Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

We can't afford what we spend now, yet people like you who trumpet less spending and lower deficits want to pump more money into military spending because of a bunch of boogeymen that will never attack. (and if they do it wont be by missile).

Then why don't we say this as opposed to this farce of a deal with the Russians? I would think an inability to say these things is a serious problem. I think the answer, however, is that it isn't that we can't afford this but we choose not to... I wouldn't be shocked if we could find other place that are much more worthy to cut. Fact of the matter is liberals have seen American military advantages as evil as they beileve that if all nations are equal in power then we will see peace... sure, its an ignorant view point... but its the one in play when we deal with the termination of missle defence. Its no longer that it can't work, its no longer that it isn't useful, its no longer that its experimental... its just been decided to be wrong and against the general goals that liberals work towards... its a defined evil... not an actual evil.

For this, we have given it away in exchange for $24 worth of beads. Russia will agree to their terms some time in the later future... did we need to rushjob this?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

fewer russian nukes that can fall into rogue hands.

Again, those that are lost back in those rougher days of the Russian state in the 1990s are gone... if you don't think Putin doesn't have an iron hand on his arsenal you are only fooling yourself and even then this treaty has no mechanism against a Russian pull-out... as has been mentioned before... if Russia break the treaty we aren't going to then re-implement missle defense.

Don't trot out nonsense arguments. The only thing it shows is your desire to agree with the culture and not the truth itself. One could make the "rouge nuke" argument back in the 90s when the Russian state was hanging together by a roll of duct tape. Making it now is painfully silly as if the situation does exist then that horse is already out of the barn. Further, I don't see why we need to provide Russia help in doing what it already should be doing for itself.

edit: further, if we're only stopping Russia from selling nukes themselves, this would be silly as either they would build a new one clandestinely or they'd pull some other stunt. Seriously, this treaty is a farce. 1980s anti-nuke ideology based upon 1990s facts working a 2000s geopolitical reality implemented in 2010.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So, who here is for up an incandescent light bulb un-ban?

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I didn't realize that it was the government's money to give. Apparently once someone dies their private property belongs to the gov't.

Regardless, this money has already been taxed. You may want to check and see who many of those "rich" people are.

I saw the same argument from Ron Paul of all people. But at the end of the day government is just pooling (taxing) the money for the peoples benefit (national defense, law and order, health etc...).

And since government needs taxes to run these programs. the question should be where to get it not IF government has any right to it. And the least painful method for middle/low income and our economy is higher estate tax and higher capital gains tax.

So we're giving rich $100-200billion/yr (in tax cuts) and congress/president is talking about cutting spending ($100-200billion/yr) in social welfare. Um how about we balance the budget and pay off our debt before we start lowering taxes for anyone, espeically the wealthy and corporations like oil companies that don't really need it.

I don't have a problem with eliminating social security or other welfare spending even if that increases anarchy, unrest and more terrorist recruits like in 3rd world countries. and send our economy into a tailspin
If we had a balanced budget and no national debt.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Then why don't we say this as opposed to this farce of a deal with the Russians? I would think an inability to say these things is a serious problem. I think the answer, however, is that it isn't that we can't afford this but we choose not to... I wouldn't be shocked if we could find other place that are much more worthy to cut. Fact of the matter is liberals have seen American military advantages as evil as they beileve that if all nations are equal in power then we will see peace... sure, its an ignorant view point... but its the one in play when we deal with the termination of missle defence. Its no longer that it can't work, its no longer that it isn't useful, its no longer that its experimental... its just been decided to be wrong and against the general goals that liberals work towards... its a defined evil... not an actual evil.

For this, we have given it away in exchange for $24 worth of beads. Russia will agree to their terms some time in the later future... did we need to rushjob this?

Cold war is over, man...let our foriegn policy and military posture catch up.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So... what did we get for it? Is it the same nothing I said it was or are those "lost nukes" going to walk back to their shelves? I think we'll look back on this and wonder what bizarre group-think has taken hold in our highest reaches of governance.

100% spot on.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

How do you plan to fund it with all the taxes you want to cut? We can't afford what we spend now, yet people like you who trumpet less spending and lower deficits want to pump more money into military spending because of a bunch of boogeymen that will never attack. (and if they do it wont be by missile) Please tell me where the money is going to come from, and how this will be deficit neutral. What are you going to cut? Who loses so you can feel more safe without being more safe?

This reminds me of people I know around here that are biotching about the worthless plowing this season despite all the snow. Many of these people are the same people who whine every year that they want their taxes lowered and blah blah blah. Well guess what folks, when you lower taxes and you overspend this is what you get. There is no budget anymore for plowing, because there is no money. Politicians love to spend, citizens hate paying taxes, and because of that the roads are a mess.

Cut the Dept of Education. Paid for and then some.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

And since government needs taxes to run these programs. the question should be where to get it not IF government has any right to it. And the least painful method for middle/low income and our economy is higher estate tax and higher capital gains tax.

Higher capital gains taxes actually bring in less revenue. Capital is also the fuel which provides growth for the economy. It would be a very bad idea to do something that would provide less of it.

