If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   How come there's no pressure on Dems to cough up spending cuts in the "fiscal cliff" talks?   (news.investors.com) divider line 427
    More: Strange, no pressure, D-Ill, Boehner, George Stephanopoulos, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1880 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



427 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 01:36:41 PM

CPennypacker: How's the trollin' this fine afternoon?

Productive

, the only thing that matters, apparently.
 
2012-11-27 01:37:16 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.

Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.


OOH OOH Can I do it?

/patriot
 
2012-11-27 01:37:56 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: I believe taking care of children, of which one in five live in poverty, is the best thing for our country. I also believe that platform would be popular and help in getting me elected. I guess what you think is right, isn't.


When have I argued that we shouldn't spend money on the youth? All I said was that the amount we spend on TANF is a drop in the bucket. Personally, I think we should spend more on our youth.
 
2012-11-27 01:38:23 PM

MattStafford: mcwehrle: dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.


Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.
 
2012-11-27 01:39:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.

Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.


Casey Anthony agrees, that kid was a leech.
 
2012-11-27 01:40:14 PM

Mrtraveler01: How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?


Who said that would be beneficial? The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.
 
2012-11-27 01:41:50 PM

odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?


I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.
 
2012-11-27 01:41:57 PM

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?

Who said that would be beneficial? The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.


So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?
 
2012-11-27 01:42:28 PM

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 332 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


FTFY.
 
2012-11-27 01:42:45 PM
FTA:

Union groups are already mounting a six-figure ad campaign to pressure key Democrats.



OOoooOooOoooooo a 6 figure ad campaign....what is that? A little less than it takes to get a tent at the Masters for you and your golf buddies.

I love articles written to enrage poor republicans. After a 5 billion dollar presidential, these rubes are OUTRAGED by nearly 300k being spent to lobby congress. "Six figures" is a lot of money if youre poor. 

1.bp.blogspot.com

Like this images that drove so many NUTS. If this is what you think rich people eat, youre not a rich person. If this is extravagant, you've never had the opportunity to really pull the throttles off. But so many poor Republicans saw this has the height of wasteful spending on luxury by the first lady because it seemed so fancy, and out of reach, to them.

The rich are eating heirloom tomatoes on organic micro greens. Artisinal cheese, small vintage wines, and charcuterie trays. Not 40 dollar bottles of bubbly and caviar. And, on top of everything, if the Waldorf is selling 2 lobsters with wine and snacks for less than $500, they have the most affordable room service in NYC. 

So even if the article wasnt all bull, which is clearly is, its hard to be anything other than amused by the butthurt a "6 figure" ad campaign is causing. 
 
2012-11-27 01:43:03 PM

Isitoveryet: grammy & grammpy don't spend money, play with stocks, or purchase gifts for the kiddies? Hell, some people think they are a source to borrow money from.

are you a fisherman?


Sure, that is entirely fine if they are spending their own money. If they're spending money that the government is borrowing and giving to them, it is not a good thing. Consumption isn't production.
 
2012-11-27 01:43:31 PM

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now
 
2012-11-27 01:44:20 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Promote the general welfare.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.


What the f*ck country do you think we live in? The government is not a business. Take your Randian bullsh*t elsewhere, it will never, ever happen here.


I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. We're a wealthy country, and we should take care of our own. I'm against borrowing money to do that.
 
2012-11-27 01:46:17 PM
Because the "fiscal cliff" removes the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts, slashes Defense spending, and the public is already prepared to blame the GOP for any negative side-effects.

You played the all-or-nothing game and you lost, Republicans. Now you have to eat the shiat sandwich you have been preparing all this time.
 
2012-11-27 01:46:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's assume that you are correct and they provide no economic benefit. So why haven't you killed you worthless grandparents yet? Are you actively trying to destroy the country? A real patriot would eliminate the threat they pose.


Yeah, this is a great argument. I cannot believe this is what your argument has devolved to: "Unless you kill your grandparents you don't believe we aren't spending too much money on the elderly". Pure farking genius.
 
