How much is enough?

[LordBrownTrout]

WE don't have to do away with SS. Just make it optional.

 

[RDD_1210]

You.

Want proof?

You pick how much you want to cut from defense spending, cut as you see fit
Whatever it is, I'll agree to it, so long as you agree to also cut $3.50 from entitlement spending for each $1.00 you cut from defense spending, cut as -I- see fit.

Deal?

$3.50? Um Sure! Deal.

Fixed, in bold.

Deal?

I'm fine with cutting and reforming, even at the rate you outlined, but what is cut within the programs would have to be discussed and agreed upon. Seems fair to me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And if my taxes fund those programs, doesn't that make me support those people who benefit from those programs? I'm not the one calling for a reduction in my taxes, so I'm not against "acting upon it", now am I?

Actually, if you feel the only way to help your fellow man is through government programs, then yes, you are concerned you will fail to act on it on your own.

If you were sure you would act on it on your own, you would prefer taking the middle man out of the formula....and less money would go to the "cost of dcollecting and distributing" and more would go to the one who needs it.

Curious....do you feel the need to get a middle man to do your food shopping? Or do yopu feel that would be a complete waste of money?

If the governemnt wanted to run a program at the cost of the taxpayer to have all peoples food shopping done by a government employee....and the end result was the same food but at a price of 15% more than you would spend on your own.....would you lay back and say "works for me"?

Hey, I'm all about cutting out the middle man to make things more efficient. Look at my views on health insurance.

But I'll be honest, I don't have enough faith in the American people to all contribute as much as would be needed to help the sick, elderly, poor and crippled in this country. That's just not realistic to expect donations at the scale. Is the government doing it efficiently? Hell no, we all know that. But if my choices are the government mandating everyone pitch in to help through taxation, or leaving it up to "the kindness of peoples hearts", I just don't have the faith that my fellow Americans will come through. Reading the opinions of people on this site are enough to tell me that.

So... you look to government to impose your version of morality on those that do not share the same view.

 

[M14 Shooter]

$3.50? Um Sure! Deal.

Fixed, in bold.
Deal?

I'm fine with cutting and reforming, even at the rate you outlined, but what is cut within the programs would have to be discussed and agreed upon. Seems fair to me.

If you get to choose the defense cuts, then I get to choose the entitlement cuts.


So, how much do you want to cut from defense spending?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why can't I eat steak if I have no money? The government does it.

Steak is a luxury.
Whem money is tight, luxuries are the first to go.

Public welfare spending is a luxury.

An armed force that spends as much as the armies and navies and air forces of entire world combined is rather luxurious.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, if you feel the only way to help your fellow man is through government programs, then yes, you are concerned you will fail to act on it on your own.

If you were sure you would act on it on your own, you would prefer taking the middle man out of the formula....and less money would go to the "cost of dcollecting and distributing" and more would go to the one who needs it.

Curious....do you feel the need to get a middle man to do your food shopping? Or do yopu feel that would be a complete waste of money?

If the governemnt wanted to run a program at the cost of the taxpayer to have all peoples food shopping done by a government employee....and the end result was the same food but at a price of 15% more than you would spend on your own.....would you lay back and say "works for me"?

Hey, I'm all about cutting out the middle man to make things more efficient. Look at my views on health insurance.

But I'll be honest, I don't have enough faith in the American people to all contribute as much as would be needed to help the sick, elderly, poor and crippled in this country. That's just not realistic to expect donations at the scale. Is the government doing it efficiently? Hell no, we all know that. But if my choices are the government mandating everyone pitch in to help through taxation, or leaving it up to "the kindness of peoples hearts", I just don't have the faith that my fellow Americans will come through. Reading the opinions of people on this site are enough to tell me that.

So... you look to government to impose your version of morality on those that do not share the same view.

Show me someone who thinks that we shouldn't look after the sick, elderly and crippled and I'll show you someone who isn't an American.

