Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2010, 02:37 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,083,971 times
Reputation: 11095

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoldTheBeans View Post
Typical left handed dodge. Can't answer the question so rant away.
In truth, by the tone and content of some of your posts, you really cannot afford to throw stones at anyone else's responses on the issues.

Last edited by sickofnyc; 05-24-2010 at 02:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2010, 02:45 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,084,400 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Succinct and to the point, and, the benefits are quite remarkable. The man is brilliant.

Rep. Alan Grayson Introduces the "War Is Making You Poor" Act | | AlterNet
Brilliant? When a liberal all of a sudden makes an attempt to cut spending he's brilliant, but when a conservative rallies for less spending its all about a racism, bigotry, and hypocrisy?

LOL.

Thanks for the laugh.

The ironic part is that there really is no decrease in spending in Grayson's bill. All it does is divert the money elsewhere (namely the debt/deficit). As noble as it would be to put more money in Americans' pockets, at least true fiscal conservatives have the nuts to cut spending instead of diverting it to other forms of spending.

Grayson rallies against spending, and then turns around and spends the money. But I get it. The symbolism is not lost on me. Noble in its intent, but its going no where.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 02:49 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,083,971 times
Reputation: 11095
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Brilliant? When a liberal all of a sudden makes an attempt to cut spending he's brilliant, but when a conservative rallies for less spending its all about a racism, bigotry, and hypocrisy?

LOL.

Thanks for the laugh.
It was specifically about less MILITARY spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 02:55 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,084,400 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
It was specifically about less MILITARY spending.
Why not less spending in general? Because it wouldn't be the Liberal Way to target anything BUT military spending.

This is more proof that liberals have no intent whatsoever in containing the federal debt/deficit. The best they can do is come up with more spending, just in different places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:00 PM
JPD
 
12,138 posts, read 18,259,477 times
Reputation: 8004
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Why not less spending in general? Because it wouldn't be the Liberal Way to target anything BUT military spending.

This is more proof that liberals have no intent whatsoever in containing the federal debt/deficit. The best they can do is come up with more spending, just in different places.
WTF? By your own admission the intent is to pay down the debt/deficit. So, what are you talking about here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:47 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,084,400 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD View Post
WTF? By your own admission the intent is to pay down the debt/deficit. So, what are you talking about here?
By his own reasoning, he came up with $35K for his income tax credit idea purely because the remaining $16 Billion didn't add up to anything worth mentioning ($48 for all 330M American's for a total of $35,048) He basically settled on the highest round number he could get out of the projected war funding and the rest would go to the debt/deficit. The $16 Billion was a math technicality, not some out of the blue urge to contain the debt/deficit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,657,184 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Why not less spending in general? Because it wouldn't be the Liberal Way to target anything BUT military spending.

This is more proof that liberals have no intent whatsoever in containing the federal debt/deficit. The best they can do is come up with more spending, just in different places.
Rep. Grayson is addressing a specific budget request made by the President/Pentagon last week. His point, and it is one well-taken, is that if we can come up with this additional $159 billion to finance the wars, over and above the 'regular' Pentagon budget, we should be able to put the money to better use.
He is not advocating for cutting military spending, the money is not theirs now, and this has nothing to do with the already increased Pentagon budget. He is simply saying that the Pentagon should be able to finance the wars with the money they have now, but, of course, all of those folks who keep screaming that we have to pay down the deficit and reduce spending will somehow rationalize this expense, 'cause, you know, we have to 'win.'
No different than those who scream we have to cut taxes, etc. but, the government just better not cut Medicare.

And yes, I do think it is brilliant. Every single bill that is introduced should be titled in exactly this fashion so that every man, woman and child in this country can understand the impact of these requests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 05:29 PM
 
329 posts, read 201,498 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
In truth, by the tone and content of some of your posts, you really cannot afford to throw stones at anyone else's responses on the issues.
You had no response hero that was my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 05:57 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,084,400 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Rep. Grayson is addressing a specific budget request made by the President/Pentagon last week. His point, and it is one well-taken, is that if we can come up with this additional $159 billion to finance the wars, over and above the 'regular' Pentagon budget, we should be able to put the money to better use.
He is not advocating for cutting military spending, the money is not theirs now, and this has nothing to do with the already increased Pentagon budget. He is simply saying that the Pentagon should be able to finance the wars with the money they have now, but, of course, all of those folks who keep screaming that we have to pay down the deficit and reduce spending will somehow rationalize this expense, 'cause, you know, we have to 'win.'
No different than those who scream we have to cut taxes, etc. but, the government just better not cut Medicare.

And yes, I do think it is brilliant. Every single bill that is introduced should be titled in exactly this fashion so that every man, woman and child in this country can understand the impact of these requests.
Grayson's point is well taken. I actually don't disagree with him on several of his points. But I think he's being a tad bit unrealistic, which is why I believe he introduced this bill as a matter of principle and symbolism instead of results-oriented expectations. Here's why:

1) Asking the Pentagon to "absorb" two wars is like asking you to absorb a second mortgage. You may be able to do it with a little rejiggering of your finances and your priorities, but you likely couldn't do it on a whim. When does anything in Washington happen on a whim? Perhaps after analyzing the plethora of Pentagon expenses and progams for cuts, the wars could indeed be absorbed. But asking the Pentagon to absorb war funding at the behest of an overly-ambitious politician is a bit outrageous.

2) The very politicians that pad the Pentagon budget would be expected to tear away the fat, thus affecting the businessess within their districts. Take, for example, the F-35 jet engine that the Pentagon doesn't want, yet $400M was allocated in the most recent budget for the engines. Why? Because jobs and companies in the various districts would miss out. Therefore, railing against the Pentagon while ignoring the very colleagues that put the pork in the Pentagon budget is .....a bit outrageous.

3) Grayson does not offer any exemptions in his law. Specifically, he doensn't exempt millionaires from his income tax credit proposal. Why do millionaires need a tax credit on the first $35K of income? Grayson is one of the first people to rail against the policies of George W. Bush, but yet he himself offers a tax credit for the rich. This is a bit outrageous.

Grayson is not brilliant. Grayson is ambitious and perhaps principled. But he's not brilliant. He's simply strumming the harp strings that make liberals hum with delight. Too bad it doesn't resemble anything realistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 06:20 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,300 posts, read 54,222,946 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoldTheBeans View Post
You had no response hero that was my point.

Actually, you responded to someone else.

Maybe you're just pointless
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top