Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[danielpalos]

We've been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the early 19th century. During the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent far more on them. They never caused anything close to the debt we're going through now. Does that tell you something?

It tells me our priorities are wrong. Infrastructure and commerce are interrelated - especially when the products purchased to build, repair or maintain bridges, overpasses, roads, pipelines, canals, levees, power lines, public transportation, rail roads, runways, piers, etc. are purchased from American companies using American labor.

And yet by your own examples the far left is against infrastructure as they continue to deny Keystone being finished.

Thus if you want infrastructure do NOT vote far left, voting far left is never the answer..

No evidence has been presented to prove the approval of the Keystone XL will benefit the United States. If you have some, please post it.

The facts, as I understand them, suggest the pipeline will benefit Canadian private sector interests and private sector interests which operate refiners in Texas. They also put at risk, in the opinion of land owners in Nebraska, their lifestyle, and tar sand oils are environmental risky.

If I'm wrong provide evidence. I'd much prefer pipelines of clean water be built to provide water to the west for irrigation of crops. Same argument for jobs, long term and short term, but a greater benefit to the nation, and maybe the world.

And thus showing that the far left mantra of "infrastructure" is just a religious chant..

No, Infrastructure is not a "religious" chant but a secular and temporal chant due to our Commerce Clause.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We've been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the early 19th century. During the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent far more on them. They never caused anything close to the debt we're going through now. Does that tell you something?

It tells me our priorities are wrong. Infrastructure and commerce are interrelated - especially when the products purchased to build, repair or maintain bridges, overpasses, roads, pipelines, canals, levees, power lines, public transportation, rail roads, runways, piers, etc. are purchased from American companies using American labor.

And yet by your own examples the far left is against infrastructure as they continue to deny Keystone being finished.

Thus if you want infrastructure do NOT vote far left, voting far left is never the answer..

No evidence has been presented to prove the approval of the Keystone XL will benefit the United States. If you have some, please post it.

The facts, as I understand them, suggest the pipeline will benefit Canadian private sector interests and private sector interests which operate refiners in Texas. They also put at risk, in the opinion of land owners in Nebraska, their lifestyle, and tar sand oils are environmental risky.

If I'm wrong provide evidence. I'd much prefer pipelines of clean water be built to provide water to the west for irrigation of crops. Same argument for jobs, long term and short term, but a greater benefit to the nation, and maybe the world.

And thus showing that the far left mantra of "infrastructure" is just a religious chant..

No, Infrastructure is not a "religious" chant but a secular and temporal chant due to our Commerce Clause.

It's not a chant at all. It's a utility used every day by hundreds of millions of Americans.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. "Mantra" then.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

I'm sorry... I didn't see an answer to my question.
No, I didn't ask you direct,y but you responded with a red herring, which opens the question to you.
So...why you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

49 pages of crap, and no one managed to find the 500 billion necessary. Typical.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look, an outright personal attack from a mindless partisan.

Sorry that the truth hurts - but, the truth it remains.
Now tell us again why it is you support state-enforced involuntary servitude..

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

Since corporations can't do that, you're question is idiotic.

What do you think they did in the 19th century into the 20th? Or for that matter the sweet shops of China, etc?

They paid people a days wages for a days work. That isn't slavery.

And the people were free to leave their employer w/o said employer hunting them down and dragging them back.
Their employer also did not sell off their children.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't.

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't.

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot. But hardly mindless; look at what Gingrich wanted to cut, and look what the tea party and the callous conservatives want to cut - always the powerless: The needy, seniors and children.

In fact to justify the indefensible, they need to demean all who receive entitlements - well, not all, see:

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare - Forbes

From the link:

"I recently read the February 24 Good Jobs First report, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” by Philip Mattera, a respected thought leader in our business. It says that three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.

Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole. Where is the outrage? Back when I was young, people went into a frenzy at the thought of some unemployed person using food stamps to buy liquor or cigarettes. Ronald Reagan famously campaigned against welfare queens. The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks."

Not only do callous conservative lack the basic human trait of empathy, they are notoriously hypocritical. And yep, that makes me a bigot - I can live with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't.

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot.

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't.

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot.

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult who has empathy for the poor, the aged, the young and everyone whose life is negatively effected by greed, Republicans and the ideology of callous conservatives.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't.

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot.

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult...

Bigots are neither honest nor self-effacing.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

I'm sorry... I didn't see an answer to my question.
No, I didn't ask you direct,y but you responded with a red herring, which opens the question to you.
So...why you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?

"Wage slavery" is considered normal and moral even under our form of Capitalism regardless of the socialism of our supreme law of the land.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Wage slavery" is considered normal and moral even under our form of Capitalism regardless of the socialism of our supreme law of the land.

I'm sorry... I didn't see YOUR answer to my question.
No, I didn't ask you direct,y but you responded with a red herring, which opens the question to you.
So...why you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

I'm sorry... I didn't see an answer to my question.
No, I didn't ask you direct,y but you responded with a red herring, which opens the question to you.
So...why you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?

"Wage slavery" is considered normal and moral even under our form of Capitalism regardless of the socialism of our supreme law of the land.

What is the definition of "wage slavery," and how do you distinguish it from wage non-slavery?

 

[hadit]

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't.

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot.

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult who has empathy for the poor, the aged, the young and everyone whose life is negatively effected by greed, Republicans and the ideology of callous conservatives.

When you call a slight reduction in the increase in spending a "cut", you're not being honest. When you claim someone who wants to increase spending on the poor by 5%, for example, instead of 8% "callous", you're not being honest.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't.

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot.

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult who has empathy for the poor, the aged, the young and everyone whose life is negatively effected by greed, Republicans and the ideology of callous conservatives.

When you call a slight reduction in the increase in spending a "cut", you're not being honest. When you claim someone who wants to increase spending on the poor by 5%, for example, instead of 8% "callous", you're not being honest.

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

I won't accuse you of not being honest, but I suspect you allow your biases to interfere with you comprehension.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

Claiming that someone wants to cut spenidng because they don't want to increase spedning as much as you is, at BEST, dishonest.
But then, you're an admitted bigot and don't care about things like honesty.

 

[KissMy]

Fucking Republicans explode spending inflation prices & destroy the US dollar!!!

95% of all Republican members of congress & all their 2012 candidates signed pledge vowing to Destroy the US Dollar & Skyrocket Inflation!

 

[hadit]

Oh look -- mindless partisan bigotry.

Am I intolerant of callous conservatives, yes I am, and that may make me a bigot.

Admission of the problem is the first step - good for you.

Cool. I skipped the next steps, being a good and honest agnostic, and took step 4 to heart; there I made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and found an honest, self effacing adult who has empathy for the poor, the aged, the young and everyone whose life is negatively effected by greed, Republicans and the ideology of callous conservatives.

When you call a slight reduction in the increase in spending a "cut", you're not being honest. When you claim someone who wants to increase spending on the poor by 5%, for example, instead of 8% "callous", you're not being honest.

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

I won't accuse you of not being honest, but I suspect you allow your biases to interfere with you comprehension.

In the interest of being accurate, an increase from year to year is simply not a "cut". It can be described as a shortfall, but it is not a cut. A cut is a decrease from year to year.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe my post wondered if the cost to provide for the care of senior citizens may have risen 8% and the Republicans only wanted to fund up to 5%, which is effectively a cut, that is the seniors would need to pay more.

Claiming that someone wants to cut spenidng because they don't want to increase spedning as much as you is, at BEST, dishonest.
But then, you're an admitted bigot and don't care about things like honesty.

Fuck you.