Duke Frost
Baron
Fearless Leader said:
Which I don't think anyone here has said.
Scott
Favorite editorial cartoons: June 09
- Thread starter Mike Ventrella
- Start date
Which I don't think anyone here has said.
Scott
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Duke Frost said:
The impression was that any and all welfare spending was bad: medicare, medicaid, health care, what have you. Robb said earlier that he didn't even support social security. So that's what I was responding to.
Duke Frost
Baron
Actually, Robb said he was forced to pay those, not whether he liked them or not.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Duke Frost said:
No, last month he said: "your comment earlier (i think it was you) about being hard pressed to find a republican who is against social security... right here dude. and i know alot of other fiscal conservatives that would like to do away with it as well."
Sounds to me like he'd just like to get rid of social security altogether.
And, just for the record: I would like to change social security so that it is needs-based. Warren Buffet doesn't need his social security checks. That would save us a lot of money and would be a much wiser use of our tax dollars. Taking my taxes to give to rich people doesn't seem right, especially when we have such a huge deficit.
Gee-Perwin
Adept
I'm a Republican that believes in ending social security. It's the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of ponzi schemes. How can I support that? You think all that money I put into it from my paycheck every two weeks is ever going to come back to me? Fat chance. If it does, it'll be paid in dollars that are completetly worthless. Also, why is it unfair that rich people collect it? If they spent their entire lives paying into it, why shouldn't they get that back? Again, I don't support SS, but if I did I certainly would want my share of what I put into it, regardless of how successful I was in my life.
Also, can we please stop talking about rich people like they are evil? If you produce something that people want and it makes you a lot of money, then you deserve what you get. If you sit on the couch all day eating Doritos and smoking weed, then you deserve what you get. Speaking of weed, it should be legal. This from a guy who never even smoked a cig in his life.
And yes, I realize there are a lot of government programs out there that help people. I think if we went back to a true Constitutional government we wouldn't need these programs. Imagine if you didn't have to pay all these federal taxes. Say you got to keep 90-95% of the income you earned. Think of how much people give today. Think of how much more they would give if they had more to hand out. We wouldn't need government help. We'd help each other. You may not agree with this, but I do. Americans love to give and love to help each other out. There are plenty of organizations that rely on donations from Americans and can spend the money better than any government organization can.
Random thoughts!
Also, can we please stop talking about rich people like they are evil? If you produce something that people want and it makes you a lot of money, then you deserve what you get. If you sit on the couch all day eating Doritos and smoking weed, then you deserve what you get. Speaking of weed, it should be legal. This from a guy who never even smoked a cig in his life.
And yes, I realize there are a lot of government programs out there that help people. I think if we went back to a true Constitutional government we wouldn't need these programs. Imagine if you didn't have to pay all these federal taxes. Say you got to keep 90-95% of the income you earned. Think of how much people give today. Think of how much more they would give if they had more to hand out. We wouldn't need government help. We'd help each other. You may not agree with this, but I do. Americans love to give and love to help each other out. There are plenty of organizations that rely on donations from Americans and can spend the money better than any government organization can.
Random thoughts!
Mike Ventrella
Duke
We need to view social security as "poverty insurance," where you pay into it to make sure you don't end up in poverty when you're old and incapable of working. If we do that, as well as limit it to people who are truly elderly and poor, it won't cost as much and not as much will have to be taken out of our paychecks.
It's not unfair that rich people get it -- it's just that if we're trying to balance the budget and cut expenses, you cut the unnecessary ones first. Money given to people who don't need it is a waste. It has nothing to do with "rich is evil." I wish I was rich! It has to do with using your tax money wisely.
It's not unfair that rich people get it -- it's just that if we're trying to balance the budget and cut expenses, you cut the unnecessary ones first. Money given to people who don't need it is a waste. It has nothing to do with "rich is evil." I wish I was rich! It has to do with using your tax money wisely.
Gee-Perwin
Adept
We can easily cut spending if we started following The Constitution. Go right down the line of everything we spend and ask, "Where does it say in The Constitution that we have the right to spend the money on this program?" You won't see anything about Social Security, or whatever you want to call it.
I still think the best way to stop spending money RIGHT NOW is to end the overseas empire of bases. Bring the troops home from everywhere and cut at least 1 trillion dollars. Stop feeding the military industrial complex. It's something the president has the power to do as Commander in Chief. You just won't see it happen until it gets to the point where we are forced to because we can't afford it anymore. I know that's where Scott & I disagree, but those are my beliefs (as well as the people I read & listen to). I would prefer we cut this first rather than programs that many Americans rely on right now.
