We have a serious spending problem - and it can't be disputed

[P@triot]

Defense spending is $550 billion per year. Absolutely nothing. It's the Dumbocrat Social Security program and the Dumbocrat Medicare program which cost the other $1.5 trillion. Oops...looks like you at the one who has no clue what he is talking about. And since both of those are unconstitutional (the federal government simply had no authority to take money from people for social programs - period), it once again illustrates the failures of liberal policy and liberal ideology.

Would you like to try again junior?

bullshit .. we have spent almost 1TRILLION $$$ in the mid east you idiot. Apparently that's not enough either, the RW's are chanting "BOOTS" as we speak ..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/ready-for-boots-on-the-ground-in-

when it boils down to being broke ANYTHING the RW's spend of the military is TOO much, either that or we're not broke like they want everyone to believe

The annual defense budget is $550 billion chief. You may want to do your homework before wildly posting emotional nonsense that strips you of any credibility in the future.

The "$1 trillion" you cite is since 9/11. That was 13 years ago. At $550 billion per year over 13 years you get $7.1 trillion. So basically, we've properly spent about 1/7th of our budgeted dollars on a constitutional responsibility of the federal government in the Middle East.

In that same time, we've spent $19.5 trillion on two failed Dumbocrat programs which are unconstitutional (or $18 trillion more than we spent on defending this nation). Mmmm... a constitutional $1 trillion over 13 years to keep us free or an unconstitutional $19.5 trillion over 13 years to encourage people not to hold jobs but instead to live off of the government plantation as good little servants.

Gee...this is a tough decision. Which one is better for America? If only liberals utilized sound analytical thought as opposed to emotion for their decision making process!

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

Junior? .. that's rich.

It's All about you isn't it? Typical RW'r, ME ME ME screw everyone else, unless of course some third world reghead is getting pushed around then its America to the rescue at any expense, and in the interim consistently turn their backs on fellow Americans who aren't as fortunate as they are .. Go blow a gasket elsewhere, I'm less than impressed with your talking points.

It's all about YOU, isn't it? Typical LW'r - greedy, greedy, greedy - screw America and what my mooching does to the nation, even if it collapses it. Tell me, why aren't you liberals willing to make any sacrifices for this nation? Don't you remember what your golden boy famously said? "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? All you liberals do is ask - no, make that demand - what your country can hand you.

Nothing illustrates just how radicalized the left has become than that simple JFK quote from just a few short decades ago. It used to be that the Democrat party expected their supporters to make sacrifices for this country. Now you selfish people expect the country to make sacrifices for you.

If you're doing ok Siete, why don't you take your money and provide the food, housing, healthcare, and retirement that you think so many people need? Why does everybody else have to do it while you hoard everything like a greedy little liberal? And if you're struggling, why don't you make sacrifices for this nation and accept the fact that you may have to do without healthcare, or retirement, etc.? "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Go blow a gasket elsewhere Siete. I'm less than impressed with your very weak and pitiful wing-nut talking points.

 

[P@triot]

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than 2 trillion study Reuters

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you genius, but whether we are in Iraq or not, our veterans earn benefits. They earn the exact same access to healthcare whether they served in peacetime or wartime. They earn the exact same college tuition whether they were in Iraq or Arizona.

Also, why do you keep bringing up Iraq and defense when the unconstitutional federal social programs cost exponentially more? Could it be because you can't defend those programs, so you need to change the debate and (very weakly might I add) attempt to distract everyone?

 

[Dad2three]

bullshit .. we have spent almost 1TRILLION $$$ in the mid east you idiot. Apparently that's not enough either, the RW's are chanting "BOOTS" as we speak ..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/ready-for-boots-on-the-ground-in-

when it boils down to being broke ANYTHING the RW's spend of the military is TOO much, either that or we're not broke like they want everyone to believe

The annual defense budget is $550 billion chief. You may want to do your homework before wildly posting emotional nonsense that strips you of any credibility in the future.

The "$1 trillion" you cite is since 9/11. That was 13 years ago. At $550 billion per year over 13 years you get $7.1 trillion. So basically, we've properly spent about 1/7th of our budgeted dollars on a constitutional responsibility of the federal government in the Middle East.

