| Author |
Message |
    
Drkside79
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 01:55 am: | 
|
Social Security = Socialism
Medicare/Medicaid = Socialism
I guess i am a socialist.....
But how would you suggest we take care of our elderly? |
Drkside79
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 01:58 am: |
|
FT that is the typical bullshit response of the republican party. Next you will call us freedom haters.
Yes there needs to be some racial profiling. However we need to use some restraint once in awhile and not turn everything into a damn witch hunt!! |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 02:01 am: |
|
I guess i am a socialist.....
But how would you suggest we take care of our elderly?
The way we USED to take care of our elderly.
Family took care of them.
The Church took care of them.
The Community took care of them.
I love it when people complain about their parents or grandparents having to choose between food or medicine.
Maybe you should buy your parents some groceries. They did give birth to you.
Social Security and Medicare were NEVER intended to be used (and abused) like they are today. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 02:04 am: |
|
FT that is the typical bullshit response of the republican party. Next you will call us freedom haters.
Yes there needs to be some racial profiling. However we need to use some restraint once in awhile and not turn everything into a damn witch hunt!!
That's the problem. No one can use common sense procedures. We must use PC rules in order to prevent even the appearance of racial profiling.
ANY racial profiling is met with a lawsuit.
We aren't effective. |
Drkside79
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 02:10 am: |
|
Not everyone has the support system you refer to.
Also if our government would stop buying million dollar toilet seats and building weapons that we will never use there would be more money to go around. |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 08:33 am: |
|
Not everyone has the support system you refer to.
Also if our government would stop buying million dollar toilet seats and building weapons that we will never use there would be more money to go around.
Attempt at a red herring my friend but if you want to go there, what about 757 jet's so the speaker of the house doesn't have to wait to be refueled? I think that cost a bit more than those toilets seats...but hey who cares right? All in the name of the greater good...if they don't have the support system in place then they suffer...period, if I don't plan for my eventual old age and cannot take care of myself with saved money as I have no children..then I suffer. It is as easy as that, but I can guarantee that if we did stop with the million dollar toilet seat it would just shift another item to fleece the taxpayer...like Kinky Friedman says it doesn't matter if it is the Crips or the Bloods are in office they don't care about you or me only the money coming into their pockets. |
Marks3tbillet
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 09:09 am: |
|
We're getting bogged down in the two political parties. This is exactly what the people in charge want. This keeps us from getting to the truth and the right way to run the country. I can't stand both parties, they both do damage when in power. I like the constitution and everything should be judged by it.
Google John Ruskin, Cecil Rhodes, Rothschild, Bauer and you'll find this all began in the 1800's. (The Round Table) One notable quote: “Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”. Notice how when people have money the law no longer applies to them.
Also note the few elitist groups all of our recent Presidents come from. (Fabian Socialists, Rhodes Scholars, Skull and Bones) All of these guys are the same. For example, John Kerry, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush all belonged to the same group.
In reading about some of these guys I found a quote from Professor Quigley:
"...the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
We really need to fight all of these guys and start over. |
Mountainstorm
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 09:15 am: |
|
pass a constitutional amendment that outlaws congressional filibuster and get policy moving forward. It's a shell game. Dems filibustered the Repubs to gain seats and now the Repubs are doing it back. It sucks both ways. Nothing gets done except pork belly for both sides.
All the moderates are leaving in disgust so pretty soon all we will have are the greediest, stupidest, meanest most polarized reps from each side. Sort of like the 1125r board.
JK
Sort of... |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 09:29 am: |
|
All they really need to do is change the house rules so that EVERY bill gets voted on, not just the ones the speaker decides to call a vote for. ALL bills have to be voted on before Congress can recess for the year. Filibuster away, you'll have to vote on it eventually. |
Mountainstorm
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 09:39 am: |
|
Makes sense to me. At that point filibuster would only prolong the inevitable. I like it.
