Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[IlarMeilyr]

Spending can be cut, start with the DOD. It's not the cutting, it's what you want to cut. The Fed budget is roughly 3,500 billion. Find that cash and tell us how much you are going to save?

And you can also grow the economy and raise taxes. You are off and running.

US Federal Budget Definition - Spending Breakdown Deficit Debt Pie Chart

Lolberals ALWAYS point first (and all but exclusively) to DEFENSE Spending as a Pavlovian reaction to ANY discussion about cutting Federal Spending.

The poor deluded tools cannot seem to grasp that their ENDLESS desire to SPEND SPEND SPEND has consequences that will eventually kill the golden goose.

If conservatives would AGREE to "cut" defense spending (using management tools and proper accounting and oversight as tools to massively cut waste and needless duplications, for example), I'd LOVE to hear what the liberals would agree to cut from NON DEFENSE spending.

Not all liberals point first and all but exclusively to defense spending when the 'bell' rings on spending debates. Some of us point out the Congress has never - in my experience, correct me if I'm wrong - cut their own salary, benefits, staff or other perks. Leadership by exampe seems an unknown art to them.

The problem with our budget is the undue influence of special interests on legislation in the Congress, State Legislatures, and even county and city councils. Special Interests, with plenty of money, exacerbated the problem with recent Supreme Court split decisions making the restriction of money in politics unconstitutional.

LIEability, for all of his pretense, hit the nail off center but drove the point home, crooked, but home. The Golden Goose is in jeopardy because the Congress, Executive and Judicial Branches of our government are owned by the Plutocrats, and thus the once and no more democratic institutions will no longer protect capitalism from the capitalists.

Fly made a good start there. The first paragraph is fair enough.

As always, he grew tiresome with his ad hominem bleating. But the point I did drive home, flush and square, is that (for the most part) liberals DO seem to see only one area in the budget that can be cut. Defense.

If we cut Congressional pay and their staffs' pay to zero, we wouldn't make a dent in the budget. So, to point to Congressional bloat and hypocrisy (while a rational objection) doesn't truly address the breadth and scope and depth of the problem.

Until and unless the government confines the concerns it wishes to "attend to" (by throwing money at the identified "problems") to those matters actually within its Constitutionally LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers, they will persist in spending vastly more and more money and taxing us to death in the process.

 

[danielpalos]

I find it truly sad that you can't see that he contributed to the welfare of many others during his productive life. That's what decent people did. It's what decent people still do. Now, he expects a little payback and you want to completely discount his previous contributions.

It's an interesting glimpse into the psyche of a personality type that I really don't understand or respect but that seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent.

He's already been paid for his services. That's what we call a "wage" or a "salary." Why should he get paid twice?

The bottom line: There is no ethical or moral justification for forcing anyone to pay this man's bills.

He made an investment in his country at a time when he probably couldn't imagine that scumbags like you actually existed. You don't seem to realize that whatever investments you've made in your career, 401k, stocks etc could become worthless at a time when you're incapable of making any type of adjustment. I hope you'll at least have the decency of 'off' yourself rather than burdening anyone else.

BTW, Joe, you're the scumbag. You're the one who wants to loot what other people have earned. Also, working to pay your bills isn't "making an investment in your country." What makes his labor any more deserving than mine?

Guys such as you like to use all kinds of emotionally laden terms that really don't mean jack squat.

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're a fool. Welfare doesn't promote the general welfare. It positively harms the general welfare. The same goes for Social Security. And I'm not being asked to "contribute." I'm compelled to pay or the government will use force against me. Treating government transfer payments like they are some kind of charity is the sham of the century. Only con artists agree with it.

Yes, all of the con artists who claim we need to "subsidize" our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[bripat9643]

No matter what he did, he is currently a parasite. He's living off of what others produce. If he was living off his own savings, that would be a different story. If you want to pay his bills, be my guest.

I find it truly sad that you can't see that he contributed to the welfare of many others during his productive life. That's what decent people did. It's what decent people still do. Now, he expects a little payback and you want to completely discount his previous contributions.

It's an interesting glimpse into the psyche of a personality type that I really don't understand or respect but that seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent.

He's already been paid for his services. That's what we call a "wage" or a "salary." Why should he get paid twice?

The bottom line: There is no ethical or moral justification for forcing anyone to pay this man's bills.

He made an investment in his country at a time when he probably couldn't imagine that scumbags like you actually existed. You don't seem to realize that whatever investments you've made in your career, 401k, stocks etc could become worthless at a time when you're incapable of making any type of adjustment. I hope you'll at least have the decency of 'off' yourself rather than burdening anyone else.