In that same time, we've spent $19.5 trillion on two failed Dumbocrat programs which are unconstitutional (or $18 trillion more than we spent on defending this nation). Mmmm... a constitutional $1 trillion over 13 years to keep us free or an unconstitutional $19.5 trillion over 13 years to encourage people not to hold jobs but instead to live off of the government plantation as good little servants.

Gee...this is a tough decision. Which one is better for America? If only liberals utilized sound analytical thought as opposed to emotion for their decision making process!

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

Junior? .. that's rich.

It's All about you isn't it? Typical RW'r, ME ME ME screw everyone else, unless of course some third world reghead is getting pushed around then its America to the rescue at any expense, and in the interim consistently turn their backs on fellow Americans who aren't as fortunate as they are .. Go blow a gasket elsewhere, I'm less than impressed with your talking points.

It's all about YOU, isn't it? Typical LW'r - greedy, greedy, greedy - screw America and what my mooching does to the nation, even if it collapses it. Tell me, why aren't you liberals willing to make any sacrifices for this nation? Don't you remember what your golden boy famously said? "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? All you liberals do is ask - no, make that demand - what your country can hand you.

Nothing illustrates just how radicalized the left has become than that simple JFK quote from just a few short decades ago. It used to be that the Democrat party expected their supporters to make sacrifices for this country. Now you selfish people expect the country to make sacrifices for you.

If you're doing ok Siete, why don't you take your money and provide the food, housing, healthcare, and retirement that you think so many people need? Why does everybody else have to do it while you hoard everything like a greedy little liberal? And if you're struggling, why don't you make sacrifices for this nation and accept the fact that you may have to do without healthcare, or retirement, etc.? "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Go blow a gasket elsewhere Siete. I'm less than impressed with your very weak and pitiful wing-nut talking points.

After 33+ years of right wing 'trickle down'? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than 2 trillion study Reuters

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you genius, but whether we are in Iraq or not, our veterans earn benefits. They earn the exact same access to healthcare whether they served in peacetime or wartime. They earn the exact same college tuition whether they were in Iraq or Arizona.

Also, why do you keep bringing up Iraq and defense when the unconstitutional federal social programs cost exponentially more? Could it be because you can't defend those programs, so you need to change the debate and (very weakly might I add) attempt to distract everyone?

So you can't critically think? Seriously? Did we pay for MORE military, more bombs, planes, etc? THAT'S the EXTRA costs DUMMY

 

[Dad2three]

The annual defense budget is $550 billion chief. You may want to do your homework before wildly posting emotional nonsense that strips you of any credibility in the future.

The "$1 trillion" you cite is since 9/11. That was 13 years ago. At $550 billion per year over 13 years you get $7.1 trillion. So basically, we've properly spent about 1/7th of our budgeted dollars on a constitutional responsibility of the federal government in the Middle East.

In that same time, we've spent $19.5 trillion on two failed Dumbocrat programs which are unconstitutional (or $18 trillion more than we spent on defending this nation). Mmmm... a constitutional $1 trillion over 13 years to keep us free or an unconstitutional $19.5 trillion over 13 years to encourage people not to hold jobs but instead to live off of the government plantation as good little servants.

Gee...this is a tough decision. Which one is better for America? If only liberals utilized sound analytical thought as opposed to emotion for their decision making process!

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

Some people would do fine without SS and Medicare. The problem is that there are many who would not save what they needed to for retirement, and then we would have tens of millions of retirees with no income at all, along with no health coverage. Can you imagine the disaster that would create? Government would then have to find a way to support all those people because leaving them to rot in the street would not be acceptable. Doing so would turn the US into a third world country. Unfortunately, most cons do not understand or they just do not care about the welfare of society as a whole, so long as they are doing fine. The problem is that even they would pay a huge price if their policies were put fully into place.

Auditor, do you really not see the absurdity of your position? You're treating all people like children. Which means you have a very smug, arrogant view of yourself. If you don't force people into your view of utopia, they won't be able to make it on their own. That's basically your position - and it's equal parts absurd and appalling.

