the problem with the economy has to do with the middle and lower classes, the upper class has been just fine.
the middle class can't spend. so the upper class can't sell them all that shit they don't need, so they can't keep up their profits.
this has to do with wages being stagnant for almost 40 years. at first working class people were able to do it alone, say 1979 ish. they were able to comfortably raise a family on one salary. as cost of living went up and wages didn't, both parents needed to work. with combined income they were able to make ends meet, to buy all that crap they were being sold. as time passed and wages stayed the same, even that wasn't enough. so they borrowed. and they maintained the ecnomy, people were buying, people were working....then it all went to shit, and the working class can't do anymore to maintain this robbery. throughout it all the upper class became wealthier and wealthier.
2 things can happen now. reform, where the upper class is taxed and the lower classes see wage increases.....in effect giving the working class the ability to buy again, to keep the economy running, or social revolution, where we take what is ours.
in the meantime, allowing laborers to work, giving them teh ability to spend, will stimulate the economy.
labor runs the country anyway, not management. the pay is backwards.
First off, you didn't answer my question, how does creating temporary jobs fix the economy?
secondly, tax cuts are necessary. Personally I think that everyone could use a little more money in their pocket. And really they don't even have to be cuts per se, but breaks and incentives to keep work in the US. I don't see what is wrong with that. Putting more money in the pockets of the people who earn it is always better. I promise you more people would agree if they had to write out checks for their own taxes.
Yes, social security is something that millions of Americans pay into that won't be there when we get old enough. Explain to me how they are losing money...how are people getting more out of it than what they put in? I don't understand it. I would much rather be able to choose to participate or not. Why is it forced on me? I can take care of my own retirement thanks.
As far as welfare goes, no I understand the importance of help in these situations but I would like to see something done to change the incentive not to work. In order to receive benefits you need to make under a certain amount, why not make it that in order to receive more benefits you need to be showing that you are beginning to make money. After a certain time of you making money about the line then you are terminated. Make people earn the money they get and you will be surprised how much better they will feel about their lives.
But I will end it with the same question. explain to me how creating a temporary job that puts people back to work for a short period of time is going to solve the economic crisis?
so does temporay jobs not temporarily get people back to work so that they are not drawing unemployment for a period of time? does that not give those people money in their pocket to spend and thus help the economy? i never at any time said the words "temporary jobs is the solution to the economic crisis", so how can you infer and imply that??? i ignored it because i thought the question was irrelevent to my thread about the tea party picking someone other than palin to represent them in the 2012 election. others derailed it and it devolved into what it is now.
if you want to go down that road, i am going to have to respectfully disagree with you because you are rehashing the same tired old republican economic lie and campaign promise that "tax cuts are necessary". are you suggesting that we cut them lower than they are right now? actually most americans paid less taxes in 2009 than the did under bush, and the vast majority of americans have their taxes taken out of their paycheck and are not writing out lump sum checks to pay their annual taxes. how the hell would cutting taxes even lower help alleviate the deficit that everyone is talking about? would that bring the corporations that went and hired people overseas back to the usa? because it won't. we either need to cut spending, which everyone seems to think is the right thing to do, except that will royally fuck over an entire segment of your population. where are you gonna take it from? education? social security, which by the way is not only for retirement, but it covers people who are disabled, those with als, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, amputees, not to mention all of these crippled vets coming back each month. it is for people that can not hold jobs and can not work yet endure massive medical bills each year. wouldn't mr jesus say "whatever you do to the least of my people you do unto me?" those programs are absolutely necessary. you pay into it in case something happens to you and get end up disabled and unable to work, not just for YOUR retirement. we live in a society here, and we are not heathen enough to let people go hungry or die because they do not have the means to pay for thier own medical bills for a condition they were born with.
our infrastructure is falling apart, we need to spend money on that. i am not going to rob peter to pay paul, so the answer is to raise taxes. we can not fund all of this when we are taking significant amounts out of the government's pocket. the navy budget is $708 billion dollars for this year. we spend more money on defense in a year than the next 13 countries combined. we give $4 billion in support of the israeli government this year. and not to mention all of the money that pays for these fucking wars and lines the pockets of companies like haliburton and kbr and blackwater. if you want to talk wasteful spending you need to start there. so don't tell me that you would rather pay israel and halliburton and pay for the wars and let your own countrymen suffer. fact is those wars are not going away. "the war on turr" is here to stay. that navy budget? it is gonna continue to rise each year, as that of the fbi and homeland security, as well as "aid" to the israeli government. do not tell me that we need to do all of those things and still cut taxes because none of that would be paid for, and you know military spending is never going to be decreased. all that and we have nearly 50 million uninsured americans right now.
