"We are 5 days away from "TRANSFORMING" the USA back to the USA !!!!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re:

    Can someone move this thread to the politics forum?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re:

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:

    Defense spending s closer to 25

    No, it's exactly what the OMB said it was.

    The stooge just posted a propaganda chart that wasn't OMB, it was from Leftist Soros' CBPP "think tank".

    The Democrat Party is, in fact, the conceiver and pandered of entitlments and the welfare State. And those entitlements are why the current demagogue is scrambling to prolong what amounts to the overwhelming identity of the corrupt collectivist federal government. Those who defend the entitlement welfare State and plant bugaboo that if the rich paid more and defense was cut then entitlments and the Great Society that loves them will continue their progression in the greatest society on earth.

    When the electorate can vote for redistribution without paying income tax then you get the trillion dollar welfare State that is now faced with having it's fitness to borrow downgraded to an unstable higher insterest rate required credit risk.   



    Speaking of propaganda, everyone who works legally pays taxes. They all contiibute toward SSI/Medicare. You focus only on income tax because it suits the propaganda you promulgate. All collectivism is not corrupt. I have no problem with public roads, libraries, and schools.

    What is this welfare state you speak of? I see people working and paying various taxes on the federal and local level. I see people accepting lower paying jobs. Where exactly is this great welfare state? Are all sevice industries short handed? Are the factories? Are you unable to make a purchase at Wal-Mart? Can you not get your Big Mac at the drive through? Do you have to tune your own guitar?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re:

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:

    Defense spending s closer to 25

    No, it's exactly what the OMB said it was.

    The stooge just posted a propaganda chart that wasn't OMB, it was from Leftist Soros' CBPP "think tank".

    The Democrat Party is, in fact, the conceiver and pandered of entitlments and the welfare State. And those entitlements are why the current demagogue is scrambling to prolong what amounts to the overwhelming identity of the corrupt collectivist federal government. Those who defend the entitlement welfare State and plant bugaboo that if the rich paid more and defense was cut then entitlments and the Great Society that loves them will continue their progression in the greatest society on earth.

    When the electorate can vote for redistribution without paying income tax then you get the trillion dollar welfare State that is now faced with having it's fitness to borrow downgraded to an unstable higher insterest rate required credit risk.   

      Thanks SOFTY,   You are a great PATRIOT   !!!


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In the end , it is up to each person to go out there and make something out of their life. It can be done.  Expecting government to do it for you is foolhardy.



    This is one of the very few comments I've read on a political thread that I find meaningful and useful.

    The US and Canada are democracies.  As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for the other ones.

    Americans get to vote for their President every four years.  Once that's done, all you can do is make something out of your own life, as dgalehouse says.  If you're opposed to the current government, well, maybe get involved with your political party. 

    But endless complaining and jibber-jabbering about the sorry state of your government is pretty useless.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re:

    In the end , it is up to each person to go out there and make something out of their life. It can be done.  Expecting government to do it for you is foolhardy.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is one of the very few comments I've read on a political thread that I find meaningful and useful.

    And what about those who can not "make something out of their life" through no fault of their own or by poor health, bad luck, or even a poor choice here and there? Let them all rot?

    Nobody is for allowing moochers and slackers to live off the state, but there are many hard-working people out there that just can't make ends meet. To deny them assistance is unethical.

    While it may be true that some older folks are drawing more from SS than they paid in, in part by living longer than projected, the money they receive is not all from current taxpayers. Most "paid their dues" and then some by serving in the military (WWII, Korea, Vietnam...) or otherwise. Women who had children and watched their husbands bolt should be made to suffer for it? Worse yet, their children suffer? Do you know how many children go hungry everyday? Yet, most of the right want to abolish abortion, make women pay for contraception, but when they have children in poverty, they should get no food stamps, no early schooling, no educational opportunities, and on and on... 