First of all, grown adults do not need liberals thinking for them. Second, if grown adults fail to "save what they need for retirement", that is their problem. The U.S. would not magically transform into some "3rd world country" simply because some people were irresponsible (hyperbole much???). Third and most importantly, government is not made up of some magical entitity. It is made up of the same flawed people you believe are too irresponsible to save for themselves. So if America is made up of people who are too responsible to save for themselves, how in the hell can they be expected to run massive programs that saves for all people in the entire nation? Nice "logic" there chief.

As usual, a liberal can't make an intelligent case for their irrational position so they just cry hyperbole (the blood will run in the street, America will become a third-world nation, yada, yada, yada). Leave people alone. The Constitution guarantees them their freedom. Let them succeed and fail on their own. People do not need some righteous, smug lib telling them what they think is best for society. If you believe these social programs are so great Auditor, then create your own and allow people the freedom to participate or not.

But of course - we won't see that because the programs are not about retirement plans for liberals. The programs are simply ways for libs to mooch off of society. Don't pay anything in, but spend their life taking out welfare checks, food stamps, healthcare, and finally

History (The thing conservatives NEVER remember) says you are a moron and liar

 

[Dad2three]

bullshit .. we have spent almost 1TRILLION $$$ in the mid east you idiot. Apparently that's not enough either, the RW's are chanting "BOOTS" as we speak ..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/ready-for-boots-on-the-ground-in-

when it boils down to being broke ANYTHING the RW's spend of the military is TOO much, either that or we're not broke like they want everyone to believe

The annual defense budget is $550 billion chief. You may want to do your homework before wildly posting emotional nonsense that strips you of any credibility in the future.

The "$1 trillion" you cite is since 9/11. That was 13 years ago. At $550 billion per year over 13 years you get $7.1 trillion. So basically, we've properly spent about 1/7th of our budgeted dollars on a constitutional responsibility of the federal government in the Middle East.

In that same time, we've spent $19.5 trillion on two failed Dumbocrat programs which are unconstitutional (or $18 trillion more than we spent on defending this nation). Mmmm... a constitutional $1 trillion over 13 years to keep us free or an unconstitutional $19.5 trillion over 13 years to encourage people not to hold jobs but instead to live off of the government plantation as good little servants.

Gee...this is a tough decision. Which one is better for America? If only liberals utilized sound analytical thought as opposed to emotion for their decision making process!

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

I rest my case your honor... the left is not only arrogant ("you people need me to think for you"), but they can't construct an intelligent argument to support their very irrational position.

Since clearly D2Three is incapable of explaining his support for failed (not to mention - unconstitutional) social programs, would any other liberals like to take a shot at it?

 

[P@triot]

The annual defense budget is $550 billion chief. You may want to do your homework before wildly posting emotional nonsense that strips you of any credibility in the future.

The "$1 trillion" you cite is since 9/11. That was 13 years ago. At $550 billion per year over 13 years you get $7.1 trillion. So basically, we've properly spent about 1/7th of our budgeted dollars on a constitutional responsibility of the federal government in the Middle East.

In that same time, we've spent $19.5 trillion on two failed Dumbocrat programs which are unconstitutional (or $18 trillion more than we spent on defending this nation). Mmmm... a constitutional $1 trillion over 13 years to keep us free or an unconstitutional $19.5 trillion over 13 years to encourage people not to hold jobs but instead to live off of the government plantation as good little servants.

Gee...this is a tough decision. Which one is better for America? If only liberals utilized sound analytical thought as opposed to emotion for their decision making process!

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

Junior? .. that's rich.

It's All about you isn't it? Typical RW'r, ME ME ME screw everyone else, unless of course some third world reghead is getting pushed around then its America to the rescue at any expense, and in the interim consistently turn their backs on fellow Americans who aren't as fortunate as they are .. Go blow a gasket elsewhere, I'm less than impressed with your talking points.

It's all about YOU, isn't it? Typical LW'r - greedy, greedy, greedy - screw America and what my mooching does to the nation, even if it collapses it. Tell me, why aren't you liberals willing to make any sacrifices for this nation? Don't you remember what your golden boy famously said? "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? All you liberals do is ask - no, make that demand - what your country can hand you.