 

[RDD_1210]

Fixed, in bold.
Deal?

I'm fine with cutting and reforming, even at the rate you outlined, but what is cut within the programs would have to be discussed and agreed upon. Seems fair to me.

If you get to choose the defense cuts, then I get to choose the entitlement cuts.


So, how much do you want to cut from defense spending?

We can agree on the defense cuts too.

And I don't have a specific number for you. But I do know that removing all of our troops from the middle east and closing down a majority of our bases around the world, as well as discontinuing some of the more ridiculously expensive military equipment programs would be where I'd like to start the cutting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey, I'm all about cutting out the middle man to make things more efficient. Look at my views on health insurance.

But I'll be honest, I don't have enough faith in the American people to all contribute as much as would be needed to help the sick, elderly, poor and crippled in this country. That's just not realistic to expect donations at the scale. Is the government doing it efficiently? Hell no, we all know that. But if my choices are the government mandating everyone pitch in to help through taxation, or leaving it up to "the kindness of peoples hearts", I just don't have the faith that my fellow Americans will come through. Reading the opinions of people on this site are enough to tell me that.

So... you look to government to impose your version of morality on those that do not share the same view.

Show me someone who thinks that we shouldn't look after the sick, elderly and crippled and I'll show you someone who isn't an American.

Since you are happy to have government impose your version of morality on others that do not share your same view, what standing do you have to complain when those others use that same governent to impose their differing morality upon you?

 

[Jarhead]

And if my taxes fund those programs, doesn't that make me support those people who benefit from those programs? I'm not the one calling for a reduction in my taxes, so I'm not against "acting upon it", now am I?

Actually, if you feel the only way to help your fellow man is through government programs, then yes, you are concerned you will fail to act on it on your own.

If you were sure you would act on it on your own, you would prefer taking the middle man out of the formula....and less money would go to the "cost of dcollecting and distributing" and more would go to the one who needs it.

Curious....do you feel the need to get a middle man to do your food shopping? Or do yopu feel that would be a complete waste of money?

If the governemnt wanted to run a program at the cost of the taxpayer to have all peoples food shopping done by a government employee....and the end result was the same food but at a price of 15% more than you would spend on your own.....would you lay back and say "works for me"?

Hey, I'm all about cutting out the middle man to make things more efficient. Look at my views on health insurance.

But I'll be honest, I don't have enough faith in the American people to all contribute as much as would be needed to help the sick, elderly, poor and crippled in this country. That's just not realistic to expect donations at the scale. Is the government doing it efficiently? Hell no, we all know that. But if my choices are the government mandating everyone pitch in to help through taxation, or leaving it up to "the kindness of peoples hearts", I just don't have the faith that my fellow Americans will come through. Reading the opinions of people on this site are enough to tell me that.

I disagree.

In NYC, when I pass a homeless man, I give..and so does pretty much every single person who passes him when I am in sight distance.

I watched citizens risk their lives to help people in Va when the plane hit the complex last week.

truck flipped on its side on the NYS thruway....I stopped my car and with about 10 other people that stopped, we all helped the driver out while deisel was spilling...

We actually turn away volunteers on Thanksgiving at a local shelter...and NEVER short handed on non holidays.

Are you aware of how many foundations there are?

Are you aware that the American people as a collective...NOT INCLUDING WHATTHE US GOVERNMENT GAVE...but the people as a collective alone gave more to Haiti after the earthquake than all other countries combined.

Have more faith in the American People.

I do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm fine with cutting and reforming, even at the rate you outlined, but what is cut within the programs would have to be discussed and agreed upon. Seems fair to me.

If you get to choose the defense cuts, then I get to choose the entitlement cuts.


So, how much do you want to cut from defense spending?

We can agree on the defense cuts too.

And I don't have a specific number for you. But I do know that removing all of our troops from the middle east and closing down a majority of our bases around the world, as well as discontinuing some of the more ridiculously expensive military equipment programs would be where I'd like to start the cutting.

