Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The republican controlled House passed this massive spending bill, but want to cut programs for it's citizens, and there's an impending budget battle looming too, to raise the debt ceiling.
How can anyone in good conscience do this and turn their backs of people in need, namely, the American people?
The republican controlled House passed this massive spending bill, but want to cut programs for it's citizens, and there's an impending budget battle looming too, to raise the debt ceiling.
How can anyone in good conscience do this and turn their backs of people in need, namely, the American people?
In the Republican Universe, it's immoral to use any tax money to help people, but it is perfectly moral to spend as much as possible to kill people. Self defense is legitimate, but that much money is unnecessary and irresponsible.
In the Republican Universe, it's immoral to use any tax money to help people, but it is perfectly moral to spend as much as possible to kill people. Self defense is legitimate, but that much money is unnecessary and irresponsible.
The Dems are bought and paid for by the Poverty Industry, Environmental lobbyists, Public Employee Unions, Higher Ed workers, Wall Street Financial companies, the Insurance Industry and the one percent.
The Republicans are bought and paid for by Defense Contractors, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Contractors using illegal labor, Wall Street Financial companies, the Insurance Industry and the one percent.
The republican controlled House passed this massive spending bill, but want to cut programs for it's citizens, and there's an impending budget battle looming too, to raise the debt ceiling.
How can anyone in good conscience do this and turn their backs of people in need, namely, the American people?
Article 1, Section 8 calls for a standing military. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Please show me where it says the federal government has the power to spend on social programs.
This is why the so called "D" controlled house is NOT coming down the pipe...as much as people believe it is happening.
Because who will Liberals have to blame for the war mongering moving forward?
We're not discussing WAR MONGERING here, we're talking about bloated defense spending bills. Whilst the R controlled House is all to willing to cut domestic programs.
Article 1, Section 8 calls for a standing military. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Please show me where it says the federal government has the power to spend on social programs.
Oh, I know, domestic programs are unconstitutional. and, hypocritical too. Spend here, cut that.
Article 1, Section 8 calls for a standing military. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Please show me where it says the federal government has the power to spend on social programs.
But 598 billion dollars worth of Armies when Republicans b*tch about spending money on ANYTHING else? Sounds just a tad hypocritical to me.
We're not discussing WAR MONGERING here, we're talking about bloated defense spending bills. Whilst the R controlled House is all to willing to cut domestic programs.
Ok...??
Here is something you might have already known.....
Spoiler
The same argument STILL APPLIES
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.