Nothing illustrates just how radicalized the left has become than that simple JFK quote from just a few short decades ago. It used to be that the Democrat party expected their supporters to make sacrifices for this country. Now you selfish people expect the country to make sacrifices for you.

If you're doing ok Siete, why don't you take your money and provide the food, housing, healthcare, and retirement that you think so many people need? Why does everybody else have to do it while you hoard everything like a greedy little liberal? And if you're struggling, why don't you make sacrifices for this nation and accept the fact that you may have to do without healthcare, or retirement, etc.? "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Go blow a gasket elsewhere Siete. I'm less than impressed with your very weak and pitiful wing-nut talking points.

After 33+ years of right wing 'trickle down'? lol

There are two ways - and only two ways - to run an economy. Free market capitalism which creates tremendous wealth and prosperity for all as the wealth "trickles down" or "Trickle-up-poverty" in which Democrats make sure that failure and sloth is rewarded while success and hard work is punished.

Here is an undeniable truth that is going to make D2T here throw his government-issued computer across the room...

 

[P@triot]

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than 2 trillion study Reuters

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you genius, but whether we are in Iraq or not, our veterans earn benefits. They earn the exact same access to healthcare whether they served in peacetime or wartime. They earn the exact same college tuition whether they were in Iraq or Arizona.

Also, why do you keep bringing up Iraq and defense when the unconstitutional federal social programs cost exponentially more? Could it be because you can't defend those programs, so you need to change the debate and (very weakly might I add) attempt to distract everyone?

So you can't critically think? Seriously? Did we pay for MORE military, more bombs, planes, etc? THAT'S the EXTRA costs DUMMY

Uh....one problem there junior....bombs and planes are not "benefits". Oops! You keep jumping from one talking point to another because your position contradicts itself. Two posts ago you complained about how the Iraq war cost "benefits" and then when I explained to you that military benefits are not contingent upon "seeing action" you responded by irrationally and absurdly stating that I can't critically think because wars cost more bombs and planes - even though bombs and planes are not military benefits. Unless you think that the U.S. government provides veterans with bombs and planes.

You're not terribly bright, are you? It now makes sense why you vote Dumbocrat.

 

[P@triot]

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

Some people would do fine without SS and Medicare. The problem is that there are many who would not save what they needed to for retirement, and then we would have tens of millions of retirees with no income at all, along with no health coverage. Can you imagine the disaster that would create? Government would then have to find a way to support all those people because leaving them to rot in the street would not be acceptable. Doing so would turn the US into a third world country. Unfortunately, most cons do not understand or they just do not care about the welfare of society as a whole, so long as they are doing fine. The problem is that even they would pay a huge price if their policies were put fully into place.

Auditor, do you really not see the absurdity of your position? You're treating all people like children. Which means you have a very smug, arrogant view of yourself. If you don't force people into your view of utopia, they won't be able to make it on their own. That's basically your position - and it's equal parts absurd and appalling.

First of all, grown adults do not need liberals thinking for them. Second, if grown adults fail to "save what they need for retirement", that is their problem. The U.S. would not magically transform into some "3rd world country" simply because some people were irresponsible (hyperbole much???). Third and most importantly, government is not made up of some magical entitity. It is made up of the same flawed people you believe are too irresponsible to save for themselves. So if America is made up of people who are too responsible to save for themselves, how in the hell can they be expected to run massive programs that saves for all people in the entire nation? Nice "logic" there chief.

As usual, a liberal can't make an intelligent case for their irrational position so they just cry hyperbole (the blood will run in the street, America will become a third-world nation, yada, yada, yada). Leave people alone. The Constitution guarantees them their freedom. Let them succeed and fail on their own. People do not need some righteous, smug lib telling them what they think is best for society. If you believe these social programs are so great Auditor, then create your own and allow people the freedom to participate or not.

But of course - we won't see that because the programs are not about retirement plans for liberals. The programs are simply ways for libs to mooch off of society. Don't pay anything in, but spend their life taking out welfare checks, food stamps, healthcare, and finally

History (The thing conservatives NEVER remember) says you are a moron and liar

Well that's not very nice! It looks like someone is acting out like a small child over the inability to dispute the inconvenient facts.

