1
   

New Budget Cut Medicaid... Boost Miltary Spending

 
 
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 10:00 am
prick....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/bush.budget.ap/index.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,119 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 10:02 am
Dick.



What a non-surprise.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 10:32 am
Good for the budget. Its good to see the govt supporting those that do something for the country. These others do nothing but suck off of the govt tit. At least the soldiers are doing something that is very worth wild.

You libs can't be to mad at Bush about this. At the begining of the War you guys were complaining about the soldiers not getting enough funds to do their jobs. Now that change is being made.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 10:42 am
Larry I sure hope you get a chance to get back over there in the ****. I know it's what you want and therefore I want it for you.

Yes the libs all just want to suck on the government tit.

I could say the rest of you just want to suck on bushs' penis.

One remark is no more stupid than the other.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 10:56 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Larry I sure hope you get a chance to get back over there in the ****. I know it's what you want and therefore I want it for you.

Yes the libs all just want to suck on the government tit.

I could say the rest of you just want to suck on bushs' penis.

One remark is no more stupid than the other.


Its not the libs persay, but they want the people to be dependent on the govt tit. The larger the nipple the better the libs like it. They don't want people to be selfsufficient.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:05 am
Baldimo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Larry I sure hope you get a chance to get back over there in the ****. I know it's what you want and therefore I want it for you.

Yes the libs all just want to suck on the government tit.

I could say the rest of you just want to suck on bushs' penis.

One remark is no more stupid than the other.


Its not the libs persay, but they want the people to be dependent on the govt tit. The larger the nipple the better the libs like it. They don't want people to be selfsufficient.


That's odd, because I'm both Liberal and pro-self sufficiency.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:13 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's odd, because I'm both Liberal and pro-self sufficiency.

Cycloptichorn


You must feel conflicted.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:14 am
Baldimo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Larry I sure hope you get a chance to get back over there in the ****. I know it's what you want and therefore I want it for you.

Yes the libs all just want to suck on the government tit.

I could say the rest of you just want to suck on bushs' penis.

One remark is no more stupid than the other.


Its not the libs persay, but they want the people to be dependent on the govt tit. The larger the nipple the better the libs like it. They don't want people to be selfsufficient.


broad generalization. also bullshit.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:17 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's odd, because I'm both Liberal and pro-self sufficiency.

Cycloptichorn


You must feel conflicted.


Not really.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:21 am
I'd like to see more details. CNN as usual can not or will not provide any meaningful details.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 12:03 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Larry I sure hope you get a chance to get back over there in the ****. I know it's what you want and therefore I want it for you.

Yes the libs all just want to suck on the government tit.

I could say the rest of you just want to suck on bushs' penis.

One remark is no more stupid than the other.


Its not the libs persay, but they want the people to be dependent on the govt tit. The larger the nipple the better the libs like it. They don't want people to be selfsufficient.


broad generalization. also bullshit.


If it is bullshit then how come the big push by the Dems every session for more govt run programs to support the people who won't support themselves?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 12:17 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Larry I sure hope you get a chance to get back over there in the ****. I know it's what you want and therefore I want it for you.

Yes the libs all just want to suck on the government tit.

I could say the rest of you just want to suck on bushs' penis.

One remark is no more stupid than the other.


Its not the libs persay, but they want the people to be dependent on the govt tit. The larger the nipple the better the libs like it. They don't want people to be selfsufficient.


broad generalization. also bullshit.



If it is bullshit then how come the big push by the Dems every session for more govt run programs to support the people who won't support themselves?


Um, that has nothing to do with Liberals at all. In fact, the by far biggest increase to gov't run programs was instituted by Bush and pushed through by a Republian controlled congress - Medicare part D.

The second largest program instituted to 'support people who won't support themselves?' Why, that would be the Department of Homeland Security.

The Federal government has increased more under Republican rule than Dem rule. You are repeating an untrue allegation and probably should study up some more.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 12:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Larry I sure hope you get a chance to get back over there in the ****. I know it's what you want and therefore I want it for you.

Yes the libs all just want to suck on the government tit.

I could say the rest of you just want to suck on bushs' penis.

One remark is no more stupid than the other.


Its not the libs persay, but they want the people to be dependent on the govt tit. The larger the nipple the better the libs like it. They don't want people to be selfsufficient.


broad generalization. also bullshit.



If it is bullshit then how come the big push by the Dems every session for more govt run programs to support the people who won't support themselves?