If my investments become worthless, that's my problem. Why should it become someone else's problem? What's clear is that neither you nor Wry Catcher believe in a concept called "personal responsibility." You think the smarter more responsible people are obligated to pay the bills of everyone who was stupid, irresponsible or the victim of bad luck.

Don't think I haven't experienced my share of hard luck. I could spend all day crying about all the bad breaks I've gotten, but I've worked like a borrowed mule to keep my head above water, and I don't believe anyone else is entitled to anything I've earned.

The only thing clear is bripat is full of crap. He may have worked hard, but some of us worked smart, and had time to raise a family, volunteer in the community and retire at age 57 with an annual income the year I retired more than I made while employed.

Hmmmm, yeah that comes from double and triple dipping into the federal pension pool. No one is impressed.

 

[bripat9643]

He's already been paid for his services. That's what we call a "wage" or a "salary." Why should he get paid twice?

The bottom line: There is no ethical or moral justification for forcing anyone to pay this man's bills.

He made an investment in his country at a time when he probably couldn't imagine that scumbags like you actually existed. You don't seem to realize that whatever investments you've made in your career, 401k, stocks etc could become worthless at a time when you're incapable of making any type of adjustment. I hope you'll at least have the decency of 'off' yourself rather than burdening anyone else.

If my investments become worthless, that's my problem. Why should it become someone else's problem? What's clear is that neither you nor Wry Catcher believe in a concept called "personal responsibility." You think the smarter more responsible people are obligated to pay the bills of everyone who was stupid, irresponsible or the victim of bad luck.

Don't think I haven't experienced my share of hard luck. I could spend all day crying about all the bad breaks I've gotten, but I've worked like a borrowed mule to keep my head above water, and I don't believe anyone else is entitled to anything I've earned.

I'm sure you'll never fess up but I think I know exactly the type of person you are and how 'hard' you've worked for what you have. When I worked in defense, all the program managers were cut out of the same cloth. Supreme assholes who made it through engineering school and a wing and a prayer, never having even the faintest desire to learn anything that wouldn't get them a few points on a test. Then after suffering through several years of incompetently functioning as an engineer, management decided that they'd kissed enough ass to be thrown a management bone. At that point, the ass kissing became the defining feature of their career and a new douchebag was born. I'll bet a million dollars that's you.

Hmmmmm, that sounds like resentment and sour grapes. Got passed over for management, did you?

If you have ever managed people, you'd know it's no bed of Roses. Frankly, it sucks. You have people below you whining all the time, and people above you whining all the time. You have very little actual power. Everyone thinks you're a chump because you expect them to do their jobs and produce. On top of all that you're the first one to get cut when the lay-offs come around.

I really never had much interest in management. I've got a nice R&D/product development gig that I've found satisfying. My main beef is bad management. Big, sweeping changes based on a very simplistic understanding of problems and processes followed by knee-jerk reactions when those decisions prove disastrous.

Everyone complains about bad management. It amazes me that some companies are able to stay in business their management is so bad.

 

[bripat9643]

He's already been paid for his services. That's what we call a "wage" or a "salary." Why should he get paid twice?

The bottom line: There is no ethical or moral justification for forcing anyone to pay this man's bills.

He made an investment in his country at a time when he probably couldn't imagine that scumbags like you actually existed. You don't seem to realize that whatever investments you've made in your career, 401k, stocks etc could become worthless at a time when you're incapable of making any type of adjustment. I hope you'll at least have the decency of 'off' yourself rather than burdening anyone else.

BTW, Joe, you're the scumbag. You're the one who wants to loot what other people have earned. Also, working to pay your bills isn't "making an investment in your country." What makes his labor any more deserving than mine?

Guys such as you like to use all kinds of emotionally laden terms that really don't mean jack squat.

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're a fool. Welfare doesn't promote the general welfare. It positively harms the general welfare. The same goes for Social Security. And I'm not being asked to "contribute." I'm compelled to pay or the government will use force against me. Treating government transfer payments like they are some kind of charity is the sham of the century. Only con artists agree with it.

Yes, all of the con artists who claim we need to "subsidize" our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

I have no idea what it means to "subsidize" a war. You pay for wars, or you don't have them. There isn't a third alternative.

I'm against the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs would eliminate 80% of our crime problem.

 

[bripat9643]

He's already been paid for his services. That's what we call a "wage" or a "salary." Why should he get paid twice?

The bottom line: There is no ethical or moral justification for forcing anyone to pay this man's bills.