Wait.... You complain about a 'bloated' defense budget, but cannot begin to begin to describe the degree to which it is bloated?

 

[Jarhead]

Hey, I'm all about cutting out the middle man to make things more efficient. Look at my views on health insurance.

But I'll be honest, I don't have enough faith in the American people to all contribute as much as would be needed to help the sick, elderly, poor and crippled in this country. That's just not realistic to expect donations at the scale. Is the government doing it efficiently? Hell no, we all know that. But if my choices are the government mandating everyone pitch in to help through taxation, or leaving it up to "the kindness of peoples hearts", I just don't have the faith that my fellow Americans will come through. Reading the opinions of people on this site are enough to tell me that.

So... you look to government to impose your version of morality on those that do not share the same view.

Show me someone who thinks that we shouldn't look after the sick, elderly and crippled and I'll show you someone who isn't an American.

We should and we do.
Why do we need to pay a third party...government...to do it for us?

 

[RDD_1210]

So... you look to government to impose your version of morality on those that do not share the same view.

Show me someone who thinks that we shouldn't look after the sick, elderly and crippled and I'll show you someone who isn't an American.

Since you are happy to have government impose your version of morality on others that do not share your same view, what standing do you have to complain when those others use that same governent to impose their differing morality upon you?

It's not "my version". It's what is known as being an American. Sorry if you don't agree with that Comrade.

 

[Jarhead]

Why can't I eat steak if I have no money? The government does it.

Steak is a luxury.
Whem money is tight, luxuries are the first to go.

Public welfare spending is a luxury.

An armed force that spends as much as the armies and navies and air forces of entire world combined is rather luxurious.

perhaps...

But if you are going to compare to other countries combined...why dont we ALSO compare the number of citizens of those countries combined that lost their lives fighting for OUR freedomn to the numkber of Americans that have died fighting for thier freedom.

 

[kaz]

Everyone knows that isn't true. Except for Republicans on taxes and limiting government.
And it makes us look like fools or uncompromising jerks.

Republicans made you look like a fool and an uncompromising jerk? Looks to me like you it on your own...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Show me someone who thinks that we shouldn't look after the sick, elderly and crippled and I'll show you someone who isn't an American.

Since you are happy to have government impose your version of morality on others that do not share your same view, what standing do you have to complain when those others use that same governent to impose their differing morality upon you?

It's not "my version"....

It very much is your version of morailty, as it is very much your version of what it means to be an American.
I ask again:
What standing do you then have to complain when those others use that same governent to impose their differing morality upon you?

 

[Jarhead]

Show me someone who thinks that we shouldn't look after the sick, elderly and crippled and I'll show you someone who isn't an American.

Since you are happy to have government impose your version of morality on others that do not share your same view, what standing do you have to complain when those others use that same governent to impose their differing morality upon you?

It's not "my version". It's what is known as being an American. Sorry if you don't agree with that Comrade.

Being American is helping others.

Not having government tell you who to help and how much to help them....and actually saying..."never mind, we will do it for you"

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, if you feel the only way to help your fellow man is through government programs, then yes, you are concerned you will fail to act on it on your own.

If you were sure you would act on it on your own, you would prefer taking the middle man out of the formula....and less money would go to the "cost of dcollecting and distributing" and more would go to the one who needs it.

Curious....do you feel the need to get a middle man to do your food shopping? Or do yopu feel that would be a complete waste of money?

If the governemnt wanted to run a program at the cost of the taxpayer to have all peoples food shopping done by a government employee....and the end result was the same food but at a price of 15% more than you would spend on your own.....would you lay back and say "works for me"?

Hey, I'm all about cutting out the middle man to make things more efficient. Look at my views on health insurance.