2012-11-27 01:47:13 PM

MattStafford: keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years


who does that? typically, once you suffer a life threatening medical incident, you go pretty fast, otherwise you recover and life returns to normal sans vision or the use of one of two arms or legs. who in the hell leaves elderly on life support for 10 years? and what about quality of life, you seem to be making up a number 80 and pretending all 80 y/o are sponges.

do you have any sources for the information you are using to support your let the elderly die argument?
 
2012-11-27 01:47:41 PM

jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.


Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.
 
2012-11-27 01:48:48 PM

MattStafford: I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. We're a wealthy country, and we should take care of our own. I'm against borrowing money to do that.


Well we're in debt, so you can't have it both ways.
 
2012-11-27 01:48:55 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Because the "fiscal cliff" removes the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts, slashes Defense spending, and the public is already prepared to blame the GOP for any negative side-effects.

You played the all-or-nothing game and you lost, Republicans. Now you have to eat the shiat sandwich you have been preparing all this time.


fortunately, I think the President and congressional Dems aren't the scorched earth dickbags that you apparently are
 
2012-11-27 01:49:20 PM

skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now


Yeah after your side loses then its "we are all in this together!".

Please cry moar Republicans.
 
2012-11-27 01:50:43 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.

Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.


So answer this for me:

Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more productive way to spend money how?

 
2012-11-27 01:50:55 PM

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.

This doesn't do anything to combat my argument that keeping the elderly alive does nothing beneficial to our economy. It is simply an appeal to emotion.

Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive. What economic benefit is it providing for our country.


We aren't. We are collecting taxes and using that revenue to take care of the elderly, the poor, and in some cases the sick. We are also providing research and infrastructure that helps everyone and to boosts our businesses. All that we are doing with the taxes we already collect.

We are borrowing money to finance wars, build a "defense" force as large as the entire rest of the world combined, and to provide tax breaks for large and extremely profitable businesses to do what they would do anyway.
 
2012-11-27 01:51:02 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.

Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.


Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.

Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.

Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.
 

Why the assumption that the borrowed money is supporting old people. The old people have to be paid for, because it is the right thing to do. We are paying for them with the revenue we take in. We are bowrrowing money to maintain the largest military, by far, in the world and conduct nation building in the Middle East. How is that econonomically productive?
 
2012-11-27 01:51:19 PM

Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?


I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.
 
2012-11-27 01:52:15 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Well we're in debt, so you can't have it both ways.


Step one - stop spending on social services by using debt. Step two - start spending money on social services generated by taxes. It is a two step process.
 
2012-11-27 01:53:17 PM

Isitoveryet: MattStafford: keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years

who does that? typically, once you suffer a life threatening medical incident, you go pretty fast, otherwise you recover and life returns to normal sans vision or the use of one of two arms or legs. who in the hell leaves elderly on life support for 10 years? and what about quality of life, you seem to be making up a number 80 and pretending all 80 y/o are sponges.

do you have any sources for the information you are using to support your let the elderly die argument?


I have a counter-argument:

One-quarter to one-third of all medical spending is done in the last year of the patient's life. (Half of THAT is on "the elderly", but the last year of a 26 year old's life can be just as expensive as the last year of a centenarian's.)

// source 1
// source 2
// source 3
 
2012-11-27 01:53:36 PM

Zasteva: We aren't. We are collecting taxes and using that revenue to take care of the elderly, the poor, and in some cases the sick. We are also providing research and infrastructure that helps everyone and to boosts our businesses. All that we are doing with the taxes we already collect.

We are borrowing money to finance wars, build a "defense" force as large as the entire rest of the world combined, and to provide tax breaks for large and extremely profitable businesses to do what they would do anyway.


I don't think the money that we have borrowed is earmarked for anything. This is a disingenuous argument.
 
2012-11-27 01:54:19 PM

MattStafford: I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.


That booze gets a lot more expensive when the distiller has to make a large capital investment to produce your large, time sensitive order of booze, then the equipment sits idle after that order is completed.
 
2012-11-27 01:54:42 PM

MattStafford: Consumption isn't production.


no it is not, it does however stimulate an economy and generate revenue for state/fed.

MattStafford Sure, that is entirely fine if they are spending their own money. If they're spending money that the government is borrowing and giving to them, it is not a good thing.