    Yeah, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any single moms, handicapped people, people unable to "help themselves" to varying degrees, but the reality is there are many, and a moral society does not turn their backs on them or leave it to individual charity to insure children don't go hungry or the needy go neglected. It's common sense and common decency that should be our goal as a community of man.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re:

    Speaking of propaganda, everyone who works legally pays taxes. They all contiibute toward SSI/Medicare. You focus only on income tax because it suits the propaganda you promulgate.

    Social Security is not a tax, but mostly a forced retirement fund.  And since poor people will likely take out more than they pay in, it works more like a supplement than a tax.  I'm not complaining, since it works out okay, and wouldn't mind a paying another 1-2% myself, assuming you cut spending by at least that much, but the lower 50% of the earners in this country pay no federal tax.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In the end , it is up to each person to go out there and make something out of their life. It can be done.  Expecting government to do it for you is foolhardy.



    This is one of the very few comments I've read on a political thread that I find meaningful and useful.

    And what about those who can not "make something out of their life" through no fault of their own or by poor health, bad luck, or even a poor choice here and there? Let them all rot?



    Sorry, I didn't mean to say that government isn't necessary, not at all.  I just don't understand spending a lot of time whining and arguing about your current government.  You had your vote and the deed is done, Obama is President for another four years.  Deal with it, live the best you can and contribute to the common good as you are able.

 
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In classical Keynesian modeling, it was never anticipated that deficits would be run in perpetuity.

     

    Exactly.

     

    This seems to get lost on a lot of democrats, and no small amount of republicans as well. You run deficits in a recession, you run surpluses and pay back your debt when you expand.

    Are you forgetting GW was a Republican and had a Republican Congress for a while. We had a surplus, but he started 2 wars, raised no defense spending as well, and then made massive tax cuts. Stop blaming the Democrats for this mess, Obama inherited a situation that dictaed spending to get out of it, and yet his hands were tied for the last 2 years. Spending on Public  jobs went down not up. The tax cuts remained in place as a compromise that Republicans claimed Obama never did any of.

    We've has about 10 years of tax cuts in place. Where's the trickle down? The profits have been pocketed or moved overseas. The stock market has doubled, and yet BO is viewed as the enemy of capitalism.

    Our car industry has rebounded. The housing market is now as well. Consumer confidence is growing. Consumer debt is low. Our highways and public transportation systems need enormous work, our schools are crumbling (physically and otherwise), and cutting spending will just add to a loss of our abiltiy to move good, compete intellectually with a world that is passing us up. I know spending more is not always the solution to every problem, but the states are hurting so much right now, and many have strict rules about increasing spending that for our infastructure to be updated, it almost has to come from a massive federal investment.

    There is room to cut spending in other areas, including defense and some entitlements, but there has to be a balanced approach.

     



    Comments at random-

    1-Bush didn't start two wars, he started one.

    2-Obama should've let the tax cuts expire.  He didn't do so because he feared it would hurt his re-election campaign.

    3-Profits have not moved overseas as much as left overseas because they will get taxed when they get repatriated.  If you want that $1T repatriated, motivate the companies by allowing a lower tax on funds sent back to build new factories.

    4-Schools are crumbling (if they are, which they aren't in my area of the Bronx) because the state grants monopoly power over the education system.  Monopolies don't work.  Let me know when you want to live in a city where only one food chain could operate, and where Exxon owned every gas station.

    5-Some states are hurting because they pay off the unions, knowing full that they'd be out of office by the time the bills come due.  Gov't accounting rules encourage non-recognition of the true costs of these deals.  Go to a 401k defined contribution approach, like we little people have, and many of those issues go away.

    Past that, I agree that we need to look at everything.  Go over the cliff, then tell tell the right that they can re-allocate the tax increase, but the total increase stays the same, and tell the left they can re-allocate the spending cuts, but the total decrease stays the same.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re:

    Actually Softy....maybe you should read the whole budget.  The amount listed for defense does not include "overseas contingent operations" if you add that in WHICH YOU SHOULD, because talking about the WARS is relevant when we talk about military spending overall.

