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.
..................I'm not here to bring up to speed on the latest idiocy of Conservatives. If you're too slow to get caught up on current events on your own, then stay out of the discussion. If you want to make your point and stop being coy, then have at it.
Anyone who has ever served in the military knows what happens every September (the fiscal year starts in October and ends in September). We start buying new jackets, flat-screen televisions, boots, office furniture, etc. You know, "if you don't spend it, you won't get the same amount of money next fiscal year."
I bet everyone who has ever served has heard that at one time or another. There is a ton of waste.
It's just silly and heartless to cut programs that cost 1% of the proposed INCREASE in defense spending, when the DOD is wasting so much money.
Well, this is not just true of DOD, its true for the entire federal govt. All agencies know that if they don't spend their budgets they will be cut. Which is of course all the more reason to cut them all.
If this is another "tax if theft" talking point, then we're not going to have a productive conversation. Suffice it to say, I see taxes as your rent for living in this country. If you don't like paying rent, you're free to move somewhere else.
I wasn't planning on getting into that again, no. I was just thinking of welfare and how leftists often accuse others of not caring for the needy if they don't support that method of helping them. They put compassion above property rights, so they're willing to abandon the idea that you shouldn't steal so that they can take from some and give to others.
(Also, no it's not rent because the government doesn't rightfully own everything within it's borders.)
We have to great examples of Conservative priorities on the front page. In one corner we have the never-ending Conservative crusade of punishing people no matter the cost, where the discussion on how many thousands of dollars in incarceration expenses is it worth to save a couple hundred dollars in food benefits rages on.
In the other corner, we have the tried-and-true Conservative principle of effing people over b/c of "the costs," where supposedly Church-going Conservatives defend letting old people die in their homes if they aren't fortunate enough to be part of a congregation that will run a food drive on their behalf.
So with these two lively conversations going, drawing Conservatives in from all over CD to bring in their anecdotes about Joe Bob Grifter and Auntie Spinster, the question that comes to mind is...
WTF is wrong w/ Conservative priorities?
It's not about money b/c they're willing to dig a bottomless pit of debt as long as that money is being used to punish someone. How else do you justify reducing the funding to feed homebound elderly so you can build more of the bombs that you have more of than anyone else?
It's not about the money b/c they're willing to spend more money to lock people up and feed them than they are to not lock them up in jail and feed them.
So what is the driving force behind Conservative priorities where there's a ceiling on how much they're willing to spend to save a life but a bottomless hole for how much they'll spend to punish someone?
First, I'll start off where I agree with you. I think we have battled a federal war on drugs that has cost us billions of dollars and placed thousands of people behind bars who couldn't gone to rehab and lived productive lives. I say states should deal with these issues and what I'm for in my state is rehab instead of prison for non-violent offenders and the legalization of pot. The federal government DOES have a role to play, however, in cracking down on the transport of drugs.
Now, to the issue of Meals on Wheels, here is the problem. The federal government shouldn't be involved in that program. If states want to fund that program, fine. I say more money should be left with the states and even more with the people. So I support Meals on Wheels, I just want it to be funded by states, counties, local governments, and private citizens.
But here is where I take issue with how Trump is dealing with the budget. He does very little to control the debt. Meals on Wheels is funded through a $3 billion federal block-grant. The primary drivers of the national debt are medicare, medicaid, and social security. Until we reform those programs, there will be no significant debt reduction. Furthermore, increasing defense spending by $54 billion as a political exercise serves no purpose other than to get Trump re-elected. The neoconservatives are thrilled about this increase, but what we should be doing is continuing to fund our troops, but I really don't think we need over 900 military bases in 130 countries. That money can be re-directed to domestic military bases, to our veterans, to tax relief, and to reducing the national debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knox Harrington
It's a very good question.
Does the military REALLY need $50 Billion more?
Of course not.
Anyone who has ever served in the military knows what happens every September (the fiscal year starts in October and ends in September). We start buying new jackets, flat-screen televisions, boots, office furniture, etc. You know, "if you don't spend it, you won't get the same amount of money next fiscal year."
I bet everyone who has ever served has heard that at one time or another. There is a ton of waste.
It's just silly and heartless to cut programs that cost 1% of the proposed INCREASE in defense spending, when the DOD is wasting so much money.
To answer your question about military spending, the answer is no. We have to maintain the strongest military, we must support our troops and protect them, and we have to ensure that we properly maintain our military bases here at home.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump has people close to him who hold radical views on this issue. On one hand, he has neoconservatives who want us to be in a perpetual state of war and who support us policing the world. On the other hand, you have Steve Bannon. Bannon is a radical leftist who once described himself as a "Lenninist." Bannon wants complete isolationism and protectionism on trade. What this could lead to is more wars, weakened alliances, and fewer jobs.
We have to great examples of Conservative priorities on the front page. In one corner we have the never-ending Conservative crusade of punishing people no matter the cost, where the discussion on how many thousands of dollars in incarceration expenses is it worth to save a couple hundred dollars in food benefits rages on.
