Do you folks understand that one of the few constitutionally provided obligations of the federal government won’t be met by 2040? That is, unconstitutional items, such as SS, Medicare, and other wealth redistribution entitlements will be so costly we won’t be able to afford a national defense. We’re bankrupting a good many future generations over how “generous” we are with other people’s money today. And do none of you feel ashamed for corrupting the democratic process? Entitlements are a vote buying scheme, that we have to pay for!
Back up.
I am not against Military Spending…I’m against WASTEFUL military spending, with a lot of it in Weapon Systems cost and PROCUREMENT. Basic staples for our military (like toilet paper) cost MILLIONS more than it would cost if we got it on the free market.
On top of that, we will procure millions of dollars in something, then spend millions more to just let it set, never to be used.
This type of waste accounts for a lot more cents on your dollar than Food Stamps of WIC. That’s just a fact.
Mufasa
(Again…I would like to see the savings go to pay for our Military and better overall care for them and their dependents).
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Back up.
I am not against Military Spending…I’m against WASTEFUL military spending, with a lot of it in Weapon Systems cost and PROCUREMENT. Basic staples for our military (like toilet paper) cost MILLIONS more than it would cost if we got it on the free market.
On top of that, we will procure millions of dollars in something, then spend millions more to just let it set, never to be used.
This type of waste accounts for a lot more cents on your dollar than Food Stamps of WIC. That’s just a fact.
Mufasa
(Again…I would like to see the savings go to pay for our Military and better overall care for them and their dependents).
[/quote]
I don’t seperate out entitlement spending. Just like we might talk about military spending as whole (as here). It’s (the military) a government bureacracy anyways, it’ll always be wasteful. We aren’t going to correct our course by cutting waste, closing pork barrel spending, etc. Entitlements programs alone will devour the budget by 2040. Not military spending.
Our ills are primarily the result of legal vote buying schemes.
The caring candidate: “You, young fella, how about some student loans? Vote for me! Seasoned citizen, no retirement, no healthcare? Vote for me! Lady with a 3rd kid with no daddy, need a check, baby formula, healthcare? Vote for me! Hey illegals, want some amnesty, and access to the new public option coming down the pipeline? Remember who delivered!”
The real conservative: “Actually, I have no new programs to hand out. In fact, I think we need to face the realities of our near future budget obligations. We need to start cutting, even dismantling…please, where are you going?”
Our “democracy” is a corrupt joke. When people found out politicians would give them things out of other people’s pockets, democracy lost it’s moral superiority.
Sloth:
I really don’t think we’re disagreeing that much. (based on what you just wrote!)
It is a corrupt SYSTEM that in fact needs a complete overall.
The problem is that “right” and “left” are just as corrupt as one another…and trying to make stark differences between the GOP and the DEMS is a joke.
Mufasa
[quote]tme wrote:
Yes, actually. Quite a few of you supported any and every Bush/Cheney decision unquestioningly. JeffRo would be the single most disgusting example, but many of you are equally guilty. Rewriting history is Dick’s biggest talent, so I expect many here to try and emulate that as well.
[/quote]
Is JeffR really the best example you can come up with?
You forget that he never had the supermajority that Obama has, and the legislation he passed clearly shows he was willing to work with the democrats, much to the chagrin of the conservatives in office. NCLB, campaign finance reform, comprehensive immigration reform (although it was never passed he supported it), bank bailouts! Any of these ring a bell?
You’re right, he didn’t oppose any spending bills, and this is why we are quick to point out that he was wrong on many of his policy decisions, but the point here is that a liar he was not.
[quote]
tedro wrote:However, I do trust what he says, and don’t believe he ever deliberately misled people to get their support, unlike our current POTUSINO. To this day, I would still be honored to sit down with GWB and have a few beers.
That would actually be really funny if it was meant as satire. But in reality he looked the world in the eye and lied his ass off about wmd in Iraq and a link to AQ.[/quote]
If you wish to call Bush a liar for this, that’s fine, just make sure to include the CIA and most of congress in there, too.