He made an investment in his country at a time when he probably couldn't imagine that scumbags like you actually existed. You don't seem to realize that whatever investments you've made in your career, 401k, stocks etc could become worthless at a time when you're incapable of making any type of adjustment. I hope you'll at least have the decency of 'off' yourself rather than burdening anyone else.

If my investments become worthless, that's my problem. Why should it become someone else's problem? What's clear is that neither you nor Wry Catcher believe in a concept called "personal responsibility." You think the smarter more responsible people are obligated to pay the bills of everyone who was stupid, irresponsible or the victim of bad luck.

Don't think I haven't experienced my share of hard luck. I could spend all day crying about all the bad breaks I've gotten, but I've worked like a borrowed mule to keep my head above water, and I don't believe anyone else is entitled to anything I've earned.

I'm sure you'll never fess up but I think I know exactly the type of person you are and how 'hard' you've worked for what you have. When I worked in defense, all the program managers were cut out of the same cloth. Supreme assholes who made it through engineering school and a wing and a prayer, never having even the faintest desire to learn anything that wouldn't get them a few points on a test. Then after suffering through several years of incompetently functioning as an engineer, management decided that they'd kissed enough ass to be thrown a management bone. At that point, the ass kissing became the defining feature of their career and a new douchebag was born. I'll bet a million dollars that's you.

Hmmmmm, that sounds like resentment and sour grapes. Got passed over for management, did you?

If you have ever managed people, you'd know it's no bed of Roses. Frankly, it sucks. You have people below you whining all the time, and people above you whining all the time. You have very little actual power. Everyone thinks you're a chump because you expect them to do their jobs and produce. On top of all that you're the first one to get cut when the lay-offs come around.

One of the easiest jobs I had was as manager, only one assignment sucked and that was running IA. The best advice I got when first promoted was two-fold: You have two ears, two eyes, two nostrils and only one mouth for a reason; and, interview everyone twice, at least two days apart, and don't make a judgment until you have. I bet finder boy didn't get such good advice and if he did, he ignored it.

When I was managing people the director had me do most of the hiring because the people I picked never turned out to be duds. He hired in some guys on the advice of their friends, and all those people turned out to be big losers.

 

[Interpol]

No, we think you're jerks for cutting revenue BEFORE cutting spending.

And jerks for ONLY talking about spending cuts and not mentioning ANY revenue increases.

And jerks for constantly spouting "spending cuts" while having us believe that putting more boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria and Russia, and bombing Iran would somehow not cost us anything.

Only a real jerk believes you can cut taxes AND go to war with EVERYBODY and it'll all be magically paid for by the Freedom Fairy.

 

[JoeNormal]

He made an investment in his country at a time when he probably couldn't imagine that scumbags like you actually existed. You don't seem to realize that whatever investments you've made in your career, 401k, stocks etc could become worthless at a time when you're incapable of making any type of adjustment. I hope you'll at least have the decency of 'off' yourself rather than burdening anyone else.

If my investments become worthless, that's my problem. Why should it become someone else's problem? What's clear is that neither you nor Wry Catcher believe in a concept called "personal responsibility." You think the smarter more responsible people are obligated to pay the bills of everyone who was stupid, irresponsible or the victim of bad luck.

Don't think I haven't experienced my share of hard luck. I could spend all day crying about all the bad breaks I've gotten, but I've worked like a borrowed mule to keep my head above water, and I don't believe anyone else is entitled to anything I've earned.

I'm sure you'll never fess up but I think I know exactly the type of person you are and how 'hard' you've worked for what you have. When I worked in defense, all the program managers were cut out of the same cloth. Supreme assholes who made it through engineering school and a wing and a prayer, never having even the faintest desire to learn anything that wouldn't get them a few points on a test. Then after suffering through several years of incompetently functioning as an engineer, management decided that they'd kissed enough ass to be thrown a management bone. At that point, the ass kissing became the defining feature of their career and a new douchebag was born. I'll bet a million dollars that's you.

Hmmmmm, that sounds like resentment and sour grapes. Got passed over for management, did you?

If you have ever managed people, you'd know it's no bed of Roses. Frankly, it sucks. You have people below you whining all the time, and people above you whining all the time. You have very little actual power. Everyone thinks you're a chump because you expect them to do their jobs and produce. On top of all that you're the first one to get cut when the lay-offs come around.

I really never had much interest in management. I've got a nice R&D/product development gig that I've found satisfying. My main beef is bad management. Big, sweeping changes based on a very simplistic understanding of problems and processes followed by knee-jerk reactions when those decisions prove disastrous.