Now how do we get that to happen? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 09:43 am: |
|
Shit in one hand and wish in the other. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 10:34 am: |
|
The Constitution is a document FILLED with safeguards. Firewalls.
The only fast passage bills are those in which the vast majority of both parties are in agreement.
51% is not a vast majority.
Like it or not, the filibuster was by design as was checks and balances and state's rights.
The electoral college is also a necessary construct.
Were there no filibuster, we could have Cap and Trade as well as socialized medicine.
Polls show that although 50%+ of legislators support these bills he vast majority of the American people to not.
Filibuster gave the people time to see what was going on and voice their concerns. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 10:41 am: |
|
"But how would you suggest we take care of our elderly?"
See the previous post containing the story about Congressman David Crocket. Freedom means dealing with consequences of our own behavior.
How would you suggest we take care of all our innocent, helpless, unwanted (by their mothers), unborn babies? Why don't you care about them? They have ZERO say concerning their own fate. If you are happy to condone their murder when they have absolutely no ability to object or defend themselves, then how is it you are so concerned about the elderly, who indeed do have a very strong voice in America, and who are able to speak for themselves and defend themselves and have had a lifetime of opportunity to prepare for their elder years?
Pro-choice you say? The elderly have had a lifetime of choice. If they choose to shirk responsibility, that absolutely was their choice.
I don't shirk my responsibility. My parents have not shirked their responsibility. My sister has not shirked her responsibility. Why should those who are responsible be forced under threat of imprisonment to support those who are irresponsible.
If you don't live within your means and save for retirement, that is irresponsible and you should absolutely suffer the consequences.
Having 15% of one's income forcibly taken largely for redistribution to others is wrong. It sure isn't freedom. In my view it is tyranny.
It has never ever been the federal government's right to take from some to give to others. That is an outright corruption of the constitution.
Neither equality of health care, nor equality in retirement age, nor level of comfort are rights guaranteed anywhere in/by the American constitution.
If any American state's constitution mandates or allows that type of socialization, fine, then that is absolutely the privilege and sovereign right of each American state to do so as supported by its electorate.
Socialization, the nanny state, the welfare state is NOT and has NEVER been a right let alone a mandate of the American federal government.
President Thomas Jefferson's Cabinet
Secretary of State
Secretary of Treasury
Secretary of War
Attorney General
Secretary of the Navy
Note that two of five, a full 40% of the cabinet at that time, was devoted to our military/security/defense.
Compare the above to today's wildly bloated cabinet:
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
Also please review all the independent federal agencies we have allowed to emerge. Why are they independent and allowed to exist outside the jurisdiction of the appropriate cabinet office/department?
National health and insurance system
African Development Foundation
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Agency for International Development (USAID)
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)
AmeriCorps
ppalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR)
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA)
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm)
Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Election Commission (FEC)
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission (FMSHRC)
Federal Reserve System (The Fed)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (FCSC)
General Services Administration (GSA)
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
Inter-American Foundation (IAF)
International Trade Commission (ITC)
Learn and Serve America (LSA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
National Ice Center (NIC)
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) (NRPC)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
National Transportation Research Center (NTRC)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
United States Postal Service (USPS)
o United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
o Office of the Inspector General (USPS-OIG)
Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Selective Service System (SSS)
Senior Corps
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
United States Trade and Development Agency (TDA) |
Reindog
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 11:43 am: |
|
Some of you are not looking at this correctly. Congressional gridlock is essentially a good thing. The less that Congress achieves, the safer our money and our well being tends to be. Congress usually agrees when it comes to Defense and building roads which is what they are Constitutionally authorized to do. That is a good thing.
The Federal government has usurped its Constitutional authority as defined by the Tenth Amendment and needs to be seriously pared down, which is what Blake is alluding to. |
Reindog
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 11:47 am: |
|
Calling oneself a Socialist, even in jest or sarcasm, is a very BAD thing. There is practically nothing more UN-American. They are the moochers and looters of our society. Who is John Galt? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 01:23 pm: |
|
The founding fathers could have created a socialist framed nation.