Why should we only be concerned with middle/low income people? Do they somehow have more rights than upper income people? If its wrong to put a gun to someone's head and take their money how it is suddenly okay to have a congressman do it?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Baby Boomers in Jeopardy

"If I'd been smarter and planned and had the bucks, I'd wait until 70," says Vanatta, who is divorced and rents an apartment. "It's my fault. For years I was making plenty of money and spending plenty of money."

I can't stress enough to people to put money away at a young age. Compound interest is a wonderful thing. It sucks to have to give up some of the fun things when you're young, but it pales in comparison to being out of money when you're 70.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Baby Boomers in Jeopardy



I can't stress enough to people to put money away at a young age. Compound interest is a wonderful thing. It sucks to have to give up some of the fun things when you're young, but it pales in comparison to being out of money when you're 70.

Don't feel any sympathy for them at all. None. They bankrupted the country while they've been in power.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Cold war is over, man...let our foriegn policy and military posture catch up.

...and yet we are still wasting time signing bilateral treaties with the Russians.

Scooby, it doesn't matter if you don't feel sympathy for them. What you will be feeling is angst because more of your money is certainly going to be taken in taxes to pay for their retirement and medical care since they can't pay for it themselves. Don't you just love it when wealth gets redistributed "fairly"?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Higher capital gains taxes actually bring in less revenue. Capital is also the fuel which provides growth for the economy. It would be a very bad idea to do something that would provide less of it.

Why should we only be concerned with middle/low income people? Do they somehow have more rights than upper income people? If its wrong to put a gun to someone's head and take their money how it is suddenly okay to have a congressman do it?

That "fuel" that you love so much has failed us for over 9 years now. All the Bush tax cuts haven't done a thing to spur economic growth. The housing credit card did it all.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

...and yet we are still wasting time signing bilateral treaties with the Russians.

Scooby, it doesn't matter if you don't feel sympathy for them. What you will be feeling is angst because more of your money is certainly going to be taken in taxes to pay for their retirement and medical care since they can't pay for it themselves. Don't you just love it when wealth gets redistributed "fairly"?

That's fine. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip anyway. They're going to have to go to people with actual money at some point. People around here actually believe that technological advances constitute an improvement in quality of life anyway so who needs money?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Cut the Dept of Education. Paid for and then some.

How about we cut the DOE and not build a worthless missile shield that won't protect us? Why is your spending better than other spending mister conservative? Isnt all spending bad when we have a trillion dollar deficit?

Playing a shell game with money doesnt make you fiscally responsible, it makes you the average American who has twelve credit cards.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

...and yet we are still wasting time signing bilateral treaties with the Russians.

Scooby, it doesn't matter if you don't feel sympathy for them. What you will be feeling is angst because more of your money is certainly going to be taken in taxes to pay for their retirement and medical care since they can't pay for it themselves. Don't you just love it when wealth gets redistributed "fairly"?

Scooby nailed, you cant get money from those that dont have money. No politician will ever raise taxes enough to make a difference, and even if they did it would hardly be noticeable on the meager paychecks most of us get nowadays if we were even within the right tax bracket to feel it, so the Boomers will just have to keep working. As they die off the stress on the dollar will die with them.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

...and yet we are still wasting time signing bilateral treaties with the Russians.

Why would we ever consider wasting our time on someone like Britain or Germany? Perhaps because they're allies. If key politicians don't focus minimal time on the world's most important countries they have no business being in Washington.

To answer your question...we're spending our time addressing our worldwide posture and military spending, which is totally outdated and aimed at a cold war that ended 20 years ago.

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

"... it's the economy, stupid"

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I agree with the whole "double taxation" argument in theory, but there are other issues in play.

Double taxation is a canard (or, at best, a very strong argument to tax heirs rather than the estate itself, which is something that I strongly support if it isn't already in place). Lots of dollars get taxed many times over, and there's nothing particular about inclusion in an estate that should make dollars exempt on that particular transfer. In fact, quite the contrary. If double taxation is a real concern, then all taxes should be abolished and the government should skim a flat percentage of the money as it comes out of the Federal Reserve. (Hmm... on second thought, maybe the people who whine about taxes would actually like that idea...)

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

In Latest Compromise with GOP, Obama Agrees He is a Muslim

In his latest effort to find common ground with Republicans in Congress, President Barack Obama said today that he was willing to agree that he is a Muslim.

Differences over his religious orientation have been a sore point between the President and his Republican foes for the past two years, but in agreeing that he is a Muslim Mr. Obama is sending a clear signal that he is trying to find consensus.

“The American people do not want to see us fighting in Washington,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House. “They want to see us working together to improve their lives, and Allah willing, we will.”

But Mr. Obama’s willingness to back down on his claim of being a Christian does not seem to have satisfied his Republican opposition, as GOP leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) today insisted that the President must also agree that he was born in Kenya.

While Mr. Obama did not immediately agree to Rep. Bohener’s demand, he hinted that yet another compromise might be in the offing: “My place of birth has been, and will always be, negotiable.”

White House sources indicated today that the President might be willing to meet the GOP halfway on his birthplace and say that he was born in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

In a related story, Republicans have challenged Hawaii to present their certificate of statehood.

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

"... it's [still] the economy, stupid."