I still think the best way to stop spending money RIGHT NOW is to end the overseas empire of bases. Bring the troops home from everywhere and cut at least 1 trillion dollars. Stop feeding the military industrial complex. It's something the president has the power to do as Commander in Chief. You just won't see it happen until it gets to the point where we are forced to because we can't afford it anymore. I know that's where Scott & I disagree, but those are my beliefs (as well as the people I read & listen to). I would prefer we cut this first rather than programs that many Americans rely on right now.
Alot of the time people think that fiscal conservatives are heartless for wanting to end programs that help people in need.
I have an issue with that, because I myself dont mind MY money going to these programs. What I dont like about these taxes is that they force people who do not agree with them to pay them any way. Im all about choice, it is my inner most political self check. These taxes take away peoples right to choose what they want thier money spent on.
What if, for example, a new tax is created for a law to ban larping(the taxes are needed for the additional police it would take to enforce the new law).
Ok, now we are all paying for a government program that we absolutly do not agree with, and have no choice wether we can pay it or not. Current taxes are exactly like this, we have to pay for the bailouts that we disagree with, just like someone else has to pay for the welfare that they do not agree with. No one has a choice about anything in this situation, and so I am aginst it.
I have an issue with that, because I myself dont mind MY money going to these programs. What I dont like about these taxes is that they force people who do not agree with them to pay them any way. Im all about choice, it is my inner most political self check. These taxes take away peoples right to choose what they want thier money spent on.
What if, for example, a new tax is created for a law to ban larping(the taxes are needed for the additional police it would take to enforce the new law).
Ok, now we are all paying for a government program that we absolutly do not agree with, and have no choice wether we can pay it or not. Current taxes are exactly like this, we have to pay for the bailouts that we disagree with, just like someone else has to pay for the welfare that they do not agree with. No one has a choice about anything in this situation, and so I am aginst it.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Agahi said:
Well, that's true of all government spending. I don't have kids but I have to pay the school tax, for instance.
I mean, I agree with you in principle, but there is no real solution. We can't pick and choose individually on what we want our specific taxes to be used for.
The way we have input is through elections. We elect people who will hopefully agree with us on most things.
Duke Frost
Baron
Social security wasn't supposed to be a Ponzi scheme. One of the biggest problems with it is that our government in its infinite wisdom took money out of the fun for other things. The government does that all the time. There is a program that is actually working and supporting itself, so they take money from it and pump it into some rathole that is falling apart. Just another reason I don't trust the government. If it's working, leave it alone.
I also very much agree with letting people choose where their money goes. Many of the evil rich donate to private charities and organizations...and these handle the money much, much better than the government. They HAVE TO make the level of money they have work, whereas the government throws money away and then just raises taxes so they can throw more away. But raise taxes on the rich, and these groups that run efficiently will no longer be getting the same level of donations.
I don't view making new government programs as "trying" like Mike does. It's been tried...and the government wastes money because they feel they have an unending supply through the taxpayer. Instead of balancing a budget...like every household and most companies in America has to do...they just raise taxes. Making more programs is just going to waste more money and not really help anyone. Social security is on the edge of ruin because politicians messed it up.
As for the military...while in theory you may be right Gee...maybe we don't need all those bases...the world is full of evil people. Do we really want to take that chance? We tried isolationism several times in our history and it came back to bite us in the ***. I actually have very high hopes for humanity while at the same time being cynical. I pray someday we have the peaceful utopia of the Star Trek universe. I believe it will be attained through economic and cultural means, not by weapons and violence. But we are far from that time unfortunately and I just can't see taking the chance of dropping all our protective measures. But the human race is making progress. Despite our very advanced weapons and insane population, the world is generally at its most peaceful time in history. We have a long, long way to go however before we can put aside our weapons.
Scott
I also very much agree with letting people choose where their money goes. Many of the evil rich donate to private charities and organizations...and these handle the money much, much better than the government. They HAVE TO make the level of money they have work, whereas the government throws money away and then just raises taxes so they can throw more away. But raise taxes on the rich, and these groups that run efficiently will no longer be getting the same level of donations.