They rejected it in favor of individual freedom.
If you can't make it successfully in the United States, you can't make it anywhere.
Imagine the self provision available to you given the ability to invest the 15.3% of your ENTIRE income each and every year for the 40+ years that you work before retirement.
You wouldn't need the government.
The Government has robbed us of our ability to provide for ourselves and provided for us nothing.
Social Security and Medicare are broke. So not only did they take my money, but they pissed it down the hole and ask for more.
No thanks. I'll take the private opt out. If I buried the money in the back yard, I'd end up with more than I'll ever get from Social Security and Medicare. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 01:36 pm: |
|
15%? dont forget IRS federal with holding,... that will get you closer to 24% or more depending on your bracket.
Get rid of that agency, go to a flat tax of say 9.8% quit the Medicare,Medicaid,Social Security, Unemployment, OSHA deductions....
And over the last twenty years, I would have an extra 250000 at my discretion to spend, invest, hoard, travel. now do that across the country. I think you would find there is your economic stimulus.
And if you failed to plan for your future.... well that was indeed back on you, its called personal responsibility.
Enjoy it, earn it, use it properly; and get out of my pocket.
We need another Revolution.
My first victim would be NEA. If your 'art' cant garner a customer on its own; the government certainly shouldnt purchase, coddle, promote or cowtow to it. |
Reindog
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 01:41 pm: |
|
The IRS is the gateway to a totalitarian society. Think about it. EVERY action down to the most minute detail of your life is subject to arbitrary scrutiny by the IRS. We have been conditioned to believe that this is an unfortunate necessity of American life. IT ISN'T. The IRS should be abolished and a less obtrusive form of taxation implemented. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 02:02 pm: |
|
Some potential savings for every American who actually pays income tax...
2009 Budgets of Some Federal Departments/Agencies
| Department of Health and Human Services | $70,400,000,000 | | Department of Education | $45,400,000,000 | | Department of Housing and Urban Development | $38,500,000,000 | | Department of Energy | $25,000,000,000 | | Department of Agriculture | $20,800,000,000 | | Department of the Interior | $10,600,000,000 | | Department of Labor | $10,500,000,000 | | Social Security Administration | $8,400,000,000 | | Environmental Protection Agency | $7,100,000,000 | | National Science Foundation | $6,900,000,000 | | Small Business Administration | $700,000,000 | | Other agencies | $7,200,000,000 | | Other Off-Budget Discretionary Spending | $39,000,000,000 | | Total | $290,500,000,000 |
That's over a quarter of a TRILLION dollars per year in federal income tax that we could save immediately. Cut them all!
Can you believe that it takes $8,4000,000,000 to look after/manage social security? WTF? Are you kidding me?! That amounts to 84,000 people earning $100,000 each! |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 02:28 pm: |
|
Like I said, I could balance the budget in one day, and have money left over. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 02:40 pm: |
|
"Also if our government would stop buying million dollar toilet seats and building weapons that we will never use there would be more money to go around."
This is one of the favorite lies of the Socialists. They like to try to spin the tale that our federal income taxes are spent mostly on big bad weaponry and extravagant one-off toilet seats.
It's a lie. And even if it were true, that money would be going to American workers, people doing productive work.
Out one side of their mouths they'll decry fighting a war to win on account of we don't have enough personnel to support the effort without requiring increased service time in-theater. Out the other side of their mouths they'll tell us that we need to spend less on our military.
Who needs laser-guided bombs? Who needs a nuclear deterrent? Who needs aircraft carriers? Why maintain a military that is unrivaled in the world, after all, if we just talk to them, all the mass murdering tyrants and greedy dictatorships of the world will suddenly be nice and friendly? I prefer a very strong military and less nanny state.
This year our representatives in Washington have budgeted over $1,400,000,000,000, that's $1.4TRILLION, over $10,000 per American taxpayer just to pay for entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Our defense budget including the funding for the warfighting efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan is less than half that.
