Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[danielpalos]

What is missing in this hackneyed post is what is always missing: What are the inherent cost deficits and what are the unintended consequences? It takes more than a bromide to solve problems, try for a little critical thinking.

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

I believe we should merely solve for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Socialism is a parasite on capitalism. The idea of it "bailing out" capitalism is as absurd as a teaching a lion to eat grass.

No it isn't. It merely requires a clue and a Cause. Socialism bails out capitalism all the time. Simply having a public sector is a form of socialism.

It doesn't "bail out" capitalism. It sucks off capitalism.

No, it doesn't. It bails out capitalism merely by enabling the socialism of States and statism.

 

[bripat9643]

. Under genuine capitalism there's no such thing as "too big to fail." Anyone who believes in "privatizing the gain and socializing the risk" is not a capitalist.

Well no shit. Today's bankers are not capitalists. Cause they all believe they are to big to fail. Shoot the motherfuckers is what I say. But I liked the qualifier you put in; genuine capitalist. Where you find those? China?

Government doesn't produce anything, so it's absurd to claim that the government bailed out the banks. The taxpayers bailed out the banks - and by that I mean people who work for private companies.

. The taxpayers haven't bailed anyone out directly The government bailed out the banks with borrowed money. And the taxpayers will pay the debt from the borrowing to bail out the banks with taxes collected by the government. The banks were bailed out by the government.

Or did you send 5$ to the banker of your choice to "bail" them out? How nice.

You just admitted the taxpayers paid for the bailout. The government has no money of its own, so it's idiotic to speak of government "bailing out" anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

I believe we should merely solve for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Socialism is a parasite on capitalism. The idea of it "bailing out" capitalism is as absurd as a teaching a lion to eat grass.

No it isn't. It merely requires a clue and a Cause. Socialism bails out capitalism all the time. Simply having a public sector is a form of socialism.

It doesn't "bail out" capitalism. It sucks off capitalism.

No, it doesn't. It bails out capitalism merely by enabling the socialism of States and statism.

No, that just places a bigger burden on capitalism. Government has no money of its own. Everything it spends it has to obtain from the capitalist economy. It's positively idiotic to claim that socialism could "bail out" capitalism.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

I believe we should merely solve for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Socialism is a parasite on capitalism. The idea of it "bailing out" capitalism is as absurd as a teaching a lion to eat grass.

No it isn't. It merely requires a clue and a Cause. Socialism bails out capitalism all the time. Simply having a public sector is a form of socialism.

It doesn't "bail out" capitalism. It sucks off capitalism.

No, it doesn't. It bails out capitalism merely by enabling the socialism of States and statism.

Pushing that idiotic argument on other threads too, I see.

 

[Wry Catcher]

* * * *

Sorry, you haven't convinced me.

LOL. Like there was ever any chance of you having an open mind or being subject to persuasion by truthful facts and valid logic?

If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4?

MY "position" on what aspect of this entire conversation? But, cutting to the chase: I am quite sure that the SCOTUS took for itself the power of Judicial Review just as I am sure that it is a matter of implication rather than an explicit grant of authority. And it comes up with lots of non unanimous decisions because it is a body of human beings who view things through the filter of their own biases, prejudices, experiences, etc.

It's not at all clear why that makes the slightest difference here.


And by the way, unlike you, I already know what the the term "GENERAL WELFARE" meant when used in the PREAMBLE. I knew it without even having to look it up. But since you say you recognize that it is not a binding part of the Constitution, it makes it curious why you now attach such undue significance to it.

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:

Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

Wait. Did you just write "to pay the debts?"

And "the General Welfare" means a lot of things, but it does NOT mean the 'Welfare Roles.' A GENERAL welfare necessarily applies to all, not just a chosen and select few. It might apply to roads and bridges and tunnels and it might apply to a Navy or an Air Force (the latter two going hand in hand with with providing for the common defense).

Take a look at:
CRS LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Thank you, I'm still looking through this source; I've saved it in my legal resource file. Time will tell if the hermeneutics cited by the authorities at Cornell will disabuse me of my understanding of the text.

 

[bendog]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

You're full of bullshite, muddy, and so is Paul Ryan

House GOP pushes tax cuts despite veto threat over costs - Yahoo News

 

[M14 Shooter]

First of all, my question was political, not legal. If the Congress seeks to reduce the deficit, cuts won't do it alone, taxes must rise. Do you disagree? Why?

Your assertion is monumentally absurd and denotes an exceptional level of ignorance and/or dishonesty on your part -- since you are a self-admitted bigot, the smart bet is on dishonesty.

Deficits occur when spending exceeds revenue. That said, it is completely possibly to reduce and/or eliminate deficits by only cutting spending -- it is not all all necessary to increase revenue as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, you haven't convinced me. If you are so sure of your position,...

If you were so sure of your position, you'd respond with something more than a very middle-school level "Fuck you".

 

[M14 Shooter]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation.

That's because liberals are more than happy to support state-enforced involuntary state servitude - so that they might implement their political agenda.
The brainwashed among them - Stalin's "useful idiots", such as WC - believe this is necessary because their version of morality isn't being met by the population in general and so must be imposed on the country as a whole; liberals "in the know" simply hate freedom and want the power to control as many people as possible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:
Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Either you failed 8th grade US History or you haven't yet made it there....

Article I sec 8:1 provides Congress the power to spend; article 1 Sec 9:7 requires that all spending must be appropriated by Congress thru legislation.
The next 16 clauses specify in what areas Congress has the power to act
The last clause gives Congress the power to create legislation to affect these actions, including the power create legislation to appropriate funding.

There you go.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

Society is one thing, government is another. There's no requirement to provide sustenance for parasites just because you want to live in a society. One is not dependent on the other, as sleazy weasels like you would have us believe.

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term. Here's a newsflash for you. It's highly likely that at some point, you will become one of the people who you refer to as parasites now.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

Way to miss the point completely. If freedom to you means that you never have to do anything that you don't want to do, there is no such thing as freedom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term.

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

Way to miss the point completely. If freedom to you means that you never have to do anything that you don't want to do, there is no such thing as freedom.

I missed nothing.
You fail to understand that your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude runs in diametric opposition to freedom.

 

[JoeNormal]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term.

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

You want people to buy into our society if they know going in that they'll be fucked if they hit the smallest bump in the road? Good luck with that.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

Way to miss the point completely. If freedom to you means that you never have to do anything that you don't want to do, there is no such thing as freedom.

I missed nothing.
You fail to understand that your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude runs in diametric opposition to freedom.

You fail to understand that your concept of freedom is worthy of a toddler.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term.

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

You want people to buy into our society if they know going in that they'll be fucked if they hit the smallest bump in the road? Good luck with that.

People "bought into" our society long before there was any notion of some "freedom from failure" underwritten by state-enforced involuntary servitude.

Now then...... Please try to answer the question:
Why is is "important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term"?
Again: understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sorry, you haven't convinced me. If you are so sure of your position,...

If you were so sure of your position, you'd respond with something more than a very middle-school level "Fuck you".

Fuck you, moron.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

Way to miss the point completely. If freedom to you means that you never have to do anything that you don't want to do, there is no such thing as freedom.

I missed nothing.
You fail to understand that your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude runs in diametric opposition to freedom.

You fail to understand that your concept of freedom is worthy of a toddler.

Really.
What enlightened, reasoned and meaningful definition of freedom inherently and necessarily includes the concept of state-enforced involuntary servitude -- that is, where said freedom cannot exist unless the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation?