Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[GoneBezerk]

So you admit many welfare scum work under the table or do crimes to make money on the side.

Oh, but Obamination wants to help keep their beneifts for 3 years now and he doen't want to force them to look for a real job.....ahhh so nice

You were saying in the other thread he isn't trying to destroy this country, yet you have no problem giving away tax money to people that shouldn't be getting a dime.....

Sorry, but it is you who are mentally challenged. From the link above:

Total number of Americans on welfare 4,300,000 (that's less than 1.5% of the US population)

Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment)$131.9 billion (that's less than 3.5% of the total government spending)

So why does your source say this: Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 %?

I don't know, maybe they are counting UI recipients. But the fact remains -- the overwhelming majority work hard to earn their living.

Even most of those receiving food stamps are getting them not because they are lazy, but because they are working low paying jobs -- and someone has to do those jobs too.

That's actually one of the reasons for rising taxes on the rich -- because the post-industrial economy creates too few high paying jobs and too many low paying ones.

 

[EriktheRed]

Yup, you're a jaggoff...

So you admit many welfare scum work under the table or do crimes to make money on the side.

Oh, but Obamination wants to help keep their beneifts for 3 years now and he doen't want to force them to look for a real job.....ahhh so nice

You were saying in the other thread he isn't trying to destroy this country, yet you have no problem giving away tax money to people that shouldn't be getting a dime.....

So why does your source say this: Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 %?

I don't know, maybe they are counting UI recipients. But the fact remains -- the overwhelming majority work hard to earn their living.

Even most of those receiving food stamps are getting them not because they are lazy, but because they are working low paying jobs -- and someone has to do those jobs too.

That's actually one of the reasons for rising taxes on the rich -- because the post-industrial economy creates too few high paying jobs and too many low paying ones.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Says welfare scum like you.

Yup, you're a jaggoff...

So you admit many welfare scum work under the table or do crimes to make money on the side.

Oh, but Obamination wants to help keep their beneifts for 3 years now and he doen't want to force them to look for a real job.....ahhh so nice

You were saying in the other thread he isn't trying to destroy this country, yet you have no problem giving away tax money to people that shouldn't be getting a dime.....

I don't know, maybe they are counting UI recipients. But the fact remains -- the overwhelming majority work hard to earn their living.

Even most of those receiving food stamps are getting them not because they are lazy, but because they are working low paying jobs -- and someone has to do those jobs too.

That's actually one of the reasons for rising taxes on the rich -- because the post-industrial economy creates too few high paying jobs and too many low paying ones.

 

[bripat9643]

Since when is a military base a "spending" program? If the military base had never existed, then there would be no town for it to support. Less spending on the military is more beneficial economically than more spending.

Welfare doesn't benefit the middle class more than it harms them. The same goes for Medicare.

Remember, we are talking about the entire middle class, not a few isolated special interests sucking off the government teat.

Since after WWII, when we began spending on a standing army. Previously we just called people up in times of war.

I said a military base, not the entire defense department. The F35 is a spending program. Ft Benning isn't.

 

[gwennie]

OMG, this is getting funnier by the minute.

According to the latest accounts, Obama is pushing very hard on taxing the rich -- not only expiration of Bush tax cuts, but also rising the dividend and estate taxes. In exchange, Dems are proposing modest spending cuts, leaving it to Republicans to offer what else they see fit to axe.

Now that is where it gets comical -- Republicans refuse to detail any additional spending cuts! They say they are desperately needed, huge cuts too. But they are afraid -- and for a good reason too -- that if they themselves would put any specific proposals regarding the entitlement programs on the table, the voters would punish them.

So Republicnas are practically begging the Dems to do the honor and commit a political suicide.

Now tell me -- aren't they cute? Saying no to them is like taking a candy from a little girl -- breaks one's heart! I see John Boehner crying again.

They should be afraid to cut. Me, too. Sending is already cut to the bone, IMO. And businesses, mostly small businesses, are struggling for sales. How on earth anyone thinks cuts in spending, by either us or our government, will do anything but **** over already struggling small businesses, baffles me.

So let's just raise taxes and get on with the task of growing the market.