But I'll be honest, I don't have enough faith in the American people to all contribute as much as would be needed to help the sick, elderly, poor and crippled in this country. That's just not realistic to expect donations at the scale. Is the government doing it efficiently? Hell no, we all know that. But if my choices are the government mandating everyone pitch in to help through taxation, or leaving it up to "the kindness of peoples hearts", I just don't have the faith that my fellow Americans will come through. Reading the opinions of people on this site are enough to tell me that.

I disagree.

In NYC, when I pass a homeless man, I give..and so does pretty much every single person who passes him when I am in sight distance.

I watched citizens risk their lives to help people in Va when the plane hit the complex last week.

truck flipped on its side on the NYS thruway....I stopped my car and with about 10 other people that stopped, we all helped the driver out while deisel was spilling...

We actually turn away volunteers on Thanksgiving at a local shelter...and NEVER short handed on non holidays.

Are you aware of how many foundations there are?

Are you aware that the American people as a collective...NOT INCLUDING WHATTHE US GOVERNMENT GAVE...but the people as a collective alone gave more to Haiti after the earthquake than all other countries combined.

Have more faith in the American People.

I do.

I'm glad you have that faith in people. I don't unfortunately. Not when people on this site act like all poor people are the scourge of society and we have entire political party campaigning on raises taxes on the poorest among us. Let's just say I have my doubts as to whether America would do what is right and step up to the plate. We're a greedy society by nature and no amount of pitching in during a one-off crisis is enough to convince me otherwise.

 

[RDD_1210]

If you get to choose the defense cuts, then I get to choose the entitlement cuts.


So, how much do you want to cut from defense spending?

We can agree on the defense cuts too.

And I don't have a specific number for you. But I do know that removing all of our troops from the middle east and closing down a majority of our bases around the world, as well as discontinuing some of the more ridiculously expensive military equipment programs would be where I'd like to start the cutting.

Wait.... You complain about a 'bloated' defense budget, but cannot begin to begin to describe the degree to which it is bloated?

I described the degree, I didn't give you a specific figure off the top of my head. I don't know what each and every one of those things I listed costs, sorry. But like I said, I'd like to start the conversation with those and see where that gets us.

 

[Nosmo King]

Is it a matter of brutality?

Conservatives seem to favor brutality. If spending has to be cut, there is no question that any spending on people to make them healthy or sheltered or clothed or fed, Conservatives bring down the ax without blinking. Brutality.

If someone shoots an unarmed Black teenager, Conservatives work overtime to make that teenager a threat. they impugn his character, his manners, even the way he dresses. Because Conservatives favor brutality and shooting someone is brutal. That's why Conservatives favor no restrictions on the weapons Americans can buy. There should be no limit on brutality.

Opponents to Conservatives are considered stupid, bleeding heart, retarded, unthinking saps who are tree huggers, politically correct wimps. Seems there is no such thing as loyal opposition to Conservatives. It interferes with brutality.

Conservatives want government out of their lives, but entrenched in all other lives. A woman is not free to make a decision about her reproductive fate. She is not capable, if you ask Conservatives. And that justifies their brutality against women. It's for their own good, you see. Homosexuals cannot marry the person they love because Conservatives find it too icky. Besides, when you marginalize a segment of society, it makes it more palatable to brutalize them.

I want to know what are the virtues of the modern Conservative ideology. Why would anyone who was raised to be a little empathetic and compassionate toward his fellow humans want to sign on to the brutal Conservative agenda?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We can agree on the defense cuts too.

And I don't have a specific number for you. But I do know that removing all of our troops from the middle east and closing down a majority of our bases around the world, as well as discontinuing some of the more ridiculously expensive military equipment programs would be where I'd like to start the cutting.

Wait.... You complain about a 'bloated' defense budget, but cannot begin to begin to describe the degree to which it is bloated?

I described the degree, I didn't give you a specific figure off the top of my head. I don't know what each and every one of those things I listed costs, sorry. But like I said, I'd like to start the conversation with those and see where that gets us.

Interesting.
How can you argue 'bloated defense spending' when you admit you do not have even a basic knoweldge of what is spent, where, and why?