That's the entire purpose of work and employment, you save for retirement, you've paid into those beneficial programs as well, and again, i would like to see the information you are basing these "not a good thing" scenarios on.
 
2012-11-27 01:55:04 PM

MattStafford: odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?

I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.


What? No. Our economy is in trouble because people in the financial sector made bets, borrowed money assuming they would win those bets, and then lost them. Government spending has some effect on the economy but it isn't the foundation. The government can help kick start things with spending but primarily though spending increases. Shifting spending from one sector to another wouldn't have a huge effect and certainly isn't the difference between a failing and succeeding economy.
 
2012-11-27 01:55:13 PM

MattStafford: Step one - stop spending on social services by using debt. Step two - start spending money on social services generated by taxes.


Outside of SS, it's one big pool of money. If drawing a dashed line and splitting one pile into what comes from debt and the other from what comes from taxes would make you feel better, you can do that. Your problem has been solved.
 
2012-11-27 01:55:42 PM

jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.


Well, except the part where I stated that isn't what I believe, so fark off.

jst3p: Why the assumption that the borrowed money is supporting old people. The old people have to be paid for, because it is the right thing to do. We are paying for them with the revenue we take in. We are bowrrowing money to maintain the largest military, by far, in the world and conduct nation building in the Middle East. How is that econonomically productive?


If we cut our entire military budget, we would still be running a deficit. Try again.

And, as I have said, the military isn't productive. I'm more against the military than I am social security, so don't act as though I am in favor of the military.
 
2012-11-27 01:56:15 PM

MattStafford: I don't think the money that we have borrowed is earmarked for anything. This is a disingenuous argument.


Mitt Romney, is that you?

MattStafford: The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.

 
2012-11-27 01:56:23 PM

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?

I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.


Booze is a terrible analogy and you're smart enough to know that.

ER's are not allowed to refuse any patients regardless of whether or not they can pay. One way or another, these seniors are going to get medical treatment, whether it's with Medicare or through the ER (which tends to cost a lot more).

So...explain to me why it's smarter to just wait for these people to get sick enough to go to the ER and unable to pay the medical bill which then rests on the taxpayer (ie: us) to pay for?
 
2012-11-27 01:56:55 PM

MattStafford: Step one - stop spending on social services by using debt. Step two - start spending money on social services generated by taxes. It is a two step process.


So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.
 
2012-11-27 01:57:33 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Outside of SS, it's one big pool of money. If drawing a dashed line and splitting one pile into what comes from debt and the other from what comes from taxes would make you feel better, you can do that. Your problem has been solved.


Cut all of the money going to discretionary spending. You're still running a deficit (and now have millions of extra unemployed people).
 
2012-11-27 01:59:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: Booze is a terrible analogy and you're smart enough to know that.

ER's are not allowed to refuse any patients regardless of whether or not they can pay. One way or another, these seniors are going to get medical treatment, whether it's with Medicare or through the ER (which tends to cost a lot more).

So...explain to me why it's smarter to just wait for these people to get sick enough to go to the ER and unable to pay the medical bill which then rests on the taxpayer (ie: us) to pay for?


What's smart is saving money, or raising taxes to pay for it. What isn't smart is borrowing money to pay for it. Not sure why this is difficult for you to understand. If the government borrows 100,000 dollars to keep an unproductive old person alive now, or borrows 1,000,000 dollars to keep that same person alive down the road, it doesn't change the fact that the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.
 
2012-11-27 02:00:20 PM

Dr Dreidel: I have a counter-argument:

One-quarter to one-third of all medical spending is done in the last year of the patient's life. (Half of THAT is on "the elderly", but the last year of a 26 year old's life can be just as expensive as the last year of a centenarian's.)

// source 1
// source 2
// source 3


Interesting data, still reading, thanks.
 
2012-11-27 02:00:28 PM

odinsposse: What? No. Our economy is in trouble because people in the financial sector made bets, borrowed money assuming they would win those bets, and then lost them. Government spending has some effect on the economy but it isn't the foundation. The government can help kick start things with spending but primarily though spending increases. Shifting spending from one sector to another wouldn't have a huge effect and certainly isn't the difference between a failing and succeeding economy.