You’re kidding, right? As of July 2007, only $100 billion has been allocated. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/85xx/doc8514/08-07-Hurricanes_Letter.pdf
According to the heritage foundation this number is likely to exceed $200 billion.
Yeah, but not $300 billion, so he lied.
Don’t forget all the other countries in the world that lied about Saddam developing WMD.
We all know that in fact intelligence agencies are omniscient, and without – thanks to Clinton – having a single operative in a given country, will know for a fact that despite evidence indicating towards one thing, despite stockpiles of materiel previously found by inspectors and ordered destroyed but with Saddam refusing to document they ever were destroyed, and despite someone like Saddam accepting enormous costs to keep a thing hidden (if it exists) and ejecting UN inspectors looking for the thing (if it exists) that the thing really does not exist
They knew to conclude – putting national security on the line – that the stockpiles really were destroyed despite no evidence that they were and despite 19 violations of UN Resolutions demanding that the evidence be provided. They knew it. Didn’t you ever hear of Project Stargate and remote viewing?
Liars.
…“I don’t seperate out entitlement spending”…
Can you explain that a little more, Sloth?
Mufasa
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
These all sound like conservative positions.
I’m confused now.[/quote]
I am not totally against core conservative beliefs. My problem is that conservatives today are distant from core beliefs and the politicians rarely exhibit core beliefs unless it is in their interest to do so.
Bush = core republican beliefs
Bush = expanded the central government by 1/3
Therefore:
core republican beliefs = expansion of central government
Here is another example that really makes my blood boil. They expand the central government by refusing to allow me the option of buying Canadian drugs, but when it comes to regulating Wall Street they say they want a smaller government.
Examples like this are endless.
Smaller government is used as an excuse to either screw me over, or allow corporations to screw me over. It is not the status-quo and they actually do not want a smaller government unless it favors their corporate backers.
If the right actually supported and backed a smaller government all of the time, I would sign with conservatives more often. Given what I have to choose from, I choose the side that at least comes out and says they are for the little guy.
After all…liberals have stood for all of this:
clean air & water standards
worker safety
40 hour work week
social security
medicare
medicaid
child labor laws
federal student loans
voting rights
food and drug safety
rural electrification
collective bargaining
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The problem is that “right” and “left” are just as corrupt as one another…and trying to make stark differences between the GOP and the DEMS is a joke.
Mufasa[/quote]
This is the same thing I “try” to say. The problem with my message is that it gets lost in trying to present the right with genuine bias.
You see, even if everyone agrees that Obama sucks and is doing the exact same thing Washington has done, it does no good unless the people on the right realize their side is also WRONG.
It is high time everyone realized that both sides are lying to our faces. They do not hate one another, conservatives and liberals are buddies and pals behind the scenes.
If Obama leaves office, and another Republican takes office, then Fox will stop the attacks and inevitably the right wing outrage will cease. It simply was not there when Bush was in office.
If anyone disagrees with the notion the right wing outrage did not exist when Bush was in office…then provide and example of a right wing rally protesting Bush.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Is JeffR really the best example you can come up with?
[/quote]
Actually, the hypocrisy and right wing whack jobs on this site actually made me stop coming here for a while. It was not just JeffR, there is an entire cult of Bush butt monkeys here.
As far as they are concerned, the right is RIGHT, no matter how wrong they might be.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
If you take government out of the Loan process, then a) many institutions of higher learning will close and b) only the rich will be able get higher degrees. (Which is essentially the way it used to be in these “wonderful” days that many of you wish for).[/quote]
Incorrect. This doesn’t make sense. Lenders will make loans on the basis that they are good business decisions - lending for purposes of higher education iis usually a winner (base don the cash flow of income that comes from the higher wages college graduates get on the whole).
Institutions of higher learning won’t close because: (1) they are subsidized anyway, (2) they have plenty of capacity to reduce costs across the board, they just don’t.
The “easy money” of unfettered loans have helped create the monster known as tuition inflation - see the housing bubble for the perfect example of the mechanics of the problem - which compounds itself as a problem: the money is easier to get, but the debt goes higher and higher because the easy money pushes up costs.