I don't view making new government programs as "trying" like Mike does. It's been tried...and the government wastes money because they feel they have an unending supply through the taxpayer. Instead of balancing a budget...like every household and most companies in America has to do...they just raise taxes. Making more programs is just going to waste more money and not really help anyone. Social security is on the edge of ruin because politicians messed it up.
As for the military...while in theory you may be right Gee...maybe we don't need all those bases...the world is full of evil people. Do we really want to take that chance? We tried isolationism several times in our history and it came back to bite us in the ***. I actually have very high hopes for humanity while at the same time being cynical. I pray someday we have the peaceful utopia of the Star Trek universe. I believe it will be attained through economic and cultural means, not by weapons and violence. But we are far from that time unfortunately and I just can't see taking the chance of dropping all our protective measures. But the human race is making progress. Despite our very advanced weapons and insane population, the world is generally at its most peaceful time in history. We have a long, long way to go however before we can put aside our weapons.
Scott
Gee-Perwin
Adept
Please don't confuse non-interventionism with isolationism. Think Thomas Jefferson:
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Our current foreign policy of interventionism creates Blowback (a CIA term, and a fantastic book). Our foreign interventions will continue to cause problems for this country. I firmly believe a foreign policy of non-intervention would not.
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Our current foreign policy of interventionism creates Blowback (a CIA term, and a fantastic book). Our foreign interventions will continue to cause problems for this country. I firmly believe a foreign policy of non-intervention would not.
Its a philosophy that has legs but also signifigant flaws. Mostly that its already too late. We through action and inaction have made ourselves a target abandonment of international involvment will not put an end to us being a target. Aditionally we do not live in a vacume, there are social and economic ties internationally that demand that we think and at times act internationally.
Now what I will say is that a more intelegent hand at international intervention and activities is needed and that the military is not hte only option available. As for military spending it is way to high, I don't know that our presensce abroud is as much of a problem as the overspending on unneeded and inefficient weapons and other technologies.
The government does overspend I just don't think the budgetary trickle to social programs is anything to compare to the monolithic corperate subsidies and military contracts.
Now what I will say is that a more intelegent hand at international intervention and activities is needed and that the military is not hte only option available. As for military spending it is way to high, I don't know that our presensce abroud is as much of a problem as the overspending on unneeded and inefficient weapons and other technologies.
The government does overspend I just don't think the budgetary trickle to social programs is anything to compare to the monolithic corperate subsidies and military contracts.
Gee-Perwin
Adept
Angrydurf said:
This is a point we can both agree on, for sure.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Gee-Perwin said:
Indeed, the cost of a national health care program is nothing compared to the corporate bailouts we've seen in the last year or so.
Gee-Perwin
Adept
Fearless Leader said:
I don't think that's a reason to justify more spending. I just think we should be cutting the trillion $ a year we spend on foreign military ventures first and foremost before we cut spending on existing medical/welfare programs that many Americans depend on.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Gee-Perwin
Adept
Robb Graves said:
All this coverage of this "Iranian Revolution" makes me think of what happened the last time they had a revolution. They threw out the Shah, who came to power with a lot of help from the US (including overthrowing an elected prime minister in the 50's) and was hated by Iranian people. Then they made the Ayatollah the Supreme Leader. Don't get me wrong--I love seeing young people march in protest, especially in a country like Iran. I cheered on my Greek brothers & sisters when they were protesting recently. I've marched in protest here in the US already. I just wonder how much things are really going to change for the Iranian people if they had a different president. The Ayatollah is still there running the show. I imagine Mousavi would probably be a better face for the country, but it's hard to say what type of impact he would truly have.
I also don't get all the Ahmadinejad hating that always goes on with our media. Again, I'm not saying I necessarily like him or agree with his views, but he was elected by his people back in '05. It's like when politicians here got upset that Hammas was winning Palestinian elections. The US government has been all about intervention and spreading democracy around the globe. Better be careful what you ask for, because the people have spoken in some countries. Don't get upset when you don't like what they have to say.
Just some thoughts from someone who always looks at things from a different angle.
Here's a change of pace. I agree with Obama not making a big deal about the election in Iran. We need to stay out of it. if we even pretend to back either party it's just going to fuel anti-Americanism int he other party. As leaders, they are both wanting. Mousavi created the Iranian Nuclear weapons program and Ahmadinejad is pretty radical. I'm all for freedom and protest, so in that sense, i am glad the people are getting to voice their opinion over there... but beyond that, I hope Obama sticks with his current plan of ignoring it.