Hang in there brother! You can always move to Cuba or Cambodia (I hear the weather is really nice - though I must admit I have never visited either).

 

[P@triot]

The annual defense budget is $550 billion chief. You may want to do your homework before wildly posting emotional nonsense that strips you of any credibility in the future.

The "$1 trillion" you cite is since 9/11. That was 13 years ago. At $550 billion per year over 13 years you get $7.1 trillion. So basically, we've properly spent about 1/7th of our budgeted dollars on a constitutional responsibility of the federal government in the Middle East.

In that same time, we've spent $19.5 trillion on two failed Dumbocrat programs which are unconstitutional (or $18 trillion more than we spent on defending this nation). Mmmm... a constitutional $1 trillion over 13 years to keep us free or an unconstitutional $19.5 trillion over 13 years to encourage people not to hold jobs but instead to live off of the government plantation as good little servants.

Gee...this is a tough decision. Which one is better for America? If only liberals utilized sound analytical thought as opposed to emotion for their decision making process!

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

I rest my case your honor... the left is not only arrogant ("you people need me to think for you"), but they can't construct an intelligent argument to support their very irrational position.

Since clearly D2Three is incapable of explaining his support for failed (not to mention - unconstitutional) social programs, would any other liberals like to take a shot at it?

Well that is some vintage liberal "logic" for you! You know what else "reduces the number of seniors in poverty"? Killing any senior in poverty (which is essentially what Joseph Stalin did in the Soviet Union after the same policies you advocate failed and started to collapse the nation). Yep, if you kill every senior in poverty you would have a senior poverty rate of 0%.

But I don't recommend something that stupid and heartless. Just like I don't recommend something as stupid and heartless as Social Security. Where a person has a gun placed to their head and is forced to put a dollar into a fund for their retirement, only to have the federal government chew up $0.50 of that for themselves and redistribute another $.30 of that to other citizens, leaving the person with exactly $.20 of their original dollar for retirement. Only a Dumbocrat could think that's a good retirement plan

 

[P@triot]

The annual defense budget is $550 billion chief. You may want to do your homework before wildly posting emotional nonsense that strips you of any credibility in the future.

The "$1 trillion" you cite is since 9/11. That was 13 years ago. At $550 billion per year over 13 years you get $7.1 trillion. So basically, we've properly spent about 1/7th of our budgeted dollars on a constitutional responsibility of the federal government in the Middle East.

In that same time, we've spent $19.5 trillion on two failed Dumbocrat programs which are unconstitutional (or $18 trillion more than we spent on defending this nation). Mmmm... a constitutional $1 trillion over 13 years to keep us free or an unconstitutional $19.5 trillion over 13 years to encourage people not to hold jobs but instead to live off of the government plantation as good little servants.

Gee...this is a tough decision. Which one is better for America? If only liberals utilized sound analytical thought as opposed to emotion for their decision making process!

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

I rest my case your honor... the left is not only arrogant ("you people need me to think for you"), but they can't construct an intelligent argument to support their very irrational position.

Since clearly D2Three is incapable of explaining his support for failed (not to mention - unconstitutional) social programs, would any other liberals like to take a shot at it?

Doh! I'm not going to lie to you D2T - this is going to sting a bit (the facts usually do for liberals).

In his new memoir Stress Test, former treasury secretary Timothy Geitner recalls at least one instance in which he was encouraged by the Obama White House to be less than truthful:

I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when [White House senior advisor] Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.

Former treasury secretary Timothy Geithner says White House told him to lie to the American people

My favorite part was when Pfeiffer said (and I quote) "the line was a 'dog whistle' to the left". In other words, the liberal elite views the liberal minion as a useful idiot to be manipulated through lies. They view you people as obedient dogs and you keep giving them more of your money and more power over you - and then you believe that they "care" about you

 

[Dad2three]

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

I rest my case your honor... the left is not only arrogant ("you people need me to think for you"), but they can't construct an intelligent argument to support their very irrational position.

Since clearly D2Three is incapable of explaining his support for failed (not to mention - unconstitutional) social programs, would any other liberals like to take a shot at it?

Doh! I'm not going to lie to you D2T - this is going to sting a bit (the facts usually do for liberals).

In his new memoir Stress Test, former treasury secretary Timothy Geitner recalls at least one instance in which he was encouraged by the Obama White House to be less than truthful:

I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when [White House senior advisor] Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.

Former treasury secretary Timothy Geithner says White House told him to lie to the American people

My favorite part was when Pfeiffer said (and I quote) "the line was a 'dog whistle' to the left". In other words, the liberal elite views the liberal minion as a useful idiot to be manipulated through lies. They view you people as obedient dogs and you keep giving them more of your money and more power over you - and then you believe that they "care" about you

My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan, admitting the Iran-Contra Affair, March 1987 ...


The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

Junior? .. that's rich.

It's All about you isn't it? Typical RW'r, ME ME ME screw everyone else, unless of course some third world reghead is getting pushed around then its America to the rescue at any expense, and in the interim consistently turn their backs on fellow Americans who aren't as fortunate as they are .. Go blow a gasket elsewhere, I'm less than impressed with your talking points.

It's all about YOU, isn't it? Typical LW'r - greedy, greedy, greedy - screw America and what my mooching does to the nation, even if it collapses it. Tell me, why aren't you liberals willing to make any sacrifices for this nation? Don't you remember what your golden boy famously said? "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? All you liberals do is ask - no, make that demand - what your country can hand you.

Nothing illustrates just how radicalized the left has become than that simple JFK quote from just a few short decades ago. It used to be that the Democrat party expected their supporters to make sacrifices for this country. Now you selfish people expect the country to make sacrifices for you.

If you're doing ok Siete, why don't you take your money and provide the food, housing, healthcare, and retirement that you think so many people need? Why does everybody else have to do it while you hoard everything like a greedy little liberal? And if you're struggling, why don't you make sacrifices for this nation and accept the fact that you may have to do without healthcare, or retirement, etc.? "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Go blow a gasket elsewhere Siete. I'm less than impressed with your very weak and pitiful wing-nut talking points.

After 33+ years of right wing 'trickle down'? lol

There are two ways - and only two ways - to run an economy. Free market capitalism which creates tremendous wealth and prosperity for all as the wealth "trickles down" or "Trickle-up-poverty" in which Democrats make sure that failure and sloth is rewarded while success and hard work is punished.

Here is an undeniable truth that is going to make D2T here throw his government-issued computer across the room...

Weird, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, how'd that work out again?

 

[Dad2three]

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than 2 trillion study Reuters

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you genius, but whether we are in Iraq or not, our veterans earn benefits. They earn the exact same access to healthcare whether they served in peacetime or wartime. They earn the exact same college tuition whether they were in Iraq or Arizona.

Also, why do you keep bringing up Iraq and defense when the unconstitutional federal social programs cost exponentially more? Could it be because you can't defend those programs, so you need to change the debate and (very weakly might I add) attempt to distract everyone?

So you can't critically think? Seriously? Did we pay for MORE military, more bombs, planes, etc? THAT'S the EXTRA costs DUMMY

Uh....one problem there junior....bombs and planes are not "benefits". Oops! You keep jumping from one talking point to another because your position contradicts itself. Two posts ago you complained about how the Iraq war cost "benefits" and then when I explained to you that military benefits are not contingent upon "seeing action" you responded by irrationally and absurdly stating that I can't critically think because wars cost more bombs and planes - even though bombs and planes are not military benefits. Unless you think that the U.S. government provides veterans with bombs and planes.

You're not terribly bright, are you? It now makes sense why you vote Dumbocrat.

Got it, you don't understand what constitutes funding a war is. I'm shocked

 

[Dad2three]

you're so full of shit your eyes are brown ... gee.

people paying into a program that provides them some income when they become seniors OR people paying taxes to prop up a war and they get dumbasses like you telling them how much better off they are ...

tough decision indeed ... the country has decided RW's are brain dead morons.

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

I rest my case your honor... the left is not only arrogant ("you people need me to think for you"), but they can't construct an intelligent argument to support their very irrational position.

Since clearly D2Three is incapable of explaining his support for failed (not to mention - unconstitutional) social programs, would any other liberals like to take a shot at it?

