Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152021222324252627 LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 536
  1. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #481  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Except that achieves nothing if you're still hemorrhaging money through inefficiencies in the mandatory programs as well as through non-budget spending. You're trying to bail out a sinking boat with a coffee mug to keep it from sinking instead of patching the hole first.

    Diverting money from discretionary spending to reduce the debt is going to be a requirement but trying to do it before you actually slow or stop the accumulation of the debt is pointless.
    I agree - major inefficiencies do need to be removed from the Mandatory items but you've got to start somewhere and discretionary budget items (44% of the entire 2011 budget makes for one big coffee mug ) are always an easier place to start.

    Where to start is the only thing we disagree on. They don't call SS the "third rail" for nothing.
  2. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #482  
    You want to start cutting things? How about the department of education? No, really! Why do we need this as a nation? I'm all for a small board at a national level to create some learning standards, but not a $150 BILLION dollar department. The states surely can handle paying for and administering public education.

    Next up, the Federal Highway Administration. Again, other than basic over-site and ensuring that projects that cross state lines are taken care of, why the need for $50 billion? Again, states need to take care of their own roads. I don't like the fact that we as a nation paid $12 billion dollars just so Boston can have an underground highway.

    The list can go on and on...how about all the money that is fought over for things that only benefit one state? Why must we send the money to the feds only to have politicians squabble, bargain, and sell their souls just to get it back? It is inefficient. Ultimately, state taxes should be MORE than Federal taxes, not the other way round (although people in NY may already be that way). That does not mean raise the state taxes to beat the feds...it means CUT federal taxes and raise state taxes only as necessary! Let the states decide what is important....not Washington.
  3. #483  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    You want to start cutting things? How about the department of education? No, really! Why do we need this as a nation? I'm all for a small board at a national level to create some learning standards, but not a $150 BILLION dollar department. The states surely can handle paying for and administering public education.

    Next up, the Federal Highway Administration. Again, other than basic over-site and ensuring that projects that cross state lines are taken care of, why the need for $50 billion? Again, states need to take care of their own roads. I don't like the fact that we as a nation paid $12 billion dollars just so Boston can have an underground highway.

    The list can go on and on...how about all the money that is fought over for things that only benefit one state? Why must we send the money to the feds only to have politicians squabble, bargain, and sell their souls just to get it back? It is inefficient. Ultimately, state taxes should be MORE than Federal taxes, not the other way round (although people in NY may already be that way). That does not mean raise the state taxes to beat the feds...it means CUT federal taxes and raise state taxes only as necessary! Let the states decide what is important....not Washington.
    yeah, I'd love for the state of California or Texas to get its hands on all that pell grant money. Someone in Cali will redirect it to pay off their debts, someone in Texas will put abstinence only stipulations on it. Maybe they can put creationism restrictions on in in Kansas?
    NO THANK YOU!

    NY state government came very close to shutting down over squabbles. Its no different at the state level than the federal.
    Last edited by mrloserpunk; 10/01/2010 at 08:13 PM.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  4. #484  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    admit it. you know you wish you'd googled that first!
    Damn, that thing is awesome.
  5. #485  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Constitutionality test? Thats your litmus test for morality? Slavery, the most immoral law in our nation's history persisted with the constitutional stamp of approval for generations (four score and 7 years) and the only way it got outlawed was not by the Constitution but by war. No, morality is not created by a supermajority of states or self serving politicians, it does not follow a 5/4 decision by a bunch of politically biased supreme court judges. These bodies can pass laws and force people to comply, but when it comes down to it, whether a law is moral or not is a decision that each individual has to make for themselves.
    If you believe that the Constitution gave a "Stamp of Approval" for generations, you should read Frederick Douglass who was a well educated run-away slave who became a staunch defender of the Consitution. He recognized that the private debates that happened surrounding slavery during the framing of the Constition were kept behind closed doors and that the document itself was worded in such a way as to support the abolition of slavery. He states:

    "...the American Government and the American Constitution are spoken of in a manner which would naturally lead the hearer to believe that one is identical with the other; when the truth is, they are distinct in character as is a ship and a compass. The one may point right and the other steer wrong. A chart is one thing, the course of the vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the Government is wrong. If the Government has been governed by mean, sordid, and wicked passions, it does not follow that the Constitution is mean, sordid, and wicked. "

    It may have taken a war to get the legislative balance of power on the side of abolitionists, but the constitution itself was an anti-slavery document in spite of the fact that many of the its signer's were not abolitionists.

    The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery? by Frederick Douglass
    Last edited by ReaganElephant; 10/03/2010 at 08:29 AM.
  6. #486  
    Quote Originally Posted by ReaganElephant View Post
    It may have taken a war to get the legislative balance of power on the side of abolitionists, but the constitution itself was an anti-slavery document in spite of the fact that many of the its signer's were not abolitionists.
    If you are a student of civil rights literature, you must know that for a great many years Douglass used the exact opposite argument: that the Constitution codified slavery and was immoral. There are many of his speeches to choose from that show this, but here's two of them:

    "Frederick Douglass: Farewell Speech to the British People:
    " ..the very men who famed the Constitution; the very men who adopted that Constitution, were holding their fellow man in bondage and were trafficking in their bodies and souls. From the adoption of the Constitution of the United States onwards, everything good and great in the heart of the American people, everything patriotic, has been summoned to cover up this great national falsehood."