And if the only victim is the retarded pseudo-economic rhetoric the GOP has been relying on, then so be it. The needs of the American People trumps the political convenience of the GOP, IMO.

Ok.....but then it also trumps the pseudo-economic thetoric of the dems as well. They can't claim they are the party of the poor and middle class if all they do is favor programs that make them and their campaign donors wealthy. It cuts both ways.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, idiot...we've had a standing military ever since the start of this country. We just didn't start with a standing military after WWII.

Most of the leaders of WWII were uhhhhhh WWI Vets that stayed in the military and trained until the next war. General Patton just didn't show up for WWII from some lumberjack job.

You liberals create your own reality through stupidity.

So military bases do not support base towns? Welfare does not support small businesses in poorer neighborhoods? Medicare does not help folks who work for scooter and medical supply stores?

Since when is a military base a "spending" program? If the military base had never existed, then there would be no town for it to support. Less spending on the military is more beneficial economically than more spending.

Welfare doesn't benefit the middle class more than it harms them. The same goes for Medicare.

Remember, we are talking about the entire middle class, not a few isolated special interests sucking off the government teat.

Since after WWII, when we began spending on a standing army. Previously we just called people up in times of war.

 

[gwennie]

Insane posts like this one started by the nutjob OP is proof liberals are ******* insane.

The DoD makes up 18% of the Federal budget but has taken the brunt of Obamination's budget cuts last year and this looming year....for around $1T.

Meanwhile we have Obamacare coming to add over $2T to the debt and scumbag liberals start these threads claiming the GOP isn't willing to cut anything (uh the DoD), when entitlements like Obamacare go untouched as over 50% of the Federal budget and growing each minute.

The OP should have its brain pulled out by medical authorities for a psych study.

I'm all for that But you got to remember that liberals expect conservatives to do ALL of the compromising, while the liberals should always get their way.....don't you know that by now. lol... They want to leave this country vulnerable to attack from terrorists because they truly believe they are "our friends", while at the same time buy votes from people by sending them money that they don't deserve. And the people who are getting paid have no intention of cutting off their welfare if they can possibly avoid it. Their "job" IS collecting welfare!

 

[ilia25]

I don't know, maybe they are counting UI recipients. But the fact remains -- the overwhelming majority work hard to earn their living.

Even most of those receiving food stamps are getting them not because they are lazy, but because they are working low paying jobs -- and someone has to do those jobs too.

That's actually one of the reasons for rising taxes on the rich -- because the post-industrial economy creates too few high paying jobs and too many low paying ones.

Interesting, so unemployed people work now? I have suspected as much.

Would you stop playing dumb?

Only 13% of the food stamps recipients are relying on welfare as their primary income:

 

[saveliberty]

I don't know, maybe they are counting UI recipients. But the fact remains -- the overwhelming majority work hard to earn their living.
Even most of those receiving food stamps are getting them not because they are lazy, but because they are working low paying jobs -- and someone has to do those jobs too.

That's actually one of the reasons for rising taxes on the rich -- because the post-industrial economy creates too few high paying jobs and too many low paying ones.

Interesting, so unemployed people work now? I have suspected as much.

Would you stop playing dumb?

Only 13% of the food stamps recipients are relying on welfare as their primary income:

My bad. Bolded the wrong part. Note italiced bold above. That better idiot?

 

[gwennie]

I don't know, maybe they are counting UI recipients. But the fact remains -- the overwhelming majority work hard to earn their living.

Even most of those receiving food stamps are getting them not because they are lazy, but because they are working low paying jobs -- and someone has to do those jobs too.

That's actually one of the reasons for rising taxes on the rich -- because the post-industrial economy creates too few high paying jobs and too many low paying ones.

Interesting, so unemployed people work now? I have suspected as much.

Would you stop playing dumb?