Our economy is in trouble because we're 50 trillion in debt. Government's 16 trillion is a significant portion of that.
 
2012-11-27 02:01:17 PM

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: How does having people get sick and starve beneficial to our economy?

Who said that would be beneficial? The point of what I am saying is that keeping the elderly alive for an extra ten years while they do nothing productive is the economic equivalent to letting them die, except for the fact we have to go massively into debt to keep them alive.


I call Poe.

/ or maybe Rand Poe?
 
2012-11-27 02:01:24 PM

incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.


You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.
 
2012-11-27 02:07:42 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.

Promote the general welfare.


"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin"

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..

It does not say give me your huddled masses so that we may care for them. There was not even a Federal Welfare system and very few state level ones when that was written

Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependent and ceded more control of your life to those doing the "caring for" you are less free.
 
2012-11-27 02:09:41 PM

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: Booze is a terrible analogy and you're smart enough to know that.

ER's are not allowed to refuse any patients regardless of whether or not they can pay. One way or another, these seniors are going to get medical treatment, whether it's with Medicare or through the ER (which tends to cost a lot more).

So...explain to me why it's smarter to just wait for these people to get sick enough to go to the ER and unable to pay the medical bill which then rests on the taxpayer (ie: us) to pay for?

What's smart is saving money, or raising taxes to pay for it. What isn't smart is borrowing money to pay for it. Not sure why this is difficult for you to understand. If the government borrows 100,000 dollars to keep an unproductive old person alive now, or borrows 1,000,000 dollars to keep that same person alive down the road, it doesn't change the fact that the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.


But you have to choose between the two. You just can't say to hell with that person, we can't afford to treat you. It's against the law to deny medical treatment to anyone in an ER.

So one way or another, we have to spend money to keep this "unproductive" person alive.
 
2012-11-27 02:10:12 PM

MattStafford: incendi: So you support soaking the rich to ensure that the entirety of the federal budget is covered by tax revenues? I'm okay with that.

You could soak all of the rich, and it would not come close to covering our deficit. We need to raise taxes and cut spending, both to a large degree.


How about this?
 
2012-11-27 02:10:19 PM

hasty ambush: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: Tell me why we should be going into debt to keep these people alive.

Promote the general welfare.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin"

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..

It does not say give me your huddled masses so that we may care for them. There was not even a Federal Welfare system and very few state level ones when that was written

Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependen ...


Please show me where the US Constitution enumerates that the federal Government has the power to create an Air Force. Please also indicate where it enumerates that they may maintain an Air Traffic Control system.
 
2012-11-27 02:10:41 PM

skullkrusher: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

at least you're going full bore with the sporting event mentality now


Awwww, it's cute that you wanna be "can't we all just get along" after November 6. Wonder what happened. Sorry, friend. As a makeshift robot with a motherly personality once said, "Uh uh! No way! This is YOUR dishwashing liquid, YOU soak in it!"
 
2012-11-27 02:13:48 PM

MattStafford: odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?

I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.


Unproductive things: tax cuts and 2 wars

Productive things: healthcare and social security
 
2012-11-27 02:14:39 PM
Why is people who feel taxing the rich to the tune of several billion dollars a year is a waste of time because it doesn't completely eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop feel that eliminating PBS to the tune of $150 million a year is a good first step and well worth doing?
 
2012-11-27 02:16:01 PM

hasty ambush: Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependent and ceded more control of your life to those doing the "caring for" you are less free.


I don't believe caring for people, be they poor or elderly or sick, in their time of need makes them dependent on that care. In the same way having access to a fire extinguisher does not cause one to start fires. 

I believe this is a fundamental difference between left and right. The left tends to believe people use that care because they need it, not because they want to. The right tends to believe if people use that care because they need it, they will then always want to.
 
2012-11-27 02:16:04 PM

hasty ambush: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792


"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin"


"I don't know who I wanna fark next: one of my first cousins, or one of my slaves." -- Every founding father you just quoted


They were human beings with flaws, all farking kinds of flaws, so many that they allowed the Constitution to be changed, or "amended," just in case one of their ideas wasn't so bright in the big picture. The point is, they're not gods, absolutely nothing they said is gospel, quit deifying them, and grow the fark up.
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report