expenses for the top five conditions, and Medicare covered nearly 45% of heart disease expenses, 20-25% of cancer costs, and 16% of expenses related to treating mental disorders.

For every item in bold lifestyle is a definitive modifiable component. These totals are from 1997 . . . do you have any idea how America has gotten MORE sedentary and MORE obese since then . . . not to mention how drugs, hospital beds, and physician hours have increased in cost!

4) If we absolutely MUST retain the private insurance industry then I give your plan the thumbs up, Dave. But why line an industry's pockets instead of providing coverage to the 41 million Americans that currently lack it? Competition will not work in this industry b/c the most powerful players are not interested in keeping cost under control if hurts their bottom line. The Health Insurance Association of America, Pharmaceutical Research and Maufacturers' Association of America, and particularly these bastards give lip service to patient care.

Any reform which fails to address the role such entities play in healthcare inflation or adequacy of coverage is doomed to fail as a long term solution.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The last time there was "sweeping" reform was from the '94 Freshman.

Let me guess . . . in your history book the Contract With America led to an unprecedented rollback in tax rates?

Those same rebels have become a rock garden in DC. They've been getting pay raises and larger staffs while delivering bigger and less functional government. A few actually served two or three terms and then went home. The majority are perpetual pols feeding at the lobbyist trough and bragging about what trickles back to the home district. The remainder have their eyes on the Senate or have left public service to be fulltime whores as lobbyists and consultants.

Keep the dream alive and pass the blunt to the awesome dude on the left 'cause that sh!t you're smoking is TITE!

No my "challenged" freind - You need to look at what they tried to do and what they accomplished. They did do quite a good deal of budget cleaning. You must have missed the " "" " part They tried to buck the system and provide reform but as you pointed out - some got caught up in the exact system they originally wished to change.

"sweeping" - being tongue-in-cheeck - you know, sacrasm

We need more people like them to challenge the system once they are a part of it, but next time - us voters need to hold them to their word.

You see doom and gloom - I see opportunity to "fix" the system. It won't be easy but is very very neccesary.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

1. We give full tax credit for every dime that corporations spend on employee health care. We even allow them to deduct the cost of keeping laid off employees on the books. Maybe it will increase competition among insurance companies and costs will be lowered. Maybe companies will fund 100% of health care and put more money in everyones pocket. Pick it apart.

1) With the notable exception of Kaiser and some Blues . . . why should the US taxpayer guarantee profits for Aetna, HealthSouth, or a myriad of others who feed at the healthcare trough?

2) Aside from bloodsucking insurance companies and the parasitic trial lawyers, healthcare inflation is a function of an aging population being medicated by 6 drugs prescribed by 3 different doctors . . . not to mention the misuse of technology (MRIs for knee injuries).

3) Although it will take time, people must bare the costs of their behaviors. I've had less than 2 months total experience in the Emergency Room but a good 25% of cases are people who either refuse to use a seatbelt or lack the common sense to avoid locales frequented by people wielding guns, knives, pool cues, frying pans, or broken bottles. Invariably most of these people usually mix a little alcohol in for good measure.

March 14, 2003 -- Treating heart disease cost Americans $58 billion in 1997, making it the single most expensive item on the country's health care bill, followed by cancer, trauma, and mental disorders.


In a new report, researchers analyzed the cost of health care for some of the most common medical problems and came up with the top 15 costliest conditions for the 1997 calendar year. They found that although lung disorders like asthma affected the most Americans (41 million), the cost of treating lung conditions only ranked fifth on the list at $29 billion.


In comparison, the 17 million people diagnosed with heart disease spent $58 billion, 9 million cancer patients spent $46 billion, 37 million who suffered a traumatic injury spent $44 billion, and 20 million with mental disorders shelled out $30 billion.


Not surprising, researchers say the study found that many of the conditions in the top 15 are chronic diseases that require long-term care. Their findings appear in the current issue of Health Affairs.

