Trump, be a leader, not a blamer.

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

It's just that the general principles/values espoused by the Republican party are better than those of the Democrats.

Self-delusion knows no bounds. Some of us would rather see tax dollars going to WIC, food stamps, public housing subsidies and other social programs than to buy another carrier for the navy that already has more carriers than all the other navies on the planet combined. Since the capital gains tax is less than what a carpenter on a construction site pays; since every tax cut I've seen in my lifetime goes to the highest tax brackets first; since the wealthy can and do employ battalions of tax lawyers to evade paying taxes--it's obvious that the lower middle class and the working class are the ones who fill the pork barrels which the Republicans then dish out to their corporate cronies.

Hey . . . wanna buy a bridge?

3 Replies

@Setanta,

remember, there are submarines , and targets.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

livinglava wrote:
It's just that the general principles/values espoused by the Republican party are better than those of the Democrats.

Self-delusion knows no bounds. Some of us would rather see tax dollars going to WIC, food stamps, public housing subsidies and other social programs than to buy another carrier for the navy that already has more carriers than all the other navies on the planet combined.

You simplify the problems of poverty by framing it this way. The more money you put into subsidies for the poor, the more it drives up prices of housing/food/etc. for those who don't get/take subsidies.

It's far better to liberate people from economic dependency than to increase it by making them pawns in the economic relationship between government and business.

Quote:

Since the capital gains tax is less than what a carpenter on a construction site pays; since every tax cut I've seen in my lifetime goes to the highest tax brackets first; since the wealthy can and do employ battalions of tax lawyers to evade paying taxes--it's obvious that the lower middle class and the working class are the ones who fill the pork barrels which the Republicans then dish out to their corporate cronies.

Will you acknowledge that whenever more money goes to the poor, middle-class, etc. it drives up prices because that is how business responds to increasing demand and consumer spending?

If you could somehow force businesses to maintain low prices while getting more money to the poor and/or other large classes of people, it might benefit them; but only if they have the discipline to avoid wasting the money on things that aren't good for them.

The bigger cultural problem we have is that the economy is largely geared toward selling people things that aren't good for them, and the people who buy them are conditioned to confuse what they desire and what gives them pleasure with what's good for them.

The old culture where people took responsibility for sacrificing immediate pleasure for longer term good has faded in many families, and so people just spend their money on things they want and then clamor for more money. It is a vicious cycle of waste-driven dependency and suffering. Giving it more funding can only exacerbate it. Deeper reforms are needed.

0 Replies

You have obviously drunk the conservative koolaid. People in poor neighborhoods already pay morefor everything. Those who own the stores in poor neighborhoods blame insurance rates, and people from the insurance industry shoot that crap down every time. Systemic racism and neglect of education account for poverty, not dependence on subsidies. By your moronic formula, American corporate entities are on life--support. Boeing spent tens of billions buying their own stock to drive up the price, and to live the pockets of the corporate board members and investors. Now they want a bailout, and idiots who support the Republicans want to give it to them.

To paraphrase the drivel you just posted: It's far better to liberate corporations from economic dependency than to increase it by making them pawns in the economic relationship between government and working-class taxpayers.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

No you wouldn't............and everybody knows it...stop trying to be Polly PureHeart...it doesn't suit you.

Why do progressives always falsely accuse conservatives of acting like progressives?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Some of us would rather see tax dollars going to WIC, food stamps, public housing subsidies and other social programs than to buy another carrier for the navy that already has more carriers than all the other navies on the planet combined.

Disarming the US military will allow the bad guys to take over the world. Voting for Republicans will prevent this from happening.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

remember, there are submarines, and targets.

Let's build more submarines too.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

While the Republicans want to be the paymasters of the corporate scumbags who finance their campaigns.