Well that is some vintage liberal "logic" for you! You know what else "reduces the number of seniors in poverty"? Killing any senior in poverty (which is essentially what Joseph Stalin did in the Soviet Union after the same policies you advocate failed and started to collapse the nation). Yep, if you kill every senior in poverty you would have a senior poverty rate of 0%.

But I don't recommend something that stupid and heartless. Just like I don't recommend something as stupid and heartless as Social Security. Where a person has a gun placed to their head and is forced to put a dollar into a fund for their retirement, only to have the federal government chew up $0.50 of that for themselves and redistribute another $.30 of that to other citizens, leaving the person with exactly $.20 of their original dollar for retirement. Only a Dumbocrat could think that's a good retirement plan

Got it, conservative 'math' lol

How's that 'freedom' going Ronnie warned about when we passed Medicare?

 

[JoeB131]

I rest my case your honor... the left is not only arrogant ("you people need me to think for you"), but they can't construct an intelligent argument to support their very irrational position.

Since clearly D2Three is incapable of explaining his support for failed (not to mention - unconstitutional) social programs, would any other liberals like to take a shot at it?

Even if we explained it to you, you still wouldn't understand it.

In your ideal world, you think poor people would rather happily starve rather than deprive you of your stuff.

 

[JoeB131]

First of all, grown adults do not need liberals thinking for them. Second, if grown adults fail to "save what they need for retirement", that is their problem. The U.S. would not magically transform into some "3rd world country" simply because some people were irresponsible (hyperbole much???). Third and most importantly, government is not made up of some magical entitity. It is made up of the same flawed people you believe are too irresponsible to save for themselves. So if America is made up of people who are too responsible to save for themselves, how in the hell can they be expected to run massive programs that saves for all people in the entire nation? Nice "logic" there chief.

Poodle, it's not a matter of people being "responsible'. It's a matter that most of us are too busy living and working to really be on the lookout for every scammer and asshole who wants to cheat them out of it.

So, yeah, I'd rather have my health care run by the government than a guy who is looking for a nine-figure payout for getting me off their policy because I got too sick.

 

[P@triot]

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

Junior? .. that's rich.

It's All about you isn't it? Typical RW'r, ME ME ME screw everyone else, unless of course some third world reghead is getting pushed around then its America to the rescue at any expense, and in the interim consistently turn their backs on fellow Americans who aren't as fortunate as they are .. Go blow a gasket elsewhere, I'm less than impressed with your talking points.

It's all about YOU, isn't it? Typical LW'r - greedy, greedy, greedy - screw America and what my mooching does to the nation, even if it collapses it. Tell me, why aren't you liberals willing to make any sacrifices for this nation? Don't you remember what your golden boy famously said? "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? All you liberals do is ask - no, make that demand - what your country can hand you.

Nothing illustrates just how radicalized the left has become than that simple JFK quote from just a few short decades ago. It used to be that the Democrat party expected their supporters to make sacrifices for this country. Now you selfish people expect the country to make sacrifices for you.

If you're doing ok Siete, why don't you take your money and provide the food, housing, healthcare, and retirement that you think so many people need? Why does everybody else have to do it while you hoard everything like a greedy little liberal? And if you're struggling, why don't you make sacrifices for this nation and accept the fact that you may have to do without healthcare, or retirement, etc.? "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Go blow a gasket elsewhere Siete. I'm less than impressed with your very weak and pitiful wing-nut talking points.

After 33+ years of right wing 'trickle down'? lol

There are two ways - and only two ways - to run an economy. Free market capitalism which creates tremendous wealth and prosperity for all as the wealth "trickles down" or "Trickle-up-poverty" in which Democrats make sure that failure and sloth is rewarded while success and hard work is punished.

Here is an undeniable truth that is going to make D2T here throw his government-issued computer across the room...

Weird, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, how'd that work out again?

Actually, quite well. We had significantly lower unemployment than we ever had under Barack Obama and the "Trickle-Up-Poverty" policies that you support.

By the way, after 60+ years of complete and total Dumbocrat control in Detroit (that's 60 straight years of a Dumbocrat mayor and a Dumbocrat-controlled city council), how'd that work out? Oh, that's right - rampant poverty, some of the nations highest unemployment, dilapidated buildings as far as the eye can see, and the city ultimately filing for......bankruptcy!

