razorjak | (no subject)

(no subject)

So Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.

He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.

...

I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ah, $595 Billion of Medicaid and Medicare.

So, you characterize paying for healthcare for the poor as being on The Dole? Interesting.

I know everytime I'm in the emergency room looking at those poor families waiting for treatment I'm thinking, "it's vile that they let these people in here with me, someone who works for a corporation that offers health benefits, they should be on the sidewalk dying, not here in the government subsidized air conditioning with their betters. Hell, if I had my way, my company wouldn't even have to provide health insurance at all, and arbitrary market forces and lack of consumer protections would completely control my health care fate!"

Okay, you are right. If we let Americans die in the street for being poor, then we could fund a War on Iraq and have some change left over.

I fail to see that this is a practical or human answer, but I will agree with you that it is possible.

Oh, and old. Don't forget letting people die on the street for being old.

Yep, let's just get rid of all those protections for retired people.

Then we could blow up Afghanistan properly instead of fucking it all up, too.

Despite what you're hearing in the news (which isn't much) Things are going pretty darn well in Afghanistan. When you compare it to just about every military operation since Alexander the Great went through we're doing DAMN good.

The Taliban crop up, but we appear to let them gather and congregate, give them a target and then pummel the crap out of them. In an area war all you can do is defend the civilians, rebuild infrastructure and wait for the bad guys to pop up and smash them when they do.

Again, if we could actually make a guarantee that people would get their SS benefits and those benefits were paid for out of a real fund instead of the current ponzi scheme then I'd be more supportive of it.

But it's still not LEGALLY something the federal government should be in the business of. I don't know about you, but I'm not planning on getting a cent of my Social Security Benefits. Continuing to tell people they will is utterly disingenuous.

The point is, we were doing better and Afghanistan was the right place to attack Al Queda, instead of the irrelevant occupation of Iraq.

If we had concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan instead of pulling resources to invade Iraq, we might have stabilized the local government once and for all instead of letting the Taliban regroup and counterattack. We had the opportunity to hold them down and consolidate, but now the Taliban controls 10% of the country while the Al Malaki government controls 30% of the country and the tribes control the rest. Meanwhile we are reduced to begging NATO for a few scraps here and there to get any reasonable combat forces at all to fight, because everyone is floundering in Iraq.

"Again, if we could actually make a guarantee that people would get their SS benefits and those benefits were paid for out of a real fund instead of the current ponzi scheme then I'd be more supportive of it.

But it's still not LEGALLY something the federal government should be in the business of. I don't know about you, but I'm not planning on getting a cent of my Social Security Benefits. Continuing to tell people they will is utterly disingenuous."

It LEGALLY something the government can do. The Constitution does not have any opinion at all on government entitlements. I would agree in principal that the government shouldn't be feeding housing and clothing those characterized as lazy free-riders, but that is not the truth of the matter.

When we look at entitlement cuts that get proposed, they are consistently cuts of pennies compared to dollars of military extravagances and it's all deficit spending.

In any case, all the Dole talk is horseshit:

1. Social Security benefits were promised and people were forced to pay into it, which they did in good faith. The majority of those who collect are now in a poor position to support themselves and find new employment. They must be paid, so give up on getting rid of that $600 billion expense.

2. Unless we are just going declare health care a privilege of the rich, and kill off those who are poor, we must have a social safety net for medical care of the poor and the old, as well as additional care for children of the poor (who are not yet lazy Dolesters, and could possibly be encouraged to be productive members of our economy). Preventive care costs much much less than emergency care, so unless we are going to deny emergency care to the uninsured, a medicare/medicaid program is not only necessary but pragmatic.

So, there you are left to cut out of the $176 billion or so that is left, while making emergency funding requests for $150 billion mid-year for the Iraq war.

It's not the Dolsters that are the problem with our economy. It's the jingoists.

The point is, we were doing better and Afghanistan was the right place to attack Al Queda, instead of the irrelevant occupation of Iraq.