Punishing people in the form of them going to jail for committing a crime?
That shouldn't happen?
So liberals, like yourself, would rather criminals be kept out of jail to spend federal dollars on those who are just lazy and choose to live off of tax payer dollars?
Quote:
In the other corner, we have the tried-and-true Conservative principle of effing people over b/c of "the costs," where supposedly Church-going Conservatives defend letting old people die in their homes if they aren't fortunate enough to be part of a congregation that will run a food drive on their behalf.
The hell are you talking about?
I don't know of one "Christian" or Catholic program that only helps "their own".
Quote:
So with these two lively conversations going, drawing Conservatives in from all over CD to bring in their anecdotes about Joe Bob Grifter and Auntie Spinster, the question that comes to mind is...
WTF is wrong w/ Conservative priorities?
It's not about money b/c they're willing to dig a bottomless pit of debt as long as that money is being used to punish someone. How else do you justify reducing the funding to feed homebound elderly so you can build more of the bombs that you have more of than anyone else?
Hard to explain to someone who thinks that it is 1917.
Quote:
It's not about the money b/c they're willing to spend more money to lock people up and feed them than they are to not lock them up in jail and feed them.
So what is the driving force behind Conservative priorities where there's a ceiling on how much they're willing to spend to save a life but a bottomless hole for how much they'll spend to punish someone?
How much more do you want tax payers to fund the social programs already in place, and OBVIOUSLY don't work & no matter how many millions or billions are tossed at them?
How much more do you want tax payers to fund the social programs already in place, and OBVIOUSLY don't work & no matter how many millions or billions are tossed at them?
But you're arguing it works for tossing the billions of billions of tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest and the military?
Yep. They have a tendency to focus in the narrowest slices to rally around, ignoring the fact that those are the exceptions to the norm. They would sacrifice 90% of the legitimate users & uses to eliminate 5% of waste.
Voter fraud @ <.001% is another example of that focus.
The 1st problem is voters are idiots and I think this is the core of the problem. People fall for stuff to easily as long as you say it in a nice way. Nobody bothers analyzing how you're actually going to do it and think does it actually accomplish what you say? Is it reasonable? Also explains why people think scientists and engineers are the "educated elites" and don't understand what their needs are when in reality the real phrase should be "stupidity of the masses".
2nd problem is there's structural issues with democracy in America. Campaign corruption by money, gerry mandering, low voter turnout, etc..
We have to great examples of Conservative priorities on the front page. In one corner we have the never-ending Conservative crusade of punishing people no matter the cost, where the discussion on how many thousands of dollars in incarceration expenses is it worth to save a couple hundred dollars in food benefits rages on.
In the other corner, we have the tried-and-true Conservative principle of effing people over b/c of "the costs," where supposedly Church-going Conservatives defend letting old people die in their homes if they aren't fortunate enough to be part of a congregation that will run a food drive on their behalf.
So with these two lively conversations going, drawing Conservatives in from all over CD to bring in their anecdotes about Joe Bob Grifter and Auntie Spinster, the question that comes to mind is...
WTF is wrong w/ Conservative priorities?
It's not about money b/c they're willing to dig a bottomless pit of debt as long as that money is being used to punish someone. How else do you justify reducing the funding to feed homebound elderly so you can build more of the bombs that you have more of than anyone else?
It's not about the money b/c they're willing to spend more money to lock people up and feed them than they are to not lock them up in jail and feed them.
So what is the driving force behind Conservative priorities where there's a ceiling on how much they're willing to spend to save a life but a bottomless hole for how much they'll spend to punish someone?
why do liberals constantly look to the federal government to do everything? lets look at this for a moment shall we? the federal government is looking to cut the budget with trump running the show, and one fo the things he wants to cut is the money sent to meals on wheels. but why are the feds sending funding in the first place? why not the state and local governments?
second, meals on wheels on only ONE organization getting meals out to the elderly and shut ins, AARP is also doing the same work, as i would suspect are a number of other charitable organizations, big and small, across the country. in fact donations to meals on wheels have gone UP when trumps budget was offered and cut the federal money.
i like the meals on wheels program, along with all the other programs that feed the elderly, the homeless, and others less fortunate. but these programs need to be funded primarily locally. we can no longer expect the federal government to fund everything everyone wants. remember we have a debt of $20 trillion, and at some point that debt is going to crush the economy unless we start doing something about the wanton spending being done by the feds.
the federal government is not tasked with feeding everyone, that is the purview of the local and state governments, and charities and nonprofit organizations.
i have said it before, liberals are very generous with other peoples money, and this needs to stop at some point. so how about you start donating to your local charities, either your money or your time, and hep out the organizations that have taken up the task of doing the things you want done.
and before you say anything, i HAVE worked with the homless through the salvation army as a winter program driver. i took the homeless to and from shelters, and i picked up donations for the homeless.
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.
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.