That's right - the ultimate liberal utopia (from control, to taxes, to wealth redistribution, to the biggest unions in the world) ended in bankruptcy. And not just for the city either! It also ended in bankruptcy for GM, Ford, and Chrysler who all had to go grovel before Congress for a "bailout" because ignorant liberal unions had sucked the organizations dry of all of their cash flow.

The debate is over my friend. You've been buried in an avalanche of facts that proves your selfishly supporting policies that collapse companies, cities, states, and nations all so you can mooch like a parasite.

 

[P@triot]

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than 2 trillion study Reuters

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you genius, but whether we are in Iraq or not, our veterans earn benefits. They earn the exact same access to healthcare whether they served in peacetime or wartime. They earn the exact same college tuition whether they were in Iraq or Arizona.

Also, why do you keep bringing up Iraq and defense when the unconstitutional federal social programs cost exponentially more? Could it be because you can't defend those programs, so you need to change the debate and (very weakly might I add) attempt to distract everyone?

So you can't critically think? Seriously? Did we pay for MORE military, more bombs, planes, etc? THAT'S the EXTRA costs DUMMY

Uh....one problem there junior....bombs and planes are not "benefits". Oops! You keep jumping from one talking point to another because your position contradicts itself. Two posts ago you complained about how the Iraq war cost "benefits" and then when I explained to you that military benefits are not contingent upon "seeing action" you responded by irrationally and absurdly stating that I can't critically think because wars cost more bombs and planes - even though bombs and planes are not military benefits. Unless you think that the U.S. government provides veterans with bombs and planes.

You're not terribly bright, are you? It now makes sense why you vote Dumbocrat.

Got it, you don't understand what constitutes funding a war is. I'm shocked

Says the man who states that the operations in Iraq cost us tons of money in "benefits" and when informed that military benefits are not contingent upon "seeing action", cites bombs and planes as "proof" of the cost of military benefits...

 

[P@triot]

Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior" when that costs money for people to administrate that program - hence about half of what I put in is skimmed for the cost of the government jobs to run it? Why not just eliminate the middle-man, save my own money and enjoy 100% of my money as a senior?

"Tell me junior, why do I need government to force me into a program that is supposed to "provide me with some income when I'm a senior""

Because you are to stupid to do it otherwise?

I rest my case your honor... the left is not only arrogant ("you people need me to think for you"), but they can't construct an intelligent argument to support their very irrational position.

Since clearly D2Three is incapable of explaining his support for failed (not to mention - unconstitutional) social programs, would any other liberals like to take a shot at it?

Well that is some vintage liberal "logic" for you! You know what else "reduces the number of seniors in poverty"? Killing any senior in poverty (which is essentially what Joseph Stalin did in the Soviet Union after the same policies you advocate failed and started to collapse the nation). Yep, if you kill every senior in poverty you would have a senior poverty rate of 0%.

But I don't recommend something that stupid and heartless. Just like I don't recommend something as stupid and heartless as Social Security. Where a person has a gun placed to their head and is forced to put a dollar into a fund for their retirement, only to have the federal government chew up $0.50 of that for themselves and redistribute another $.30 of that to other citizens, leaving the person with exactly $.20 of their original dollar for retirement. Only a Dumbocrat could think that's a good retirement plan

Got it, conservative 'math' lol

How's that 'freedom' going Ronnie warned about when we passed Medicare?

Sadly, exactly as he warned. Now, because the federal government can't afford their socialized healthcare (because it drastically drove up the cost of healthcare), we are all unconstitutionally forced to purchase health insurance under Obamacare.

So each time the Dumbocrats pass an unconstitutional socialist program and it fails (just as conservatives warned them it would), their solution is to pass a larger unconstitutional socialist program because they laughably believe that the more they control things the more they can "fix" things (even though history has proven that absurd theory wrong over and over). That form of " logic" would be like a person who can't afford their Ford Fiesta trading it in for a Lamborghini. If you can't afford the Ford Fiesta, you sure as hell won't be able to afford the Lamborghini. But then again, if these people actually valued logic & reason over ideology, they wouldn't be liberals in the first place.