     

    You add those numbers in and you actually get a figure larger than 25%

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re:

    It also doesn't account for the amount of money spent as a DIRECT result of military related cases but is moved to another departments budget. 

    For example the research and development, maintenance, production and clean up of nuclear weapons is put int the department of energy's budget.

    If you add in all other security related spending from Homeland security, to FBI, CIA, to the department of veterans,tc etc then the real total amount of spending due to our military involvment in the world is closer to 1 trillion.

    Lets not forget all that interest that we racked up on those wars we never paid for. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re:

    you see you just took the cost of our military and overseas operation at face value in terms of what the department of defenses budget is....and not in terms of overall U.S. military spending. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    you see you just took the cost of our military and overseas operation at face value in terms of what the department of defenses budget is....and not in terms of overall U.S. military spending.  I should of made this more clear in my original argument, so I take responsibility for not conveying my message properly. 




     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re:

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:

    Defense spending s closer to 25

    No, it's exactly what the OMB said it was.

    The stooge just posted a propaganda chart that wasn't OMB, it was from Leftist Soros' CBPP "think tank".

    The Democrat Party is, in fact, the conceiver and pandered of entitlments and the welfare State. And those entitlements are why the current demagogue is scrambling to prolong what amounts to the overwhelming identity of the corrupt collectivist federal government. Those who defend the entitlement welfare State and plant bugaboo that if the rich paid more and defense was cut then entitlments and the Great Society that loves them will continue their progression in the greatest society on earth.

    When the electorate can vote for redistribution without paying income tax then you get the trillion dollar welfare State that is now faced with having it's fitness to borrow downgraded to an unstable higher insterest rate required credit risk.   




     

    Why LOL, are these #s wrong? Once again, you're ignoring the concentration of wealth issue and it's disastrous consequences historically. Your ideas, while they have a point, are antiquated. Also, this country is far from collectivist; that is an extreme exaggeration.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In classical Keynesian modeling, it was never anticipated that deficits would be run in perpetuity.

     

    Exactly.

     

    This seems to get lost on a lot of democrats, and no small amount of republicans as well. You run deficits in a recession, you run surpluses and pay back your debt when you expand.

    Are you forgetting GW was a Republican and had a Republican Congress for a while. We had a surplus, but he started 2 wars, raised no defense spending as well, and then made massive tax cuts. Stop blaming the Democrats for this mess, Obama inherited a situation that dictaed spending to get out of it, and yet his hands were tied for the last 2 years. Spending on Public  jobs went down not up. The tax cuts remained in place as a compromise that Republicans claimed Obama never did any of.

    We've has about 10 years of tax cuts in place. Where's the trickle down? The profits have been pocketed or moved overseas. The stock market has doubled, and yet BO is viewed as the enemy of capitalism.

    Our car industry has rebounded. The housing market is now as well. Consumer confidence is growing. Consumer debt is low. Our highways and public transportation systems need enormous work, our schools are crumbling (physically and otherwise), and cutting spending will just add to a loss of our abiltiy to move good, compete intellectually with a world that is passing us up. I know spending more is not always the solution to every problem, but the states are hurting so much right now, and many have strict rules about increasing spending that for our infastructure to be updated, it almost has to come from a massive federal investment.

    There is room to cut spending in other areas, including defense and some entitlements, but there has to be a balanced approach.

     



    Comments at random-

    1-Bush didn't start two wars, he started one.

    2-Obama should've let the tax cuts expire.  He didn't do so because he feared it would hurt his re-election campaign.

    3-Profits have not moved overseas as much as left overseas because they will get taxed when they get repatriated.  If you want that $1T repatriated, motivate the companies by allowing a lower tax on funds sent back to build new factories.