Compared to other nations our defense spending is not unreasonable.
Military Spending as % of GDP
Saudi Arabia exceeds us, China equals us, and a host of other nations match or are close to our level of defense spending relative to GNP. Take note of all the puke green 3% nations, lots of oil rich muslim states there and Russia. Yeah, let's let the communists and islamists outspend us in military might.
(Message edited by blake on February 17, 2010) |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 03:13 pm: |
|
Our defense spending should approach 100% of the federal budget. It is one of the only Constitutionally mandated things the Federal government is supposed to do. All the rest is congressional overreaching and most probably in violation of the 10th amendment. What would our tax structure look like if the Federal budget only had to fund the Military? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 05:10 pm: |
|
Not everyone has the support system you refer to.
Also if our government would stop buying million dollar toilet seats and building weapons that we will never use there would be more money to go around.
Go around to who? I assume from the context the "who" would be the folks sucking on the government teat. Do you really wonder how you wind up being called "Socialist"?
Also if our government would stop buying million dollar toilet seats and building weapons that we will never use giving out government entitlements there would be more money to go around they wouldn't have to tax us so much.
There, I fixed it up for you a bit.
I look forward to a day when our weapons will never have to be used. I have my doubts. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 05:45 pm: |
|
A million dollar toilet seat. That old chestnut.
*deep breath*
The government buys airplanes. The government buys spare parts for said airplanes. 30 years go by, and all the spares get used up.
government:
"hey, vendor X, we need another toilet seat"
vendor:
"Well, you haven't bought one in 30 years, we don't have the tooling any longer."
government:
"Well, we still need one, because it is cheaper to have you make one of them for us and roll all the tooling cost into one item than it is to do all the paperwork involved in an airframe change, which is required if you want to put a part on an aircraft that isn't the part that is supposed to be there. If that weren't the case, I'd just go down to Home Depot and buy a $5 toilet seat."
vendor:
"OK, one really expensive toilet seat coming up."
government:
"Thanks, you're really helping us out here"
And that is the truth of the situation. Yes, there is a mil-spec for the toilet seat on a P-3, and no, you can't substitute it without spending a whole lot of money on an engineering investigation and the resulting airframe change. And since I suspect that spare parts and engineering work come out of different pots of money, we'll just continue to buy spares. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 07:33 pm: |
|
A word on expensive hammers & toilet seats.
A hammer you buy at home depot is usually not made of a non-sparking berylium-bronze alloy, so when you use the home depot hammer to defuse the bomb, it blows up and kills people. Including the guy with the hammer. I'm good with the expensive hammer.
The expensive toilet seat must be made to fit an airplane built in 1957. It must fit, and be made of a plastic that does not erupt in poisonous gases when exposed to a dose of gamma radiation from a very nearby nuclear explosion that is going to kill the entire crew of the B-52, within an hour.
Again I'm good with the expensive toilet seat.
I'm even good with them dropping the Sgt. York anti-aircraft armored vehicle when it automatically blew the top off a porta-john when it's radar picked up the exhaust fan, and ignored the drone that was incoming for the test. The Sgt. in the Porta-john was unhurt. I'm not good with the fact that we don't have an anti-aircraft vehicle that is as good as a WW2 German Wirbelwind. It strikes me as foolish.
I'm even good with the last admin canceling the paladin gun system. It was real good, and worked really well, but was too heavy to cross bridges in most of the planet. I'm hoping the replacement works as good.
I don't have an issue with Congress people getting some free rides in Govt. planes. I do have an issue when the speaker of the house sends one for relatives and the catering bill with booze for her and her buddies & relatives is more than I make in 2 years.
But I suppose that's that darn class envy that Obama uses to sell marxist-lenninist bills to people with hate... so I'd better rethink my emotions of a rich person taking my money to look good to her peers, instead of using her own money. |
|
