I think the 20+ trillion debt would say otherwise. Not talked about enough, the national debt scares me more than anything about this country. If nothing changes I am fairly certain within the next 2 presidents our economy will be like Germany after WWI. But do you think China will be so forgiving when we go bankrupt and say "sorry, we lost your money"?
And yet you voted for a guy who is going to build a multi billion dollar nonsense wall, spend 10% more on the military and cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.
Please don't pretend you care about fiscal responsibility.
They have to get a permit to protest in most cities, right? The permit holders should get a cleanup bill to pay for the mess the protesters make...it's only fair.
I think the 20+ trillion debt would say otherwise. Not talked about enough, the national debt scares me more than anything about this country. If nothing changes I am fairly certain within the next 2 presidents our economy will be like Germany after WWI. But do you think China will be so forgiving when we go bankrupt and say "sorry, we lost your money"?
And yet you voted for a guy who is going to build a multi billion dollar nonsense wall, spend 10% more on the military and cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.
Please don't pretend you care about fiscal responsibility.
exactly
don't forget the mar-a-lago trips bilking the American taxpayers
0
Options
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
The thing is, no one is supporting spending money building a wall SO the argument "we can afford it because you want to spend money on a wall" is irrelevant, because no one here does.
The thing is, no one is supporting spending money building a wall SO the argument "we can afford it because you want to spend money on a wall" is irrelevant, because no one here does.
I wasn't quoting you.....and did not see unsung ever say that building the wall was a bad idea. Hence, the reason for my response.
I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,804
AT a minimum, for a good chink of the previous admin the deficit spending was at least reduced until the final budget when he agreed with Ryan to increase debt spending. Now we have the King of Debt as tweeter in chief.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
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
Do I think building a wall is a bad idea? Hmmn, well it wouldn't be my first choice to solve the problem. But with one side wanting all illegals in and made citizens and the other side not offering any real answers it is a stalemate of sorts.
I prefer to remove all incentives and punish people that hire those here illegally.
0
Options
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
The thing is, no one is supporting spending money building a wall SO the argument "we can afford it because you want to spend money on a wall" is irrelevant, because no one here does.
I wasn't quoting you.....and did not see unsung ever say that building the wall was a bad idea. Hence, the reason for my response.
I realize your comment wasn't a direct response to me. But that was twice in a very short amount of time that the response to the high debt was essentially "well you want to build a wall so don't talk about the debt."
This topic of national debt started as a comment about government funded abortions, and someone basically said it isn't about politics, but politics aside they shouldn't be funded because of the debt. And now the response has twice been don't talk about the debt if you want to build a wall. Which just isn't accurate and completely irrelevant.
The thing is, no one is supporting spending money building a wall SO the argument "we can afford it because you want to spend money on a wall" is irrelevant, because no one here does.
I wasn't quoting you.....and did not see unsung ever say that building the wall was a bad idea. Hence, the reason for my response.
I realize your comment wasn't a direct response to me. But that was twice in a very short amount of time that the response to the high debt was essentially "well you want to build a wall so don't talk about the debt."
This topic of national debt started as a comment about government funded abortions, and someone basically said it isn't about politics, but politics aside they shouldn't be funded because of the debt. And now the response has twice been don't talk about the debt if you want to build a wall. Which just isn't accurate and completely irrelevant.
Gotcha...just wanted to clarify.
Regarding the wall, I don't think it's completely irrelevant if we're talking about financial responsibility.
"It bars international health organizations that receive U.S. funding from mentioning abortion as a family planning option."
We should cut off all funding. Not because of abortions but because why do we need to get taxed to subsidize the entire world?
Because we can easily afford it and we aren't heartless robots?
We are $20T in debt. We can't afford it.
but we can certainly afford to build a wall to keep the "bad hombres" out? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.
Your logic of debating $20T in debt to a wall that I haven't mentioned makes no sense whatsoever.
I think it makes perfect sense. We can agree to disagree. That's ok to me.
It makes sense to me if the argument was don't worry about the millions spent on abortion until you figure out the billions on the wall-sort of like don't focus on removing the splinter in your hand when you have a gaping wound on your head.
And I'd completely agree if my attitude was spare no cost on the wall, but lets cut back on public assistance.
The issue is almost no one wants to spend money on the wall (which is why I said it is irrelevant). And anyone worried about the debt doesn't want money spent on the wall along with countless other things. So in my view its like we agree on the wall, but that doesn't excuse spending on X. Whereas it seemed the argument was more along the lines of "well you want the wall, so don't complain if we spend money on X."
feel free to start a thread about the national debt...
maybe in that thread you can point out the only President in recent memory to run a surplus was Democrat Bill Clinton... then W came in and blew that out of the water with an unnecessary tax cut, an unnecessary and unfunded war, and Medicare part D..... or is that too far before "grab em by the pu$$y" for you guys to remember?
don't remember the national debt skyrocketing during Reagans Cold War military/nuclear buildup?
go back and study up before we start acting like democrats are the only reason for a national debt
"It bars international health organizations that receive U.S. funding from mentioning abortion as a family planning option."
