and the gop wants to cut back on food stamps...hunger in america

\\((|))// said:
welfare_color.png
Click to expand...

At last someone who knows that there is FAR more corporate welfare in this nation than Social Welfare.

Well done.
 
Dixie said:
Did you not hear me? We are spending an average of $1.2 trillion more than we take in each year. We are going to need to make massive cuts to our budget for defense AND domestic spending. This idea we can cut defense and fund more social shit, is INSANITY. Paul Ryan's budget proposal called for $400 billion in defense cuts over 10 years. Comes out to about a 14% cut overall, so that's already better than what you suggested (12.5%). But the thing is, that does not balance the budget! We still need to cut other social programs to be able to do this. And by "CUT" I am talking about REAL cuts, not just reductions in the amount of built-in increase, which Democrats scream are CUTS! We simply can not continue to spend over a trillion dollars more than we are taking in, and as some pinheads have pointed out, won't ever have the number of jobs (as in the past) to generate the taxes to pay the debts. If fewer people are going to be working in this "new economy" then we need to REALLY make some drastic cuts, because we're already spending too much, even for the workforce we had 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Just the military need cuts, dear. The rich need to begin paying for the taxes is cost us to defend their corporations all around the world.
 
Dixie said:
No no no no, you don't understand, you think their motive would be hate, anger, revenge, whatever... like how you feel about the country. The Chinese aren't the least bit interested in watching us fall as a power or seeing us collapse economically or destroy ourselves with debt. They need LAND! You see, they have a little population problem over there. They need our territory and our resources, and for us to be neutralized so we can't fight back. They are not dramatically increasing the size of their military for nothing. And the Russians would be more than willing to help out by taking Alaska, where they would have no problem whatsoever, drilling in ANWR.

You hippies need to snap out of your drug induced stupor and realize you are about to make a grave mistake. The Communist Chinese and the Russians, do not think like you. Their rationales and way of looking at things are completely different. Where you believe the only reason a country would use it's military is 'hate for brown people' or to show off military might, they have a completely different objective and way of thinking. It's more about what we have that they need. I don't know about you, but I'm not all that hip on becoming a Chinese satellite regime. But you don't believe any of this because you live in a delusional and naive little fantasy world, where everybody thinks like you.
Click to expand...

Our ability to defend our nation would be fine. It is our ability to police the world that will be limited. And isn't it about time for that?

We spent over $3 trillion on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. Now you want to cut foodstamps to pay that debt, and you can't understand why people oppose it?

Like I said, cut the budgets, but leave this most basic safety net in place.
 
Automatic spending cuts, or “sequestration,” is required by the Budget Control Act of 2011.


For those suffering memory loss of the sort afflicting Romney, that legislation came about when Republicans threatened to throw the country into default unless Democrats agreed to automatic budget cuts if a “supercommittee” couldn’t reach a bipartisan agreement (which it couldn’t, naturally).


If the defense cuts are Obama’s, they are also John Boehner’s, Eric Cantor’s, Mitch McConnell’s and Jon Kyl’s.


The bill passed with the votes of a majority of House and Senate Republicans and the encouragement of — wait for it — Mitt Romney.


A Romney spokeswoman at the time said he applauded Boehner’s negotiating prowess.



http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/milbank_072712.html
 
That's awesome. Nice Romney burn.

Tax cuts over defense
Romney may have been able to retire from Bain Capital retroactively, but he won’t find it so easy to hold his applause retroactively. That’s because his party continues to choose tax cuts over defense spending.
The automatic defense cuts came about largely because Republicans on the supercommittee refused any tax increase. By coincidence, the choice between tax cuts and defense spending came to the Senate floor again on Wednesday — and Republicans again chose the cuts.
Senate Democrats brought up a largely symbolic proposal that would increase taxes on income above $250,000 — and raise revenue by about $50 billion in 2013. That’s roughly the same amount as the $55 billion in automatic defense cuts that would take place next year. Forced to choose which of their children they loved more — tax cuts or defense spending — Republicans didn’t hesitate.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/milbank_072712.html
 
And yet some claim that multimillionaire Mittzie is loved by the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top