Everyone complains about bad management. It amazes me that some companies are able to stay in business their management is so bad.

I've seen good management. I know what it is and by contrast, I know what bad management is as well. And yes, it is amazing that companies are able to stay in business with bad management. Much easier of course when the company is large - the mistakes can be scapegoated or downright hidden and and the market dominance makes up for a multitude of sins.

 

[emilynghiem]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?

Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

RE: controlling spending = the bad guys

And similar reactions happen when Liberals want to reduce military spending,
When THEY are seen as the "bad guys" who don't support the troops and defense.


... and defending Choice means Liberals want to "kill babies" in the name of reproductive freedom
while defending Liberty from insurance mandates means Conservatives want to "deprive the poor of health care."

And defending gun rights means supporting criminals, gun violence, and shooting.
while defending voting rights means supporting criminal aliens and voter fraud to hock minority votes.

Opposing Bush's overreaching of executive military powers means you're a Terrorist.
Opposing Obama's overreaching of executive domestic authority means you're a Racist.

Isn't it mutual, where both sides are equally guilty of being one sided?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Spending can be cut, start with the DOD. It's not the cutting, it's what you want to cut. The Fed budget is roughly 3,500 billion. Find that cash and tell us how much you are going to save?

And you can also grow the economy and raise taxes. You are off and running.

US Federal Budget Definition - Spending Breakdown Deficit Debt Pie Chart

Lolberals ALWAYS point first (and all but exclusively) to DEFENSE Spending as a Pavlovian reaction to ANY discussion about cutting Federal Spending.

The poor deluded tools cannot seem to grasp that their ENDLESS desire to SPEND SPEND SPEND has consequences that will eventually kill the golden goose.

If conservatives would AGREE to "cut" defense spending (using management tools and proper accounting and oversight as tools to massively cut waste and needless duplications, for example), I'd LOVE to hear what the liberals would agree to cut from NON DEFENSE spending.

Not all liberals point first and all but exclusively to defense spending when the 'bell' rings on spending debates. Some of us point out the Congress has never - in my experience, correct me if I'm wrong - cut their own salary, benefits, staff or other perks. Leadership by exampe seems an unknown art to them.

The problem with our budget is the undue influence of special interests on legislation in the Congress, State Legislatures, and even county and city councils. Special Interests, with plenty of money, exacerbated the problem with recent Supreme Court split decisions making the restriction of money in politics unconstitutional.

LIEability, for all of his pretense, hit the nail off center but drove the point home, crooked, but home. The Golden Goose is in jeopardy because the Congress, Executive and Judicial Branches of our government are owned by the Plutocrats, and thus the once and no more democratic institutions will no longer protect capitalism from the capitalists.

Fly made a good start there. The first paragraph is fair enough.

As always, he grew tiresome with his ad hominem bleating. But the point I did drive home, flush and square, is that (for the most part) liberals DO seem to see only one area in the budget that can be cut. Defense.

If we cut Congressional pay and their staffs' pay to zero, we wouldn't make a dent in the budget. So, to point to Congressional bloat and hypocrisy (while a rational objection) doesn't truly address the breadth and scope and depth of the problem.

Until and unless the government confines the concerns it wishes to "attend to" (by throwing money at the identified "problems") to those matters actually within its Constitutionally LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers, they will persist in spending vastly more and more money and taxing us to death in the process.

Never did I think nor expect anyone to believe cutting salary, benefits, etc of the members of Congress would put a dent in the annual deficit, and thus have the debt grow more slowly. My point, obvious as it was, apparently needs repeating: Congress needs to lead by example.

Remember President Bush II parading out that women who held three jobs during one of his SOTU messages? We have a Congress which when in session, has done nothing but piss and moan (both sides of the aisle), and are barely in session one third of the days in a year.

"This week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor proudly announced the calendar for the new Congress in 2013. Here's the link. Working days for the entire year total 126, leaving 239 days off."
Link: Google

And what do they do, they spend hours each day on the phone raising money for the next election.

I won't go into the partisan view that Congress should only fund enumerated powers, that concept was put to rest in 1803 [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137]. If a Supreme Court can decide this landmark case they surely can decide powers not enumerated for other branches of the government, for who do we appeal a decision by Supreme Court to, the people?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No, we think you're jerks for cutting revenue BEFORE cutting spending.

And jerks for ONLY talking about spending cuts and not mentioning ANY revenue increases.

And jerks for constantly spouting "spending cuts" while having us believe that putting more boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria and Russia, and bombing Iran would somehow not cost us anything.