Democrats are not financed by corporate scumbags? Since when? Laughing

0 Replies

At no time have I said, or even suggested that the United States military should disarm. Anyone who makes that claim is either an idiot, a liar, or both.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

At no time have I said, or even suggested

He never said you did.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Some of us would rather see tax dollars going to WIC, food stamps, public housing subsidies and other social programs than to buy another carrier for the navy that already has more carriers than all the other navies on the planet combined.

Disarming the US military will allow the bad guys to take over the world. Voting for Republicans will prevent this from happening.

True, but part of the reason the bad guys try to take over the world is to stimulate US military response in order to stimulate market growth where the bad guys can invest and thus make money.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I disagree. I think bad guys just want to take over the world.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

At no time have I said, or even suggested that the United States military should disarm. Anyone who makes that claim is either an idiot, a liar, or both.

It looked to me like you were suggesting a lower level of weapons procurement.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I disagree. I think bad guys just want to take over the world.

Taking over the world requires taking over the global economy and making it work for you. The bad guys want to take over the world economy and/or make it work for them, whether that involves using terrorism, manipulating trade, manipulating government spending, troop placement, etc.

Business is business; but what makes bad guys bad is that they don't let their consciences get in the way of their other interests. You don't have to attain total global domination to achieve evil goals and benefit from them.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I am--when you have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world, you don't need anymore. When we already have what Eisenhower called a military-industrial complex which routinely plunders the treasury--remember allen wrenches with a plastic handle for over $100, and toilet seats for over $400?--the entire system needs an overhaul. There is only one category that I know of in which the United States does not already lead the world, and that is submarines. We have 71 submarines in commission, and Russia has 72. We have many other submarines "in mothballs," however, and our boats are newer and of better design that the ones the Russians have. The United States, according to Business Insider-dot-com, has more than 13,000 military aircraft. That is more than twice the total for Russia and China combined, according to the same source.

A good deal of the military bloat, apart from the endemic fraud of the procurement process, comes from the obsession to "project power" in the world. That does not necessarily defend the United States, and often is only bullying. I don't care what you think, and am not convinced that you do think when it comes to this particular obsession of yours.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I am--when you have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world, you don't need anymore.

"How many aircraft carriers the US needs" is not related to "the number of aircraft carriers possessed by the rest of the world". It would still be good for us to have lots of aircraft carriers even if we were the only country in the world that had them.

It is also likely that any new carrier that we are building is not going to be an additional carrier, but rather a replacement for an old worn out carrier that is being retired. Buying a new carrier probably just means keeping the same number that we already have. Not buying a new carrier probably means reducing the number of carriers that we have.

And China happens to be building aircraft carriers. The time when we have more carriers than the rest of the world is drawing to an end.

Off topic but interesting: A few days ago the US Marines just released a long-range plan to eliminate all their heavy tanks and restructure into a force designed to capture and hold those little artificial islands that China keeps illegally building in international waters.

Setanta wrote:

A good deal of the military bloat, apart from the endemic fraud of the procurement process, comes from the obsession to "project power" in the world. That does not necessarily defend the United States, and often is only bullying.

It does defend the United States. By providing protection to the parts of the world that are friendly to freedom and democracy, we allow freedom and democracy to flourish, and those economies trade with our economy.

If we did not provide protection to the parts of the world that are friendly to freedom and democracy, many of those places would out of necessity become less friendly to us and more friendly to whatever evil tyranny they needed to suck up to in order to avoid being conquered. The world would be a lot less friendly if we did not project power around the world.

Of course it's only bullying. That's what militaries are for. The ability of the US military to bully evil tyrannies is a good thing.

2 Replies

Jesus wept.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

What's wrong with having a strong military so our country can protect itself and our allies against evil tyrannies?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You are delusional in so many ways, and this paranoid obsession with gross and corrupt expenditures on unneeded military expansion is a classic example.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The ability of the US military to bully evil tyrannies is a good thing.

You mean as in the case of the Plump administration? Yeah, taking that clown out should be the number one priority.

0 Replies

Trump, be a leader, not a blamer.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know