Only 13% of the food stamps recipients are relying on welfare as their primary income:

Um, no.....not accurate at all. Most people on SNAP are not working at all.....though the vast majority of them could and should be. Unless you are seriously disabled, retired, or a child....you should not get welfare without providing some sort of "benefit" to the community via work, e.g., jobs that people normally don't want to do. You know what would happen? The generational welfare crowd and the fake or minimally disabled crowd would cease to exist almost entirely.....these people have no intention of putting in an honest day's work in exchange for "help" from the govt. There are plenty of menial jobs out there that they could do without the local govt's having to pay union members higher wages to take care of these jobs.....landscaping, cleaning up parks, picking up garbage along the roads, shoveling snow, etc... Don't want to offend the illegals who take some of these jobs? Too bad. If they refuse to come here legally and pay taxes like everyone else, then they don't have a "right" to do these jobs....we are better off, financially speaking, to put our own legal citizens to work rather than allow illegals to take these jobs because "no one else wants them". Liberals can take that garbage argument to the curb with the rest of the trash.

 

[ilia25]

Interesting, so unemployed people work now? I have suspected as much.

Would you stop playing dumb?

Only 13% of the food stamps recipients are relying on welfare as their primary income:

My bad. Bolded the wrong part. Note italiced bold above. That better idiot?

And overwhelming majority of Americans are working hard to earn their living -- that is what the welfare data says, no matter how you slice it.

 

[ilia25]

Interesting, so unemployed people work now? I have suspected as much.

Would you stop playing dumb?

Only 13% of the food stamps recipients are relying on welfare as their primary income:

Um, no.....not accurate at all. Most people on SNAP are not working at all.....though the vast majority of them could and should be.

Where are your numbers, and what are your sources?

 

[Koios]

Since when is a military base a "spending" program? If the military base had never existed, then there would be no town for it to support. Less spending on the military is more beneficial economically than more spending.

Welfare doesn't benefit the middle class more than it harms them. The same goes for Medicare.

Remember, we are talking about the entire middle class, not a few isolated special interests sucking off the government teat.

Since after WWII, when we began spending on a standing army. Previously we just called people up in times of war.

I said a military base, not the entire defense department. The F35 is a spending program. Ft Benning isn't.

Correct; the standing army is. Then they populate bases and spend their pay into base and other communities.

 

[alan1]

Actually cuts are already proposed. They go into effect at the end of the year. Both sides agreed. If you want something different, its up to you to propose it.

Suddenly, those cuts are called a "fiscal cliff".
Liberals and the media (redundancy alert) didn't call them a "fiscal cliff" when they were originally passed by a bi-partisan congress.
Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

 

[saveliberty]

And overwhelming majority of Americans are working hard to earn their living -- that is what the welfare data says, no matter how you slice it.

Says the guy with a chart from 2010.

 

[bripat9643]

Since after WWII, when we began spending on a standing army. Previously we just called people up in times of war.

I said a military base, not the entire defense department. The F35 is a spending program. Ft Benning isn't.

Correct; the standing army is. Then they populate bases and spend their pay into base and other communities.

A base is not a spending program. Are the Dims proposing to abolish all military bases?

 

[Koios]

I said a military base, not the entire defense department. The F35 is a spending program. Ft Benning isn't.

Correct; the standing army is. Then they populate bases and spend their pay into base and other communities.

A base is not a spending program. Are the Dims proposing to abolish all military bases?

Not that I know of, nor would I wish it until our non college bound young people have other alternatives in lieu of military service, and base communities are transitioned with federal government assistance.

 

[squeeze berry]

Correct; the standing army is. Then they populate bases and spend their pay into base and other communities.

A base is not a spending program. Are the Dims proposing to abolish all military bases?

Not that I know of, nor would I wish it until our non college bound young people have other alternatives in lieu of military service, and base communities are transitioned with federal government assistance.

your answer to everything

free money

 

[saveliberty]

Money, is doesn't grow on trees, but they will give you a grant to try.

 

[Koios]

A base is not a spending program. Are the Dims proposing to abolish all military bases?

Not that I know of, nor would I wish it until our non college bound young people have other alternatives in lieu of military service, and base communities are transitioned with federal government assistance.

your answer to everything

free money

Obviously not free money. But indeed sufficient spending to help mitigate the unfair effects of cutbacks in base and other communities where military spending created economies which are near solely dependent upon personnel and bases we created, even if as I believe they were a multiple of what was needed to defend our nation.

In short, we created the monster and need to scale it down responsibly.