Only a real jerk believes you can cut taxes AND go to war with EVERYBODY and it'll all be magically paid for by the Freedom Fairy.

^ Dopey "argument."

since when has any politician in D.C. not been willing to raise fucking taxes. Sure, we get an occasional tax reduction. But the movement is always and everywhere toward more taxation.

You liberals speak in terms of revenue cuts when what you really mean is a reduction in the rate of revenue increase.

You tax profits and you tax the foundation of where the profits come from. You tax the corporations for earning money for shareholders and for producing stuff that makes the economy work. Then you tax the shareholders AGAIN for deriving a return on their investments AFTER their profits have already BEEN taxed. Then you tax their individual incomes. Then you tax the stuff on which taxes have already been paid by sales taxes. And of course, you tax the companies that produce the stuff consumers buy to raise their costs in the interim, another insidious form of taxation. A pretty regressive one, too, not that you libs give a shit. And after all those taxes and town and village and state and water district taxes etc have been paid, whatever is left can be retained by the individual UNTIL he passes away. THEN you idiot liberals insist that he shouldn't have the right to pass that accumulated earned (and previously taxed) wealth on to his own surviving family members without taxing IT massively all over again.

And you tax like that to "pay" for programs which you imagine you have some right to impose on everyone for the benefit of the select beneficiaries. (And ok. Maybe there is some merit in some of that. But not nearly as much and not to the massive degree you presume.) And you do all of that without a valid basis in authority under the Constitution, because the power of the liberals in government ot do ANYTHING is supposed to be limited and enumerated.

THEN you have the unmitigated audacity to pretend that spending for "boots" on the ground is something we have ever claimed to be cost free. It isn't. And we don't claim it is or ever was. Your premise is a lie. But it IS one of the things the government IS actually authorized to do -- limitations and enumerations of power and authority being clearly granted.

The REAL JERKS, you nimrod, are those of you (laughable lolberals) who deny reality to its face and post the drivel you just spewed.

You morons say ANYTHING that you collectively group-think into existence regardless of its absurdity or its false factual basis. And what you really are doing (and saying) is that you brain surgeons have some claim of right to impose your wills on everyone despite the lack of Constitutional authority.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He made an investment in his country at a time when he probably couldn't imagine that scumbags like you actually existed. You don't seem to realize that whatever investments you've made in your career, 401k, stocks etc could become worthless at a time when you're incapable of making any type of adjustment. I hope you'll at least have the decency of 'off' yourself rather than burdening anyone else.

If my investments become worthless, that's my problem. Why should it become someone else's problem? What's clear is that neither you nor Wry Catcher believe in a concept called "personal responsibility." You think the smarter more responsible people are obligated to pay the bills of everyone who was stupid, irresponsible or the victim of bad luck.

Don't think I haven't experienced my share of hard luck. I could spend all day crying about all the bad breaks I've gotten, but I've worked like a borrowed mule to keep my head above water, and I don't believe anyone else is entitled to anything I've earned.

I'm sure you'll never fess up but I think I know exactly the type of person you are and how 'hard' you've worked for what you have. When I worked in defense, all the program managers were cut out of the same cloth. Supreme assholes who made it through engineering school and a wing and a prayer, never having even the faintest desire to learn anything that wouldn't get them a few points on a test. Then after suffering through several years of incompetently functioning as an engineer, management decided that they'd kissed enough ass to be thrown a management bone. At that point, the ass kissing became the defining feature of their career and a new douchebag was born. I'll bet a million dollars that's you.

Hmmmmm, that sounds like resentment and sour grapes. Got passed over for management, did you?

If you have ever managed people, you'd know it's no bed of Roses. Frankly, it sucks. You have people below you whining all the time, and people above you whining all the time. You have very little actual power. Everyone thinks you're a chump because you expect them to do their jobs and produce. On top of all that you're the first one to get cut when the lay-offs come around.

One of the easiest jobs I had was as manager, only one assignment sucked and that was running IA. The best advice I got when first promoted was two-fold: You have two ears, two eyes, two nostrils and only one mouth for a reason; and, interview everyone twice, at least two days apart, and don't make a judgment until you have. I bet finder boy didn't get such good advice and if he did, he ignored it.

When I was managing people the director had me do most of the hiring because the people I picked never turned out to be duds. He hired in some guys on the advice of their friends, and all those people turned out to be big losers.

Methinks you're full of crap.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Spending can be cut, start with the DOD. It's not the cutting, it's what you want to cut. The Fed budget is roughly 3,500 billion. Find that cash and tell us how much you are going to save?