Rounding out the top 15 were the following conditions (listed with their annual associated price tag and number of Americans affected):


Diabetes, $20 billion, 10 million people
Hypertension (high blood pressure), $18 billion, 27 million people
Stroke-related conditions, $16 billion, 2 million people
Osteoarthritis, $16 billion, 16 million people
Pneumonia, $16 billion, 4 million people
Back problems, $13 billion, 13 million people
Kidney disease, $10 billion, 2 million people
Endocrine disorders, $10 billion, 18 million people
Skin disorders, $9 billion, 20 million people
Infectious diseases, $6 billion, 16 million people

Researchers Joel W. Cohen and Nancy A. Krauss at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality say private insurance paid for about 35% of the expenses for the top five conditions, and Medicare covered nearly 45% of heart disease expenses, 20-25% of cancer costs, and 16% of expenses related to treating mental disorders.

For every item in bold lifestyle is a definitive modifiable component. These totals are from 1997 . . . do you have any idea how America has gotten MORE sedentary and MORE obese since then . . . not to mention how drugs, hospital beds, and physician hours have increased in cost!

4) If we absolutely MUST retain the private insurance industry then I give your plan the thumbs up, Dave. But why line an industry's pockets instead of providing coverage to the 41 million Americans that currently lack it? Competition will not work in this industry b/c the most powerful players are not interested in keeping cost under control if hurts their bottom line. The Health Insurance Association of America, Pharmaceutical Research and Maufacturers' Association of America, and particularly these bastards give lip service to patient care.

Any reform which fails to address the role such entities play in healthcare inflation or adequacy of coverage is doomed to fail as a long term solution.

Proper diet and exercise could change some of those in bold, but it will not keep the last 2-3 years of ones life from being the most medically expensive period in ones life.

 

[Zebo]

Because Amused if you'e in the middle class you already are paying way to much. Thier/my opposition stems from the those who make almost all or all of thier "income" from long term capital gains will benefit more than they are today and should be paying more in capital gains not less.

Personally I've never understood why capital gains are garnered any speciel treatment. Whether you're selling one sandwich or the whole resturant you are still making a sale to someone just like any other sale. What difference should the value of the sale be? And why should'nt it be treated as income?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Proper diet and exercise could change some of those in bold, but it will not keep the last 2-3 years of ones life from being the most medically expensive period in ones life.

Those years are expensive due to poor management of chronic illnesses such as diabetes, renal disease, and heart disease AND the poor management of terminal conditions. Proper diet and exercise will lead to diabetics having a massive coronary and dying (its relatively cheap when they die quickly) instead of 10 years to the first amputation followed by 5 years to kidney failure (including 3 years of dialysis waiting for a transplant).

In a limited fashion you are correct . . . when you are healthy, healthcare is cheap but when you are on the steep slope to death our feeble attempts to lessen your descent are expensive. Regardless, proper diet, exercise, reasonable alcohol consumption, and no smoking will do alot more than change some of those in bold. EVERYTHING I put in bold will have a dramatic decline in yearly expense except traumatic injury. But all it takes are $500 tickets for not wearing a seatbelt to fix that puppy. Other than the occasional silver-haired, 70yo woman who trips in her 3 inch heels after too many vodka tonics (don't laugh she had a nice stellate wound on her forehead) . . . the vast majority of expensive traumas are unrestrained occupants from a MVC (we don't call them accidents anymore).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Because Amused if you'e in the middle class you already are paying way to much. Thier/my opposition stems from the those who make almost all or all of thier "income" from long term capital gains will benefit more than they are today and should be paying more in capital gains not less.

Personally I've never understood why capital gains are garnered any speciel treatment. Whether you're selling one sandwich or the whole resturant you are still making a sale to someone just like any other sale. What difference should the value of the sale be? And why should'nt it be treated as income?

Because the money you bought it with was taxed already. How many times do you want to tax people's money?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Because Amused if you'e in the middle class you already are paying way to much. Thier/my opposition stems from the those who make almost all or all of thier "income" from long term capital gains will benefit more than they are today and should be paying more in capital gains not less.

Personally I've never understood why capital gains are garnered any speciel treatment. Whether you're selling one sandwich or the whole resturant you are still making a sale to someone just like any other sale. What difference should the value of the sale be? And why should'nt it be treated as income?

Because the money you bought it with was taxed already. How many times do you want to tax people's money?

So was the money you bought the materals/ingrediants to make the sandwich but it's taxed as income.

Everytime it changes hands seems fair, even do it at a flat rate if you like and elminate all other taxes.