    4-Schools are crumbling (if they are, which they aren't in my area of the Bronx) because the state grants monopoly power over the education system.  Monopolies don't work.  Let me know when you want to live in a city where only one food chain could operate, and where Exxon owned every gas station.

    5-Some states are hurting because they pay off the unions, knowing full that they'd be out of office by the time the bills come due.  Gov't accounting rules encourage non-recognition of the true costs of these deals.  Go to a 401k defined contribution approach, like we little people have, and many of those issues go away.

    Past that, I agree that we need to look at everything.  Go over the cliff, then tell tell the right that they can re-allocate the tax increase, but the total increase stays the same, and tell the left they can re-allocate the spending cuts, but the total decrease stays the same.



    Joe,

    Actually, it's two wars.  Afghanistan was against the Taliban and al Qaida and Iraq was against Saddam Hussein, who was never linked or allied with al Qaida.  After Saddam was defeated in 3 weeks, iraq turned into a counter insurgency and during that phase terrorists and I'm sure al Qaida elements got in there.  Even today, however, Iraq is not allied with al Qaida or Afghanistan. We have been fighting two separate and costly wars.  We had to go into Afghanistan, but not into Iraq, especially not for the reason stated, WMD.

    max, student of and participant in military history, including two wars.  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:

    Defense spending s closer to 25

    No, it's exactly what the OMB said it was.

    The stooge just posted a propaganda chart that wasn't OMB, it was from Leftist Soros' CBPP "think tank".

    The Democrat Party is, in fact, the conceiver and pandered of entitlments and the welfare State. And those entitlements are why the current demagogue is scrambling to prolong what amounts to the overwhelming identity of the corrupt collectivist federal government. Those who defend the entitlement welfare State and plant bugaboo that if the rich paid more and defense was cut then entitlments and the Great Society that loves them will continue their progression in the greatest society on earth.

    When the electorate can vote for redistribution without paying income tax then you get the trillion dollar welfare State that is now faced with having it's fitness to borrow downgraded to an unstable higher insterest rate required credit risk.   




     

    Why LOL, are these #s wrong? Once again, you're ignoring the concentration of wealth issue and it's disastrous consequences historically. Your ideas, while they have a point, are antiquated. Also, this country is far from collectivist; that is an extreme exaggeration.



    I'm actually of two minds when it comes to this issue. The more sentimental side of me would like to see the government mitigate this budding disaster and return the USA to something resembling the country I grew up in. The other, more radical side says let the gap continue to grow and let events take the course they were headed for before FDR saved capitalism.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re:

    You have to love bill-806's title for this thread--transforming the USA back to the USA.  That speaks volumes because it gets at the heart of what I fear most from the Republican Party, but especially the Tea Party these days, and that is a complete inability to compromise. 

    What bill-806 is really saying is that President Obama and, really, the Democratic Party, are un-American.  Consequently, there is absolutely no reason to compromise on anything because the Democrats and the President are wrong about everything.  Every single thing. 

    Me, I think sometimes you even have to compromise with the devil--at least, the devil you know.  Lincoln, probably the greatest Republican ever, did exactly that.  Heck, he brought guys who opposed him into his government.  But not this Tea Party-dominated Republican Party, no siree.  Thus the insistence that everyone take the "no new taxes" pledge, and that includes never, ever rescinding George W. Bush's tax cuts.  Thus the fascination with the writings of Ayn Rand, whose creed and heroes found compromise to be intolerable.   

    In the end, I decided Mitt Romney was a pretty good candidate and potential President, but one who would never oppose the Tea Party agenda because Paul Ryan and others would convince him he owed his Presidency to the right wing of the Republican Party, the wing that calls itself "Real Republicans," which I am convinced is code for "real Americans."  You know, guys like bill 806.  Guys who gladly demonize the serving President of the United States. 

     

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re:

    Actually, it's two wars.

    It's two wars, but Bush only started one of them.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share