We should cut off all funding. Not because of abortions but because why do we need to get taxed to subsidize the entire world?
Because we can easily afford it and we aren't heartless robots?
We are $20T in debt. We can't afford it.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I basically agree if I remove all emotion (which I actually don't). I am "victim" to morality, just like most other decent people, so for that reason support foreign aid/funding, especially if it's connected to the liberation of women in places where they have no liberty at all. But if I look at it with a purely rational eye, to send foreign aid/funding when there is a huge national debt, unless it has some kind of demonstrable relationship to national security or economic stability, seems pretty stupid. That said.... I would have to see the numbers to really say that. How many abortions does such funding actually pay for? Because if it's a very large number, I might argue that IS in the USA's interests to continue funding it, given that the global population crisis effects the USA just like everyone else. But if such funding does not actually lend itself to any significant number in terms of population control, well, in a strictly logical sense, the USA might be best off withdrawing funding.... But ONLY if that money is redirected to specifically pay down the national debt. And we all know that isn't going to happen. So basically everything I just said is moot anyhow. (also, I do support funding for international women's health, and was glad to see that many other nations are talking about stepping up to make up for what the US is withdrawing. Women's reproductive rights are a much bigger issue than just abortion. They are about female equality and freedom in nations where that is most desperately needed).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
feel free to start a thread about the national debt...
maybe in that thread you can point out the only President in recent memory to run a surplus was Democrat Bill Clinton... then W came in and blew that out of the water with an unnecessary tax cut, an unnecessary and unfunded war, and Medicare part D..... or is that too far before "grab em by the pu$$y" for you guys to remember?
don't remember the national debt skyrocketing during Reagans Cold War military/nuclear buildup?
go back and study up before we start acting like democrats are the only reason for a national debt
I like how you tell us to start a new thread then continue talking about it.... I think everyone here is aware of the national debt in recent years. Going off memory and without looking it up, Reagan added something like 2T and bush 4-5 T. No one has denied that. Small apples compared to 12T though. Debt rose under Clinton as well. But no one has said only dems are responsible. The fact is more than half the debt occurred in the last 8 years, but no one has implied only Obama is to blame. In fact in this whole conversation no one even mentioned Obama or any other democrat, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this? This topic rose as a defense to cut spending, specifically stating cutting government funded abortions should be more a financial decision than political at this point, and no president was mentioned.
feel free to start a thread about the national debt...
maybe in that thread you can point out the only President in recent memory to run a surplus was Democrat Bill Clinton... then W came in and blew that out of the water with an unnecessary tax cut, an unnecessary and unfunded war, and Medicare part D..... or is that too far before "grab em by the pu$$y" for you guys to remember?
don't remember the national debt skyrocketing during Reagans Cold War military/nuclear buildup?
go back and study up before we start acting like democrats are the only reason for a national debt
I like how you tell us to start a new thread then continue talking about it.... I think everyone here is aware of the national debt in recent years. Going off memory and without looking it up, Reagan added something like 2T and bush 4-5 T. No one has denied that. Small apples compared to 12T though. Debt rose under Clinton as well. But no one has said only dems are responsible. The fact is more than half the debt occurred in the last 8 years, but no one has implied only Obama is to blame. In fact in this whole conversation no one even mentioned Obama or any other democrat, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this? This topic rose as a defense to cut spending, specifically stating cutting government funded abortions should be more a financial decision than political at this point, and no president was mentioned.
You ignored the extra billions that will be spent on military, the lost revenue from tax cuts on the wealthy and the millions being spent per weekend so the guy you voted for can golf. And let's not forget about the millions spent on his sons security so they can jet set around the world to make cash for daddy.
And here you are worried about far lessmoney being spent to better women's lives, because "abortions".
If you were on any of these other threads expressing concern about fiscal mismanagement I wouldn't be calling bullshit. At least unsung is somewhat more consistent in that regard.
Off school or counted absent? I know that during the "day without immigrants", there were a lot counted absent that were bitching about getting an unexcused absence...consequences.
Interestingly, several of the women I spoke with this morning at work didn't even know this was a thing. We all got a good chuckle, seeing as how most of them are higher ranking and make a lot more money than me, lol
Off school or counted absent? I know that during the "day without immigrants", there were a lot counted absent that were bitching about getting an unexcused absence...consequences.
Maybe they should take off school to protest not getting it counted as an excused absence...
Off school or counted absent? I know that during the "day without immigrants", there were a lot counted absent that were bitching about getting an unexcused absence...consequences.
Maybe they should take off school to protest not getting it counted as an excused absence...
Haha, I would not be at all surprised if they did!
37 whoa that's a whole lot of folks compared to what 600,000 marched yeah ok let's stay home folks !!!!