And, government backed student loans have - similar to the housing bubble phenomenon - disconnected the loan value from the underlying asset, meaning even the some of the worst, laziest, unfocused students get “easy money” to go waste time in college.
Rich people will continue to get degrees on daddy’s nickel - it happens. But just because this fact exists is not a good reason to continue the “easy money” regime in place that (1) threatens to wreck the system, and (2) leaves students drowning in debt while their education continues to be mediocre (at best) while the tenured class.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Who cares about who sponsored what? The topic is about government gobbling about whatever it can blindly reach for. Well, specifically student loans being taken over completely.[/quote]
The government used to pay/subsidize the banks to make the loans. Supposedly by doing it directly the taxpayers save $80 billion. What they will do with the savings is another story. Probably something stupid. But this was never a free market, it was a free lunch for the lenders. No risk, all gain. Doesn’t sound like capitalism to me.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Actually, the hypocrisy and right wing whack jobs on this site actually made me stop coming here for a while. It was not just JeffR, there is an entire cult of Bush butt monkeys here.
As far as they are concerned, the right is RIGHT, no matter how wrong they might be.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s truly annoying. Unlike leftists who readily admit that what they had said – or a leading liberal politician had said or done – is wrong or dubious as soon as evidence is provided to show it. That is one of the reasons I admire the left.
For example you are a noted Obama critic on various points, I’m sure.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Actually, the hypocrisy and right wing whack jobs on this site actually made me stop coming here for a while. It was not just JeffR, there is an entire cult of Bush butt monkeys here.
As far as they are concerned, the right is RIGHT, no matter how wrong they might be.
Yes, it’s truly annoying. Unlike leftists who readily admit that what they had said – or a leading liberal politician had said or done – is wrong or dubious as soon as evidence is provided to show it. That is one of the reasons I admire the left.
For example you are a noted Obama critic on various points, I’m sure.[/quote]
Um, yes, he is.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
In regards to my feelings on Obama’s policies, I find the new boss is looking more and more like the old boss. While he is new, and deserves a chance to fix the train wreck Bush left the office in, may patience with Obama’s grace period is quickly waning.
I did not truly detest Bush until the end o0f his first term, Obama is climbing the heights of my disrespect much, MUCH faster.
Preventive detention, patriot act, secrecy, signing statements, saying one thing and doing another…where should I begin with what I dislike about Obama?
Then fact is, Fox Network bashes Obama no matter what he does. In contrast, Olberman, Maddow, Stewart, have all trashed Obama as well when it has been deserved.
The job of the media is to cover news, not sponsor it…does 9/12 protest ring a bell?
So where was your outrage when bush was in office? Can you show one single documented complaint of bush policies? Perhaps you should turn on TV…I think Beck is on.
[/quote]
Well, that is good.
The comment can then apply to very many others 
I do find it puzzling though why he would be bothered by those of a given stripe always thinking their side is right, but making no mention of being similarly bothered by those of another stripe (the left) that, in their minds, remain correct as do their leaders no matter what.
Even immediately after providing very solid evidence to the contrary.
E.g., calling Bush a liar with regard to New Orleans, and then finding out that a ton of money was spent by Bush on it.
Why didn’t that bother Pete just as much? It’s probably the 100th or 1000th time that that poster has been exposed to the information that in fact a ton of taxpayer money has been put into New Orleans and spent on its residents, but to no avail: the guy is always right and remains right on this, regardless of evidence provided.
There’s no shortage of such. It is not peculiar to the right. Furthermore, I really have not seen any great number of supposed Bush-bot posts. As already pointed out, generally the posters have criticized Bush many times on many things. But generally we don’t see the Obama supporters criticizing Obama. There will be exceptions, but if anything the exceptions are much more rare than are the plentiful examples of those who may have voted for Bush but many times criticized his policies.
My point is that expressing such inability to tolerate “right wingers” thinking they are correct, as if there are not at least an equal proportion of leftists that are never wrong no matter how much evidence you provide, is rather one-sided.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My point is that expressing such inability to tolerate “right wingers” thinking they are correct, as if there are not at least an equal proportion of leftists that are never wrong no matter how much evidence you provide, is rather one-sided.[/quote]
Agreed. My measure of admitting fault points directly at the proclaimed leader of the right wing, Rush Limbaugh, and the number one news source for the right side agenda; Fox news & company. Coulter, O’Reilly, Beck, all of them are the face of conservative politics in mainstream media, but can not seem to find any fault in the Republican party.