I would argue that your statements that we needed 6 Divisions more in Afghanistan are in fact probably incorrect. History has shown that going into Afghanistan "heavy" does not work. COIN works, on a smaller level and on a smaller function by getting the locals to do the work, especially in the rarified environment that is Afghanistan. They best way to get them all resistant to US forces is to make the US forces look like the heavy handed Soviet forces. You want to discuss what is and isn't good about operations in Afghanistan, then lets do so, but frankly, all you've said is that it's bad we should pull out and conjoined the operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq as being Jingoism (along with funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the State department and other agencies) so you still look like a panty waisted pinko useful idiot to me. Don't like the characterization, then re-appraise your stance on ALL US military forces PAST and PRESENT being Jingoist forces.

It LEGALLY something the government can do. The Constitution does not have any opinion at all on government entitlements. I would agree in principal that the government shouldn't be feeding housing and clothing those characterized as lazy free-riders, but that is not the truth of the matter.

Cite the article section and paragraph. You argue that it's legal. Cite the section. I asked you to before, you have not done so. Cite the damn law which grants congress the authorization to take funds from me and give it to some woman in New Orleans who sits in an apartment in front of a TV larger than my car but she still complains about the government not doing enough for HER.

When we look at entitlement cuts that get proposed, they are consistently cuts of pennies compared to dollars of military extravagances and it's all deficit spending.

Most of the federal budget is attached to Social Services now. It hasn't always been that way. And I defy you to explain how MOST people on the dole are starving in the streets. That's a totally unfair characterization and most of them are in fact VERY well off. If they have a car and a TV they're not fucking poor, no matter what the stated poverty level is. There are deadbeats that are STILL lounging around on the US ticket from New Orleans. People that have lived in public housing for their entire lives.

A great deal of the government's costs are attached to administration of constitutionally questionable programs which should pay for themselves under appropriate funding sources (fuel taxes for road infrastructure) but do not because there is so much waste attached to the administration of those programs. some make sense constitutionally, like Interstate highways (why don't you include those in the Jingoist characterizations, come on, Ike built them on the Autobahn pattern for Military Logistics purposes). But some do not. Funding for HUD does not have a place in the Constitution. Again, I challenge you to cite the section of the constitution where Congress is granted the authority to fund such endeavors.

"The Constitution does not have any opinion at all on government entitlements."
>>"Cite the article section and paragraph."

I think this challenge really speaks for itself.

GA: There is no statement in this document that says X.
M: Show me exactly where that statement is. I challenge you! Blahblahblah, etc.
GA: *sigh*

2. Unless we are just going declare health care a privilege of the rich, and kill off those who are poor, we must have a social safety net for medical care of the poor and the old, as well as additional care for children of the poor (who are not yet lazy Dolesters, and could possibly be encouraged to be productive members of our economy).

Cite the Article Section and Paragraph. This is a function of the state legislatures. That's why we have a Federalist system. Perhaps you learned about that in school. Can you articulate without looking it up what the basis of Federalism is?

Moreover just because you don't have health insurance doesn't' mean you don't have access to health care they are not a mutual requirement. My roommate hasn't had insurance and she goes to see the doctor when she needs to and pays out of pocket. Here's an interesting nugget, Doctors give discounts for people paying cash out of pocket, 30% in one case I've seen.

Health insurance is not insurance, it's a payment system for your health care costs and a benefit from your company. Some companies provide cars, are you going to argue that they should be mandated to provide transport for all people as well? Or are you going to just shove that into the department of transportation and say that EVERYONE has a right to transportation and thus I should be forced to pay for those who can't afford a car.

I still observe that the Federal governments' mandatory and discretionary budget is FAR larger and far more focused on social issues than is the US military in all it's expansive forms. Defense accounts for 19% of the budget. We've had far larger in more peaceful times and we weren't running such a deficit.

You want to talk deficit spending, look at the Federal Budget in WWII. Damn those war mongers who run us into debt eh?

And I'll close out by saying that Rights don't equate to government mandates to fund said right. Were that the case Jak and I would be going down to the local police station to get our government issue rifles and we can't.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be funded. I'm saying it shouldn't be funded at the Federal level. It's not strictly legal. See the powers of congress.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<article [...] 8</a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be funded. I'm saying it shouldn't be funded at the Federal level. It's not strictly legal. See the powers of congress. <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/congpowers.htm"><Article 1, Section 8</a>.

Further, I would argue that there's likely a LOT of waste and inefficiency just due to the size of the system.

I don't think we had that much expenditure on social programs coming out of the Great Depression. We certainly didn't spend that much on social programs during WWII or afterwards.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only