Just throwing it out there...employers have rights as well. The right to fire your ass for not coming into work!
lol like I said sit on your hands , me & my wife have jobs too and we have something called PTO no problem With our employer to get days off !! So yeah I'll be supporting as many marches I can !!
If you take a PTO day how is that a STRIKE? That's Paid Time Off. That's not a Strike.
Definition - refuse to work as a form of organized protest, typically in an attempt to obtain a particular concession or concessions from their employer:
What concession are you getting from your employer? And you're not refusing to work anymore than when I go to Grandma's house.
Have some balls and Strike. Don't call your employer. Don't submit a PTO form before or after. And absolutely do not accept pay for that day. Have some f'n balls and STRIKE!!!!!!
No biggie I have to call in just so they know I'm not dead what's wrong me marching strikes a nerve lol what are you doing to protest or is your life all nice and set and you have nothing to complain or complain on behalf of like I've stated I'm marching for my wife my mother my sister my daughter my nieces ...how about you who you sitting on your hands for ?
you have no idea who I am and what I do. So, like most libs - keep advertising what you do and assume others do nothing. Enjoy your day off today. Nobody cares.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
feel free to start a thread about the national debt...
maybe in that thread you can point out the only President in recent memory to run a surplus was Democrat Bill Clinton... then W came in and blew that out of the water with an unnecessary tax cut, an unnecessary and unfunded war, and Medicare part D..... or is that too far before "grab em by the pu$$y" for you guys to remember?
don't remember the national debt skyrocketing during Reagans Cold War military/nuclear buildup?
go back and study up before we start acting like democrats are the only reason for a national debt
I like how you tell us to start a new thread then continue talking about it.... I think everyone here is aware of the national debt in recent years. Going off memory and without looking it up, Reagan added something like 2T and bush 4-5 T. No one has denied that. Small apples compared to 12T though. Debt rose under Clinton as well. But no one has said only dems are responsible. The fact is more than half the debt occurred in the last 8 years, but no one has implied only Obama is to blame. In fact in this whole conversation no one even mentioned Obama or any other democrat, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this? This topic rose as a defense to cut spending, specifically stating cutting government funded abortions should be more a financial decision than political at this point, and no president was mentioned.
You ignored the extra billions that will be spent on military, the lost revenue from tax cuts on the wealthy and the millions being spent per weekend so the guy you voted for can golf. And let's not forget about the millions spent on his sons security so they can jet set around the world to make cash for daddy.
And here you are worried about far lessmoney being spent to better women's lives, because "abortions".
If you were on any of these other threads expressing concern about fiscal mismanagement I wouldn't be calling bullshit. At least unsung is somewhat more consistent in that regard.
Please point out to me where I have ever defended that other spending you are stating. So using other examples that no one here is defending to justify other spending seems meaningless. And by the way, didn't almost every president golf?
Comments
Please don't pretend you care about fiscal responsibility.
don't forget the mar-a-lago trips bilking the American taxpayers
Makes sense, right?
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I prefer to remove all incentives and punish people that hire those here illegally.
This topic of national debt started as a comment about government funded abortions, and someone basically said it isn't about politics, but politics aside they shouldn't be funded because of the debt. And now the response has twice been don't talk about the debt if you want to build a wall. Which just isn't accurate and completely irrelevant.
Regarding the wall, I don't think it's completely irrelevant if we're talking about financial responsibility.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
And I'd completely agree if my attitude was spare no cost on the wall, but lets cut back on public assistance.
The issue is almost no one wants to spend money on the wall (which is why I said it is irrelevant). And anyone worried about the debt doesn't want money spent on the wall along with countless other things. So in my view its like we agree on the wall, but that doesn't excuse spending on X. Whereas it seemed the argument was more along the lines of "well you want the wall, so don't complain if we spend money on X."
maybe in that thread you can point out the only President in recent memory to run a surplus was Democrat Bill Clinton... then W came in and blew that out of the water with an unnecessary tax cut, an unnecessary and unfunded war, and Medicare part D..... or is that too far before "grab em by the pu$$y" for you guys to remember?
don't remember the national debt skyrocketing during Reagans Cold War military/nuclear buildup?
go back and study up before we start acting like democrats are the only reason for a national debt
I think everyone here is aware of the national debt in recent years. Going off memory and without looking it up, Reagan added something like 2T and bush 4-5 T. No one has denied that. Small apples compared to 12T though. Debt rose under Clinton as well. But no one has said only dems are responsible. The fact is more than half the debt occurred in the last 8 years, but no one has implied only Obama is to blame. In fact in this whole conversation no one even mentioned Obama or any other democrat, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this? This topic rose as a defense to cut spending, specifically stating cutting government funded abortions should be more a financial decision than political at this point, and no president was mentioned.
And here you are worried about far lessmoney being spent to better women's lives, because "abortions".
If you were on any of these other threads expressing concern about fiscal mismanagement I wouldn't be calling bullshit. At least unsung is somewhat more consistent in that regard.
www.headstonesband.com
And by the way, didn't almost every president golf?