I see Olberman, Stewart, NBC, CNN, Maddow, all attack Obama when it is deserved. The same cannot be said for the right side of reporting. Again, I see the above noted media outlet and individuals as the face of conservatives.
A second measure would be anecdotal and not worth mentioning.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
I see Olberman, Stewart, NBC, CNN, Maddow, all attack Obama when it is deserved. The same cannot be said for the right side of reporting. Again, I see the above noted media outlet and individuals as the face of conservatives. [/quote]
Dumbest thing I have read here in months. I have no use for these talking heads right or left, but to say the right-wing pundits refused to criticize Bush or GOP is preposterous. O’Reilly, as an example, trashed Bush over his approach to illegal immigration. Coulter criticized the GOP over spending.
Do something - anything - rather than pass off this nonsense.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
If you take government out of the Loan process, then a) many institutions of higher learning will close and b) only the rich will be able get higher degrees. (Which is essentially the way it used to be in these “wonderful” days that many of you wish for).
Incorrect. This doesn’t make sense. Lenders will make loans on the basis that they are good business decisions - lending for purposes of higher education iis usually a winner (base don the cash flow of income that comes from the higher wages college graduates get on the whole).
[/quote]
Incorrect. Lending for the purposes of higher education is a winner because you can’t disburse student loan debt in bankruptcy. Higher education gets you better pay in only a select number of math and science-based professions. Humanities majors are not paid better for their degree.
[quote]
Institutions of higher learning won’t close because: (1) they are subsidized anyway, (2) they have plenty of capacity to reduce costs across the board, they just don’t.
The “easy money” of unfettered loans have helped create the monster known as tuition inflation - see the housing bubble for the perfect example of the mechanics of the problem - which compounds itself as a problem: the money is easier to get, but the debt goes higher and higher because the easy money pushes up costs.
And, government backed student loans have - similar to the housing bubble phenomenon - disconnected the loan value from the underlying asset, meaning even the some of the worst, laziest, unfocused students get “easy money” to go waste time in college.
Rich people will continue to get degrees on daddy’s nickel - it happens. But just because this fact exists is not a good reason to continue the “easy money” regime in place that (1) threatens to wreck the system, and (2) leaves students drowning in debt while their education continues to be mediocre (at best) while the tenured class.[/quote]
What you’ve described has already happened. Currently, 46% of the US population goes to “kollege.” Charles Murray et al believes this number should be no higher than 25%. 15% would be ideal. What has happened is that a college degree is now worthless paper for the vast majority of those who have one. And guess who is becoming the chief holder of this worthless paper? The US government.
The US government is now also the prime holder of the worthless paper lent in the form of mortgages over the past 8 years. What might be the implications of having a government that continues to collect worthless paper with reckless abandon.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
My point is that expressing such inability to tolerate “right wingers” thinking they are correct, as if there are not at least an equal proportion of leftists that are never wrong no matter how much evidence you provide, is rather one-sided.
Agreed. My measure of admitting fault points directly at the proclaimed leader of the right wing, Rush Limbaugh, and the number one news source for the right side agenda; Fox news & company. Coulter, O’Reilly, Beck, all of them are the face of conservative politics in mainstream media, but can not seem to find any fault in the Republican party.
I see Olberman, Stewart, NBC, CNN, Maddow, all attack Obama when it is deserved. The same cannot be said for the right side of reporting. Again, I see the above noted media outlet and individuals as the face of conservatives.
A second measure would be anecdotal and not worth mentioning.
[/quote]
So you watch all of these guys regularly huh?
My guess: You watch the lib ones more and hence see them go against there own more often. Conservatives do the same for their talking heads.
O’Reilly criticised Bush about as often as Olbermann has been criticising Obama, that is to say not very often at all, but when he did it was with fervour.