Um, that has nothing to do with Liberals at all. In fact, the by far biggest increase to gov't run programs was instituted by Bush and pushed through by a Republian controlled congress - Medicare part D.

The second largest program instituted to 'support people who won't support themselves?' Why, that would be the Department of Homeland Security.

The Federal government has increased more under Republican rule than Dem rule. You are repeating an untrue allegation and probably should study up some more.

Cycloptichorn


How does the DHS support people who don't suppport themselves? If you mean protecting the nation yeah I can accept that. But protecting people isn't the same thing as supporting them.

Welfare, universal healthcare and other such programs are setup to create a dependence for people. If your getting money for doing nothing or just having more babies are people going to change their situations to get off of these programs? No they aren't. The Dems don't care if people are hooked or not, they need to keep a voting base and with universal health care, are going to create a whole new voting block who are only going to vote for them to keep the tit programs active and keep them from working for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 12:49 pm
Quote:


Welfare, universal healthcare and other such programs are setup to create a dependence for people. If your getting money for doing nothing or just having more babies are people going to change their situations to get off of these programs? No they aren't. The Dems don't care if people are hooked or not, they need to keep a voting base and with universal health care, are going to create a whole new voting block who are only going to vote for them to keep the tit programs active and keep them from working for themselves.


What?

You didn't address the point that I made that the Gov't which passed Medicare part D - the biggest entitlement program in decades - was Republican, squarely. How do you account for this, when it is the Dems who are looking to create a 'nanny state?'

In Texas, welfare recipients didn't receive add'tl benefits for kids they had while on welfare - and I believe there is a time limit for welfare as well. It isn't as if we can't have programs to help people, and make them sensible at the same time.

Personally, I would like to see welfare replaced with at WPA-style program to provide jobs for people who can't get them elsewhere. Not great jobs, or high-paying jobs, but jobs, rather then paying people to do nothing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Welfare, universal healthcare and other such programs are setup to create a dependence for people. If your getting money for doing nothing or just having more babies are people going to change their situations to get off of these programs? No they aren't. The Dems don't care if people are hooked or not, they need to keep a voting base and with universal health care, are going to create a whole new voting block who are only going to vote for them to keep the tit programs active and keep them from working for themselves.


What?

You didn't address the point that I made that the Gov't which passed Medicare part D - the biggest entitlement program in decades - was Republican, squarely. How do you account for this, when it is the Dems who are looking to create a 'nanny state?'

In Texas, welfare recipients didn't receive add'tl benefits for kids they had while on welfare - and I believe there is a time limit for welfare as well. It isn't as if we can't have programs to help people, and make them sensible at the same time.

Personally, I would like to see welfare replaced with at WPA-style program to provide jobs for people who can't get them elsewhere. Not great jobs, or high-paying jobs, but jobs, rather then paying people to do nothing.

Cycloptichorn


Your right, that was Rep pressed and I didn't agree with it then and I still don't agree with it now.

The funny side of that, was that Dems didn't think it did enough and wanted to add to it and expand it. So what you call the biggest entitlement program in decades wasn't big enough for the Dems.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:10 pm
bush and the rest of you idiots stop playing soldier and we'll have plenty of money to actually care for people, protect our borders, educate our people ands still pay less taxes than today.

All you bush worshipping "I don't have a dick unless there's a war" ass clowns are clueless.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:16 pm
strictly my opinion of course.... and no offense meant to you American heroes out there.... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:16 pm
Well, that seems rather harsh but also accurate. There isn't much contention that the Warmongering that has been going on in our country has lead to some staggering bills; all money that could have been spent on something more productive.

If the war in Iraq came with a yearly bill, paid by all taxpayers - as it should - then it would be over poste haste.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:18 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
bush and the rest of you idiots stop playing soldier and we'll have plenty of money to actually care for people, protect our borders, educate our people ands still pay less taxes than today.

All you bush worshipping "I don't have a dick unless there's a war" ass clowns are clueless.


So the deficet that has been created because of the War you are willing to have that amount of deficet to spend on the worthless people in the US? I would rather spend it on the soldiers and what they do. If people want free education and insurance then have them join the military and give something back to their country instead of just being a drain. That way they earn something instead of just standing around with their hands out.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:18 pm
it ain't harsh it it's true.... tough love baby.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » New Budget Cut Medicaid... Boost Miltary Spending
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/16/2025 at 11:16:06