 

[LunarRay]

UltraQuiet,

I figured the cost of "Dave's Plan" to be near 450b$. The offset could amount to 70b$ because of having everyone covered. Economy of scale issues. The government and such are not included because they have no credit stake. So lets say the health care/ RX side is 380b$.

The keep worker on payroll is really a mind boggle since each time I go down one street I see a fork that goes to another and so on. Viz: A company keeps a person on board producing. The company keeps on buying raw material. They both continue to use some delta service industry who keep folks to maintain the volume and on. The consumer see's lower prices as the company seeks to move product but the lower prices are offset by the credit. But, for how long do they get the credit. I'd assume some GDP factor because there'd be no unemployment. At some point the economy could pick up and all is well...
Dave's plan has big time merit but, needs a stronger modeling than I can manage. In fact, I doubt a model exists that could quantify the data. I could have used this about 28 years ago to use in my research studies.
Sorry, the best I could do is suggest it would be as good as the credit currently in force. And I see the multiplier being much better. The return to the coffers would be real time as would the unemployment compensation offest plus the trust fund income... not a bad deal.

I didn't address the economic benefit of the health care thingi cuz I just realized I forgot to include some things. I got to noodle it a bit.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Any reform which fails to address the role such entities play in healthcare inflation or adequacy of coverage is doomed to fail as a long term solution.

So what's the answer? How do we "regulate" the health care industry, particularly health insurance. Like we do auto insurance? I have little knowledge in this area because I've never needed health insurance. But with less than a year to go to retirement you can rest assured I am learning quickly. Especially about TriCare supplements.

So you really don't think that this would create more competition between ins. companies and lower coverage costs?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Because Amused if you'e in the middle class you already are paying way to much. Thier/my opposition stems from the those who make almost all or all of thier "income" from long term capital gains will benefit more than they are today and should be paying more in capital gains not less.

Personally I've never understood why capital gains are garnered any speciel treatment. Whether you're selling one sandwich or the whole resturant you are still making a sale to someone just like any other sale. What difference should the value of the sale be? And why should'nt it be treated as income?

Because the money you bought it with was taxed already. How many times do you want to tax people's money?

Gotta pay for his Gov't run health insurance somehow

CkG

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Because Amused if you'e in the middle class you already are paying way to much. Thier/my opposition stems from the those who make almost all or all of thier "income" from long term capital gains will benefit more than they are today and should be paying more in capital gains not less.

Personally I've never understood why capital gains are garnered any speciel treatment. Whether you're selling one sandwich or the whole resturant you are still making a sale to someone just like any other sale. What difference should the value of the sale be? And why should'nt it be treated as income?

Because the money you bought it with was taxed already. How many times do you want to tax people's money?

Gotta pay for his Gov't run health insurance somehow

CkG

May I remind you're the one advocating universal Health Care.From this thread

"I wouldn't be opposed to a base level of coverage for people. The basics (for people over ~5yrs old)being yearly or bi-yearly: doctor visits, a dental check-up, and an eye exam. That would give preventative care a boost which would hopefully ward off more expensive trips later. Now, lets talk about the kids under 5. Dental and eye visits would probably be the same, but doctor visits for kids are much more frequent due to shots and etc. So we would cover those scheduled visits and the cost of the vacinations. This would give ALL kids an opportunity to get a good healthy start to life. Now for the old people We already have medicare and medicade. If we go the national health care route - we'd need to dispose of those and then incorporate special "senior care" items, such as more frequent check-ups, and probably cover some of the cost of "old people problems" like arthritis, glaucoma, osteperosis." -me

I don't think I've ever pined in on it Don't know the facts and havnt seen enough studies of univeral health care to make a descision yet. Things I like to see is quality/cost assesments vs. population/GDP. Nothing is ever detailed just a bunch of opinions right and left. More than likly I like a plan such as you advocated though

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well I like your commission idea (BRAC) but the problem is that insurance companies, drug companies, and doctors are greedy bastards NOT stupid. The insurance companies did not endorse HillaryCare b/c it was a stepping stone to ending their industry. Drug companies will not support a Medicare drug benefit that has the hint of regulating medication costs . . . which means nothing is going to happen b/c the very premise is that drugs are too expensive. None of these parties will sacrifice for the greater good . . . so society must impose it.