    Frederick Douglass: The Constitution and Slavery
    " The parties that made the Constitution, aimed to cheat and defraud the slave, who was no himself a party to the compact or agreement. It was entered into understandingly on both sides. They both designed to purchase their freedom and safety at the expense of the imbruted slave. The North are willing to become the body guards of slavery — suppressing insurrection — returning fugitive slaves to bondage — importing slaves for twenty years, and as much longer as the Congress should see fit to leave it unprohibited, and virtually to give slaveholders three votes for ever five slaves they could plunder from Africa, and all this to form a Union by which to repel invasion, and otherwise promoted their interest."

    Later, Douglass's views of the Constitution and slavery changed considerably, as with the example you point out above. For a thoughtful person like Douglass, after many years, to make a 180 degree change in his view of the Constitution tells me that the Constitution was not as clearly anti-slavery as you would like to make it out to be, but instead, it was ambiguous at best.

    In fact, if you think that the Constitution was so clearly anti-slavery, then why was the 13th Ammendment even needed? It was needed precisely because the original framers of the Constitution conspicuously left out any clear prohibition of slavery in the first place.
  7. #487  
    hmmm the 13th ammendment, you have to ask yourself, no you really do, lol, why is that so many from the Tea Party movement, want to go back to yester year, remove the different things that the feds have done, including the ammendments. lol now you just gotta ask yourself, is that right? What good could possibly come from taking away those ammendments?
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  8. #488  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    hmmm the 13th ammendment, you have to ask yourself, no you really do, lol, why is that so many from the Tea Party movement, want to go back to yester year,
    Apparently some tea party and/or GOP politicians don't like the .
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    remove the different things that the feds have done, including the ammendments. lol now you just gotta ask yourself, is that right? What good could possibly come from taking away those ammendments?
    It gets votes, its the southern strategy on steroids.
  9. #489  
    All amendments must be removed to appease the Constitutional purists of the Tea Party which also includes the Bill of Rights since those were amendments included after the writing of the Constitution!
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #490  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    All amendments must be removed to appease the Constitutional purists of the Tea Party which also includes the Bill of Rights since those were amendments included after the writing of the Constitution!
    Really? Where did you hear that?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #491  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Really? Where did you hear that?
    Like two posts above yours, maybe? Post 488?
  12. #492  
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #493  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Like two posts above yours, maybe? Post 488?
    Those are repug's, not tea partiers.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #494  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    LOL! Please explain how this has anything to do with what Republicans want. And how is it related to Capitalism?

    Seems sort of a random spin at best, to me.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #495  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    All amendments must be removed to appease the Constitutional purists of the Tea Party which also includes the Bill of Rights since those were amendments included after the writing of the Constitution!
    Since the due process clause of 14th Amendment is used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable at the state level, some would argue that an attack on the 14th Amendment is like an attack on the Bill of Rights.
  16. #496  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    LOL! Please explain how this has anything to do with what Republicans want. And how is it related to Capitalism?

    Seems sort of a random spin at best, to me.
    Sorry. I should have said "Neander-Cons" instead of Republicans. Not all Republicans are this stupid.

    This town in Tennessee had the brilliance to declare that the fire dept. was "socialist" and started charging their towns folk $75 for the "use" of their services. Sadly, this man did not pay the fee so the fire dept came to the fire, did nothing, and just watched his home and all of his belongings burn to the ground.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  17. #497  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Those are repug's, not tea partiers.
    Buck isn't a Tbagger? Paul?
    Besides, is there any difference?
  18. #498  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Like two posts above yours, maybe? Post 488?
    Good gravy....if one person in the "Tea Party" says something stupid, it means everyone who believes in much of what they stand for believes that stupid statement? Haven't we been down that road before? And by the way davidra, the Senator from SC that you seem to always say is one of the few reasonable Republican Senators is also for getting rid of "birth rights" found in the 14th Amendment: Think Progress » Lindsey Graham considering overturning the 14th amendment to end ‘birthright citizenship.’

    Is he a member of the Tea Party? LOL I think not....he has been quite critical of the Tea Party folks. He even had to have a special meeting with some Tea Party Republicans to convince them he was still a Republican: Graham, Tea Party square off | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment So, I wouldn't say this was a Tea Party issue.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  19. #499  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Sorry. I should have said "Neander-Cons" instead of Republicans. Not all Republicans are this stupid.

    This town in Tennessee had the brilliance to declare that the fire dept. was "socialist" and started charging their towns folk $75 for the "use" of their services. Sadly, this man did not pay the fee so the fire dept came to the fire, did nothing, and just watched his home and all of his belongings burn to the ground.
    I don't know....I think I would have paid the $75 fee or had made plans to protect my house in the event a fire happened. Sounds like the man who didn't pay the fee had no plan....who was the not so brilliant person in this scenario? I wonder if he rebuilds, if he will pay the $75 fee now? A really sad way to learn a lesson....or make a "stand".
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  20. #500  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I don't know....I think I would have paid the $75 fee or had made plans to protect my house in the event a fire happened. Sounds like the man who didn't pay the fee had no plan....who was the not so brilliant person in this scenario? I wonder if he rebuilds, if he will pay the $75 fee now? A really sad way to learn a lesson....or make a "stand".
    So tell me...is that the way we should treat auto accident victims who don't have insurance as well? Have the ambulance folks watch them lay there? I guess they deserve that because this will teach them a lesson.

Posting Permissions