And you can also grow the economy and raise taxes. You are off and running.

US Federal Budget Definition - Spending Breakdown Deficit Debt Pie Chart

Lolberals ALWAYS point first (and all but exclusively) to DEFENSE Spending as a Pavlovian reaction to ANY discussion about cutting Federal Spending.

The poor deluded tools cannot seem to grasp that their ENDLESS desire to SPEND SPEND SPEND has consequences that will eventually kill the golden goose.

If conservatives would AGREE to "cut" defense spending (using management tools and proper accounting and oversight as tools to massively cut waste and needless duplications, for example), I'd LOVE to hear what the liberals would agree to cut from NON DEFENSE spending.

Not all liberals point first and all but exclusively to defense spending when the 'bell' rings on spending debates. Some of us point out the Congress has never - in my experience, correct me if I'm wrong - cut their own salary, benefits, staff or other perks. Leadership by exampe seems an unknown art to them.

The problem with our budget is the undue influence of special interests on legislation in the Congress, State Legislatures, and even county and city councils. Special Interests, with plenty of money, exacerbated the problem with recent Supreme Court split decisions making the restriction of money in politics unconstitutional.

LIEability, for all of his pretense, hit the nail off center but drove the point home, crooked, but home. The Golden Goose is in jeopardy because the Congress, Executive and Judicial Branches of our government are owned by the Plutocrats, and thus the once and no more democratic institutions will no longer protect capitalism from the capitalists.

Fly made a good start there. The first paragraph is fair enough.

As always, he grew tiresome with his ad hominem bleating. But the point I did drive home, flush and square, is that (for the most part) liberals DO seem to see only one area in the budget that can be cut. Defense.

If we cut Congressional pay and their staffs' pay to zero, we wouldn't make a dent in the budget. So, to point to Congressional bloat and hypocrisy (while a rational objection) doesn't truly address the breadth and scope and depth of the problem.

Until and unless the government confines the concerns it wishes to "attend to" (by throwing money at the identified "problems") to those matters actually within its Constitutionally LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers, they will persist in spending vastly more and more money and taxing us to death in the process.

Never did I think nor expect anyone to believe cutting salary, benefits, etc of the members of Congress would put a dent in the annual deficit, and thus have the debt grow more slowly. My point, obvious as it was, apparently needs repeating: Congress needs to lead by example.

Remember President Bush II parading out that women who held three jobs during one of his SOTU messages? We have a Congress which when in session, has done nothing but piss and moan (both sides of the aisle), and are barely in session one third of the days in a year.

"This week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor proudly announced the calendar for the new Congress in 2013. Here's the link. Working days for the entire year total 126, leaving 239 days off."
Link: Google

And what do they do, they spend hours each day on the phone raising money for the next election.

I won't go into the partisan view that Congress should only fund enumerated powers, that concept was put to rest in 1803 [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137]. If a Supreme Court can decide this landmark case they surely can decide powers not enumerated for other branches of the government, for who do we appeal a decision by Supreme Court to, the people?

Congress would lead by example? No. They don't need to "lead" anybody else. THEY are the lawmakers. The y don't need to lead lawmakers. They just need to make proper laws and pass appropriate budgets. They need to adhere to the limits imposed on them BY the Constitution the swear to uphold.

And your Constitutional "argument' is both baseless and empty.

Marbury v. Madison determined that there would be a judicial review of congressional laws and the Court determined that they "must have" that power implicitly. Agree or not, that's the way it is.

The COURT'S powers are not determinative of whether (or not) Congress should abide by the Constitution. There's no "there" there.

It is not a partisan argument, at all. It is the law of the land. OF COURSE the Congress should limit their behaviors to that which the CONSTITUTION grants them the authority to speak to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

But Republicans don't want spending cuts.

^^^^ Look! An outright lie!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not at all, the answer is you and your family will be taken care of by other Americans if the shit hits the fan effecting you.

This is a response, it is not an answer; it is as effective as responding "orange" to the question of "what is 2+2?"..
He asked for a reason as to why the welfare of his family should be subordinate to the welfare of some other, and, by extension, why the state should enforce this subordination.
Well?

You really are stupid. I feel bad writing, "Fuck you" to someone as mentally challenged as you seem to be. Seem to be 'cause I'm pretty sure you're simply being a dishonest jerk, thus, Fuck you.

We both understand that you know you do not have en effective response to his question -- or, for that matter, to anything I've said here - which is why you hide behind your petulnt behavior.
The difference is that I will admit this and you will not.
And so, I again happily accept your concession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ever heard of Social Contract Theory?