You start by noting the actual expense of healthcare in America and then show where it all goes. Any entity that cannot match its production to its cost gets whacked. Bye bye private, for profit health insurance companies and bye bye drug companies that live off lifestyle drugs or "me too" preparations. The government will provide supplemental funding to teaching hospitals based on generalist/specialist needs instead of the current formula based primarily on intensity of care. Many Blues will survive and private, not for profits will survive if they use resources judiciously.

Companies will be encouraged to provide basic onsite healthcare (fully deductible) but there will be no need for huge subsidies b/c health insurance will be much cheaper. Any state that cannot pull it together can easily have an adjoining state do it for them.

Insurance and drug companies will fight until death but doctors can be bought off b/c they are guaranteed to have all care/services compensated. Specialists may not like it but generalists will eat it up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Because Amused if you'e in the middle class you already are paying way to much. Thier/my opposition stems from the those who make almost all or all of thier "income" from long term capital gains will benefit more than they are today and should be paying more in capital gains not less.

Personally I've never understood why capital gains are garnered any speciel treatment. Whether you're selling one sandwich or the whole resturant you are still making a sale to someone just like any other sale. What difference should the value of the sale be? And why should'nt it be treated as income?

Because the money you bought it with was taxed already. How many times do you want to tax people's money?

Gotta pay for his Gov't run health insurance somehow

CkG

May I remind you're the one advocating universal Health Care.

"I wouldn't be opposed to a base level of coverage for people. The basics (for people over ~5yrs old)being yearly or bi-yearly: doctor visits, a dental check-up, and an eye exam. That would give preventative care a boost which would hopefully ward off more expensive trips later. Now, lets talk about the kids under 5. Dental and eye visits would probably be the same, but doctor visits for kids are much more frequent due to shots and etc. So we would cover those scheduled visits and the cost of the vacinations. This would give ALL kids an opportunity to get a good healthy start to life. Now for the old people We already have medicare and medicade. If we go the national health care route - we'd need to dispose of those and then incorporate special "senior care" items, such as more frequent check-ups, and probably cover some of the cost of "old people problems" like arthritis, glaucoma, osteperosis." -me

I don't think I've ever pined in on it Don't know the facts and havnt seen enough studies of univeral health care to make a descision yet. Things I like to see is quality/cost assesments vs. population/GDP. Nothing is ever detailed just a bunch of opinions right and left. More than likly I like a plan such as you advocated though

No need to remind me of my weaker moments

I think I also stated something about not having a clue how to fund such a program - but if I didn't, I will do so at this point. I don't have a clue how to pay for basic health services that I presented. (actually I do have some clue but not well enough thought out at this point to post them for scrutiny )

I know my comment was a tad snide - but it wasn't neccessarily directed at you personally My apoloies if you were offended

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
I am glad you found a good way to spend those dollars that would have otherwise likely been wasted by the fed.

Those dollars are still being wasted by the fed. They didn't cut spending, remember?

Well they would have wasted more if those dollars made it to DC.

No, they wouldn't. In fact, the opposite is true. The government did not cut ANY spending to fund this tax cut. They are spending exactly as much as before ... except ... now we have to pay interest on the money borrowed to fund the tax cut. You just got a cash advance on your TaxerCard.

People need to understand this because it's the key to the whole tax cut scam. This so-called "cut" is really a loan to taxpayers that we will have to repay, sooner or later. Meanwhile, the kids in D.C. continue to waste just as many dollars as they did before. They lacked the discipline to fund the tax cut with a corresponding spending cut.

Does this make sense? If it were a tax cut funded by a budget surplus or a spending cut, then you would be right, they would have less money to waste. That's not the case this time.

 

[rbV5]

They are spending exactly as much as before ... except

* War on Terror expeditures
* War on Iraqi Regime expeditures
* Occupation costs in Afghanistan, Iraq...beyond.
* New Homeland security Dept
* Bail out Airlines part 1
* AIDS aid to Africa and abroad

These are all "new" (some consolidation for homeland security however and offset costs from gained oil revenue for rebuilding Iraq), huge ticket items in addition to our already huge budget just off the top of my head.