it is also funny to me that people on this forum assume that because someone is on welfare it means they do not want to work. that is the most immature position i have ever heard. it is a lazy argument to make because it is easy to say that when most of the people saying that have never ever met a person on welfare, medicaid, or other forms of government assistance. do you think george w bush ever spent more than a few minutes with people on public assitance other than at a campaign stop? i guarantee you he does not know anyone on welfare personally, so he would think privatizing SS would be agood idea. those on welfare are the single moms raising multiple kids on their own working a job where they do not make enough money to pay for daycare and healthcare, diapers, formula, and even food. it is not their choice, and most of the ones i see every day at work are embarrassed when i give them a walking boot and crutches and ask what insurance they have and they have a pause and under their breath say "medicaid" or "ipa" (illinois public aid). people are embarrassed a lot of the time. i will give you that some people milk the system, but that is the extreme minority of my patient population.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i only wish the tea baggers were as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.
It's not just the "tea baggers" that are ignoring the massive military budget. I would say it is more like 80-90% of the US population.
fox news called them "teabaggers" back in 2009. you mean they got it wrong again? gosh.
i've never researched the actual % of population that support the massive military budget. i say support because if 80 to 90% of the US population are ignoring it as you suggest, then it would be reasonable to come to a conclusion that it's not an issue for them.
do you have any facts to back that up?
personally i don't believe that 80 to 90% of Americans are that stupid.
it is also funny to me that people on this forum assume that because someone is on welfare it means they do not want to work. that is the most immature position i have ever heard.
I will start with the fact that I had a long response to your post but decided to erase it. It doesn't seem like we are going to come to any common ground. But I will give you a few bullet points
**I didn't say people on welfare don't want to work. But we have an asinine welfare system that cuts benefits for people who make a certain amount of money even though a person cannot live on that. I work with them everyday. And that isn't what I said.
**I agree too much money is spent on the wars and the military. I also agree that we need to reign in defense spending, I am all for it. I have said many times that most of the true libertarians would tell you we want nothing more from the military than to potect our shores from attack.
but all that being said...I applaud your caring and compassion, I just don't agree on the best way to help those people that need it.
I would much rather spend more in taxes to my state than to a federal government that wouldn't know its ass from its face. At least Minnesota wouldn't be attacking or invading Wisconsin, so my money would already be spent wiser.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the problem with the economy has to do with the middle and lower classes, the upper class has been just fine.
the middle class can't spend. so the upper class can't sell them all that shit they don't need, so they can't keep up their profits.
this has to do with wages being stagnant for almost 40 years. at first working class people were able to do it alone, say 1979 ish. they were able to comfortably raise a family on one salary. as cost of living went up and wages didn't, both parents needed to work. with combined income they were able to make ends meet, to buy all that crap they were being sold. as time passed and wages stayed the same, even that wasn't enough. so they borrowed. and they maintained the ecnomy, people were buying, people were working....then it all went to shit, and the working class can't do anymore to maintain this robbery. throughout it all the upper class became wealthier and wealthier.
2 things can happen now. reform, where the upper class is taxed and the lower classes see wage increases.....in effect giving the working class the ability to buy again, to keep the economy running, or social revolution, where we take what is ours.
in the meantime, allowing laborers to work, giving them teh ability to spend, will stimulate the economy.
labor runs the country anyway, not management. the pay is backwards.
is a band-aid on an arterial cut
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i only wish the tea baggers were as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.
It's not just the "tea baggers" that are ignoring the massive military budget. I would say it is more like 80-90% of the US population.
fox news called them "teabaggers" back in 2009. you mean they got it wrong again? gosh.
i've never researched the actual % of population that support the massive military budget. i say support because if 80 to 90% of the US population are ignoring it as you suggest, then it would be reasonable to come to a conclusion that it's not an issue for them.
do you have any facts to back that up?
personally i don't believe that 80 to 90% of Americans are that stupid.
Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.