Yes.. its how you, and self-confessed bigots like you, try to justify your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude and your hatred of freedom.
Thing is, you know that it's just a bunch of hooey designed to dupe the brain-dead into believing that your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude, and your hatred of freedom, has some form of legitimacy.
Fortunately, thinking people understand this and discard your hooey as the freedom- and liberty-hating trash it is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

 

[Wry Catcher]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++aq2+

Spending can be cut, start with the DOD. It's not the cutting, it's what you want to cut. The Fed budget is roughly 3,500 billion. Find that cash and tell us how much you are going to save?

And you can also grow the economy and raise taxes. You are off and running.

US Federal Budget Definition - Spending Breakdown Deficit Debt Pie Chart

Lolberals ALWAYS point first (and all but exclusively) to DEFENSE Spending as a Pavlovian reaction to ANY discussion about cutting Federal Spending.

The poor deluded tools cannot seem to grasp that their ENDLESS desire to SPEND SPEND SPEND has consequences that will eventually kill the golden goose.

If conservatives would AGREE to "cut" defense spending (using management tools and proper accounting and oversight as tools to massively cut waste and needless duplications, for example), I'd LOVE to hear what the liberals would agree to cut from NON DEFENSE spending.

Not all liberals point first and all but exclusively to defense spending when the 'bell' rings on spending debates. Some of us point out the Congress has never - in my experience, correct me if I'm wrong - cut their own salary, benefits, staff or other perks. Leadership by exampe seems an unknown art to them.

The problem with our budget is the undue influence of special interests on legislation in the Congress, State Legislatures, and even county and city councils. Special Interests, with plenty of money, exacerbated the problem with recent Supreme Court split decisions making the restriction of money in politics unconstitutional.

LIEability, for all of his pretense, hit the nail off center but drove the point home, crooked, but home. The Golden Goose is in jeopardy because the Congress, Executive and Judicial Branches of our government are owned by the Plutocrats, and thus the once and no more democratic institutions will no longer protect capitalism from the capitalists.

Fly made a good start there. The first paragraph is fair enough.

As always, he grew tiresome with his ad hominem bleating. But the point I did drive home, flush and square, is that (for the most part) liberals DO seem to see only one area in the budget that can be cut. Defense.

If we cut Congressional pay and their staffs' pay to zero, we wouldn't make a dent in the budget. So, to point to Congressional bloat and hypocrisy (while a rational objection) doesn't truly address the breadth and scope and depth of the problem.

Until and unless the government confines the concerns it wishes to "attend to" (by throwing money at the identified "problems") to those matters actually within its Constitutionally LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers, they will persist in spending vastly more and more money and taxing us to death in the process.

Never did I think nor expect anyone to believe cutting salary, benefits, etc of the members of Congress would put a dent in the annual deficit, and thus have the debt grow more slowly. My point, obvious as it was, apparently needs repeating: Congress needs to lead by example.

Remember President Bush II parading out that women who held three jobs during one of his SOTU messages? We have a Congress which when in session, has done nothing but piss and moan (both sides of the aisle), and are barely in session one third of the days in a year.

"This week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor proudly announced the calendar for the new Congress in 2013. Here's the link. Working days for the entire year total 126, leaving 239 days off."
Link: Google

And what do they do, they spend hours each day on the phone raising money for the next election.

I won't go into the partisan view that Congress should only fund enumerated powers, that concept was put to rest in 1803 [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137]. If a Supreme Court can decide this landmark case they surely can decide powers not enumerated for other branches of the government, for who do we appeal a decision by Supreme Court to, the people?

Congress would lead by example? No. They don't need to "lead" anybody else. THEY are the lawmakers. The y don't need to lead lawmakers. They just need to make proper laws and pass appropriate budgets. They need to adhere to the limits imposed on them BY the Constitution the swear to uphold.

And your Constitutional "argument' is both baseless and empty.

Marbury v. Madison determined that there would be a judicial review of congressional laws and the Court determined that they "must have" that power implicitly. Agree or not, that's the way it is.

The COURT'S powers are not determinative of whether (or not) Congress should abide by the Constitution. There's no "there" there.

It is not a partisan argument, at all. It is the law of the land. OF COURSE the Congress should limit their behaviors to that which the CONSTITUTION grants them the authority to speak to.

First of all, my question was political, not legal. If the Congress seeks to reduce the deficit, cuts won't do it alone, taxes must rise. Do you disagree? Why?

Explain to me the War Powers Act and comport it with Clause 11 of Art. I, Sec 8; but first, explain to all Claus 1 of the same Art. and Sec: What was the intent of this phrase: "...and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;...". What is the meaning of "general Welfare" and how do you come by the meaning?

Notwithstanding your assurance, or even those of the Supremes, Marshall's opinion is no where to be found in Article III, which kinda blows your entire agenda.

Nice spin by the way.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

First of all, my question was political, not legal. If the Congress seeks to reduce the deficit, cuts won't do it alone, taxes must rise. Do you disagree? Why?

Wrong. Taxes must not rise anymore. See the problem that you libs can't seem to wrap your heads around is that you folks are killing the damn golden goose. You could LOWER taxes and RAISE government receipts. Believe it or not. But before that works you MUST cut the God damn spending.

Explain to me the War Powers Act and comport it with Clause 11 of Art. I, Sec 8; but first, explain to all Claus 1 of the same Art. and Sec: What was the intent of this phrase: "...and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;...". What is the meaning of "general Welfare" and how do you come by the meaning?

No. I am not going to spend valuable time attempting to remediate your abysmally poor prior education. However, being a kind-hearted kinda guy, I WILL share a tidbit with you to steer you in the correct direction. The General Welfare Clause is part of the PREAMBLE (words have meaning, so you should look that term up). The phrases used in the PREAMBLE do NOT (repeat and underscore the word "not") undercut or in any way negate the terms of limitation in the OPERATIVE parts of the Constitution.

Notwithstanding your assurance, or even those of the Supremes, Marshall's opinion is no where to be found in Article III, which kinda blows your entire agenda.

Notwithstanding your abject ignorance, as I correctly noted, the words are not found in the constitution because they are implications from the authority already granted to the SCOTUS in the Constitution. Well, that's the theory, anyway. But the fact that the power is a not explicit does nothing to "blow" any part of my argument. YOU simply fail to understand the fundamentals.

Nice spin by the way.

That's what your type always says when you are lost in the sauce and can't grunt out a coherent argument of your own.

 

[Wry Catcher]

* * * *

First of all, my question was political, not legal. If the Congress seeks to reduce the deficit, cuts won't do it alone, taxes must rise. Do you disagree? Why?

Wrong. Taxes must not rise anymore. See the problem that you libs can't seem to wrap your heads around is that you folks are killing the damn golden goose. You could LOWER taxes and RAISE government receipts. Believe it or not. But before that works you MUST cut the God damn spending.

Explain to me the War Powers Act and comport it with Clause 11 of Art. I, Sec 8; but first, explain to all Claus 1 of the same Art. and Sec: What was the intent of this phrase: "...and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;...". What is the meaning of "general Welfare" and how do you come by the meaning?

No. I am not going to spend valuable time attempting to remediate your abysmally poor prior education. However, being a kind-hearted kinda guy, I WILL share a tidbit with you to steer you in the correct direction. The General Welfare Clause is part of the PREAMBLE (words have meaning, so you should look that term up). The phrases used in the PREAMBLE do NOT (repeat and underscore the word "not") undercut or in any way negate the terms of limitation in the OPERATIVE parts of the Constitution.

Notwithstanding your assurance, or even those of the Supremes, Marshall's opinion is no where to be found in Article III, which kinda blows your entire agenda.

Notwithstanding your abject ignorance, as I correctly noted, the words are not found in the constitution because they are implications from the authority already granted to the SCOTUS in the Constitution. Well, that's the theory, anyway. But the fact that the power is a not explicit does nothing to "blow" any part of my argument. YOU simply fail to understand the fundamentals.

Nice spin by the way.

That's what your type always says when you are lost in the sauce and can't grunt out a coherent argument of your own.

Sorry, you haven't convinced me. If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4? If the COTUS were clear, no need would exist for a reliance on "implications". I'm so sorry I don't understand the "fundamentals" and I'm puzzled by this "original intent" argument (a presumption?) - so please wise one, explain it so even one as dumb as I can comprehend.

I do appreciate your learned explanation on the issue of general Welfare, and I do understand that the Preamble is little more than a vision/mission statement, with no binding authority.

But dear sir, I'm once again perplexed, for the phrase, "general Welfare", appears once again, as I noted above, in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1. it seems that there is does have a meaning yet to be ferreted out; please sir, without being an activist, what is the original intent of this phrase if not giving a wide open authority to the Congress to provide general Welfare?

I hope a simple dictionary definition of the two words assists you:

General - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

welfare - definition of welfare by The Free Dictionary