It's not just the "tea baggers" that are ignoring the massive military budget. I would say it is more like 80-90% of the US population.
fox news called them "teabaggers" back in 2009. you mean they got it wrong again? gosh.
i've never researched the actual % of population that support the massive military budget. i say support because if 80 to 90% of the US population are ignoring it as you suggest, then it would be reasonable to come to a conclusion that it's not an issue for them.
do you have any facts to back that up?
personally i don't believe that 80 to 90% of Americans are that stupid.
Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.
point taken.
i wish the tea party supporters were more outspoken and as passionate about the wasting of billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.
Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.
how can a term that they found acceptable when they referred to themselves as "teabaggers" suddenly become derogatory and offensive?? fox news called them that, they called themselves that, it was not until a few months later when that term suddenly became offensive to them.
that is different than most derogatory terms in history, as most of them were derogatory and offensive to begin with. i do not believe that slaves invented the N bomb, nor did gays invent the term "faggot". they never accepted those terms and were hurt by them in the beginning, while the "tea party supporters" accepted "teabaggers" in the beginning...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.
It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.
they might have a seat or two, but i don't see how a handful of tea party representatives is going to sway moderates and democrats to their side on ANY legislation.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.
they might have a seat or two, but i don't see how a handful of tea party representatives is going to sway moderates and democrats to their side on ANY legislation.
i wish the tea party supporters were more outspoken and as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.
thanks for listening.
love,
TriumphantAngel.
Thank you for sharing your points of view.
I do think that people who have identified with the original tea party agenda will have to deal with the massive amounts of defense spending sooner or later . . . or admit to being hypocritical.
The 80-90% figure was just me shooting from the hip. But the budget keeps getting approved each year and I have not seen a national debate on why 20% of the GDP is going to the military. The only thing that stopped the initial budget vote this year was the "don't ask, don't tell" issue. Otherwise, it would have passed in a blink of the eye. If it was a bigger issue to the voters, I would think that more of our elected officials would raise hell over it.
Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.
how can a term that they found acceptable when they referred to themselves as "teabaggers" suddenly become derogatory and offensive?? fox news called them that, they called themselves that, it was not until a few months later when that term suddenly became offensive to them.
that is different than most derogatory terms in history, as most of them were derogatory and offensive to begin with. i do not believe that slaves invented the N bomb, nor did gays invent the term "faggot". they never accepted those terms and were hurt by them in the beginning, while the "tea party supporters" accepted "teabaggers" in the beginning...
NAACP - one of those letters represents a term that I would never dare use. Same with UNCF.
With the term tea baggers, it took a bunch of people in their 50's and 60's a while to catch up on a negative term used by teenagers. OMG. Now I could ROFL about the term but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they had no idea of the negative connotation.
Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.
how can a term that they found acceptable when they referred to themselves as "teabaggers" suddenly become derogatory and offensive?? fox news called them that, they called themselves that, it was not until a few months later when that term suddenly became offensive to them.
that is different than most derogatory terms in history, as most of them were derogatory and offensive to begin with. i do not believe that slaves invented the N bomb, nor did gays invent the term "faggot". they never accepted those terms and were hurt by them in the beginning, while the "tea party supporters" accepted "teabaggers" in the beginning...
NAACP - one of those letters represents a term that I would never dare use. Same with UNCF.
With the term tea baggers, it took a bunch of people in their 50's and 60's a while to catch up on a negative term used by teenagers. OMG. Now I could ROLF about the term but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they had no idea of the negative connotation.
i see what you are getting at, but that does not change the fact that they DID accept it at first while those other terms were always offensive.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.
they might have a seat or two, but i don't see how a handful of tea party representatives is going to sway moderates and democrats to their side on ANY legislation.
There are already many that have beat lifetime entrenched politicians from both political parties. That right there is a huge accomplishment regardless of what the general election brings. At least the general election brings new blood.
its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting
its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting
its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting
We need shooting, huh? Classy.
Thanks for proving all my points.
what is the difference between what ONCE DIVIDED said and what unsung said about deporting all liberals? it is basically punishing those with a differeing ideology, and its not cool on either side. this country is big enough for all ideologies. it is just so divided right now that each side feels that they can do without the other..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting
We need shooting, huh? Classy.
Thanks for proving all my points.
what is the difference between what ONCE DIVIDED said and what unsung said about deporting all liberals? it is basically punishing those with a differeing ideology, and its not cool on either side. this country is big enough for all ideologies. it is just so divided right now that each side feels that they can do without the other..
Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.
Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.
there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:
i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..
but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.
there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:
i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..
but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...
ELF
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.
there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:
i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..
but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...
Good point about liberals not being violent. I'm sure Bill Ayers would agree with you.
Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.
there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:
i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..
but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...
Good point about liberals not being violent. I'm sure Bill Ayers would agree with you.
bill ayers was 40 years ago. the current progressives disagree with what bill ayers did. how about eric rudolph? how about the guy that killed george tiller? we can do that all day and make it a pissing match if you like, but i would rather try to work through our differences instead of point fingers and try to call the other side worse than your own...people do violent acts all the time and i condemn them all the same....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...
You have the same on the flip side. Hippies sticking nails in trees and burning down developments and sabotaging equipment as well as groups trying to sink whaling ships by ramming million dollar boats into them.
When an ideology becomes more important then a human life, it's time to step back and reevaluate things.
but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...
You have the same on the flip side. Hippies sticking nails in trees and burning down developments and sabotaging equipment as well as groups trying to sink whaling ships by ramming million dollar boats into them.
When an ideology becomes more important then a human life, it's time to step back and reevaluate things.
and as i said earlier i do not agree with their tactics either....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
the problem with the economy has to do with the middle and lower classes, the upper class has been just fine.
the middle class can't spend. so the upper class can't sell them all that shit they don't need, so they can't keep up their profits.
this has to do with wages being stagnant for almost 40 years. at first working class people were able to do it alone, say 1979 ish. they were able to comfortably raise a family on one salary. as cost of living went up and wages didn't, both parents needed to work. with combined income they were able to make ends meet, to buy all that crap they were being sold. as time passed and wages stayed the same, even that wasn't enough. so they borrowed. and they maintained the ecnomy, people were buying, people were working....then it all went to shit, and the working class can't do anymore to maintain this robbery. throughout it all the upper class became wealthier and wealthier.
2 things can happen now. reform, where the upper class is taxed and the lower classes see wage increases.....in effect giving the working class the ability to buy again, to keep the economy running, or social revolution, where we take what is ours.
in the meantime, allowing laborers to work, giving them teh ability to spend, will stimulate the economy.
labor runs the country anyway, not management. the pay is backwards.
so does temporay jobs not temporarily get people back to work so that they are not drawing unemployment for a period of time? does that not give those people money in their pocket to spend and thus help the economy? i never at any time said the words "temporary jobs is the solution to the economic crisis", so how can you infer and imply that??? i ignored it because i thought the question was irrelevent to my thread about the tea party picking someone other than palin to represent them in the 2012 election. others derailed it and it devolved into what it is now.
if you want to go down that road, i am going to have to respectfully disagree with you because you are rehashing the same tired old republican economic lie and campaign promise that "tax cuts are necessary". are you suggesting that we cut them lower than they are right now? actually most americans paid less taxes in 2009 than the did under bush, and the vast majority of americans have their taxes taken out of their paycheck and are not writing out lump sum checks to pay their annual taxes. how the hell would cutting taxes even lower help alleviate the deficit that everyone is talking about? would that bring the corporations that went and hired people overseas back to the usa? because it won't. we either need to cut spending, which everyone seems to think is the right thing to do, except that will royally fuck over an entire segment of your population. where are you gonna take it from? education? social security, which by the way is not only for retirement, but it covers people who are disabled, those with als, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, amputees, not to mention all of these crippled vets coming back each month. it is for people that can not hold jobs and can not work yet endure massive medical bills each year. wouldn't mr jesus say "whatever you do to the least of my people you do unto me?" those programs are absolutely necessary. you pay into it in case something happens to you and get end up disabled and unable to work, not just for YOUR retirement. we live in a society here, and we are not heathen enough to let people go hungry or die because they do not have the means to pay for thier own medical bills for a condition they were born with.
our infrastructure is falling apart, we need to spend money on that. i am not going to rob peter to pay paul, so the answer is to raise taxes. we can not fund all of this when we are taking significant amounts out of the government's pocket. the navy budget is $708 billion dollars for this year. we spend more money on defense in a year than the next 13 countries combined. we give $4 billion in support of the israeli government this year. and not to mention all of the money that pays for these fucking wars and lines the pockets of companies like haliburton and kbr and blackwater. if you want to talk wasteful spending you need to start there. so don't tell me that you would rather pay israel and halliburton and pay for the wars and let your own countrymen suffer. fact is those wars are not going away. "the war on turr" is here to stay. that navy budget? it is gonna continue to rise each year, as that of the fbi and homeland security, as well as "aid" to the israeli government. do not tell me that we need to do all of those things and still cut taxes because none of that would be paid for, and you know military spending is never going to be decreased. all that and we have nearly 50 million uninsured americans right now.
it is also funny to me that people on this forum assume that because someone is on welfare it means they do not want to work. that is the most immature position i have ever heard. it is a lazy argument to make because it is easy to say that when most of the people saying that have never ever met a person on welfare, medicaid, or other forms of government assistance. do you think george w bush ever spent more than a few minutes with people on public assitance other than at a campaign stop? i guarantee you he does not know anyone on welfare personally, so he would think privatizing SS would be agood idea. those on welfare are the single moms raising multiple kids on their own working a job where they do not make enough money to pay for daycare and healthcare, diapers, formula, and even food. it is not their choice, and most of the ones i see every day at work are embarrassed when i give them a walking boot and crutches and ask what insurance they have and they have a pause and under their breath say "medicaid" or "ipa" (illinois public aid). people are embarrassed a lot of the time. i will give you that some people milk the system, but that is the extreme minority of my patient population.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i've never researched the actual % of population that support the massive military budget. i say support because if 80 to 90% of the US population are ignoring it as you suggest, then it would be reasonable to come to a conclusion that it's not an issue for them.
do you have any facts to back that up?
personally i don't believe that 80 to 90% of Americans are that stupid.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I will start with the fact that I had a long response to your post but decided to erase it. It doesn't seem like we are going to come to any common ground. But I will give you a few bullet points
**I didn't say people on welfare don't want to work. But we have an asinine welfare system that cuts benefits for people who make a certain amount of money even though a person cannot live on that. I work with them everyday. And that isn't what I said.
**I agree too much money is spent on the wars and the military. I also agree that we need to reign in defense spending, I am all for it. I have said many times that most of the true libertarians would tell you we want nothing more from the military than to potect our shores from attack.
but all that being said...I applaud your caring and compassion, I just don't agree on the best way to help those people that need it.
I would much rather spend more in taxes to my state than to a federal government that wouldn't know its ass from its face. At least Minnesota wouldn't be attacking or invading Wisconsin, so my money would already be spent wiser.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
is a band-aid on an arterial cut
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
point taken.
i wish the tea party supporters were more outspoken and as passionate about the wasting of billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.
thanks for listening.
love,
TriumphantAngel.
how can a term that they found acceptable when they referred to themselves as "teabaggers" suddenly become derogatory and offensive?? fox news called them that, they called themselves that, it was not until a few months later when that term suddenly became offensive to them.
that is different than most derogatory terms in history, as most of them were derogatory and offensive to begin with. i do not believe that slaves invented the N bomb, nor did gays invent the term "faggot". they never accepted those terms and were hurt by them in the beginning, while the "tea party supporters" accepted "teabaggers" in the beginning...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Gotta start somewhere.
I do think that people who have identified with the original tea party agenda will have to deal with the massive amounts of defense spending sooner or later . . . or admit to being hypocritical.
The 80-90% figure was just me shooting from the hip. But the budget keeps getting approved each year and I have not seen a national debate on why 20% of the GDP is going to the military. The only thing that stopped the initial budget vote this year was the "don't ask, don't tell" issue. Otherwise, it would have passed in a blink of the eye. If it was a bigger issue to the voters, I would think that more of our elected officials would raise hell over it.
With the term tea baggers, it took a bunch of people in their 50's and 60's a while to catch up on a negative term used by teenagers. OMG. Now I could ROFL about the term but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they had no idea of the negative connotation.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
There are already many that have beat lifetime entrenched politicians from both political parties. That right there is a huge accomplishment regardless of what the general election brings. At least the general election brings new blood.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting
We need shooting, huh? Classy.
Thanks for proving all my points.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.
i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..
but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
ELF
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Good point about liberals not being violent. I'm sure Bill Ayers would agree with you.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
When an ideology becomes more important then a human life, it's time to step back and reevaluate things.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."