Republicans like to think they understand the concept of “free shit” but actually don’t

[pknopp]

When are you going to stand up and start paying for the wars?

Actually, financial support for the military is mandated in the CONSTITUTION, dumbass...

You know, that "piece of paper" that the Liberals hate...

Right, but we are not financing it. We are running the wars on debt. When are you going to step up and start paying for them?

Let me see if I have your line of thinking straight. Your complaint is we are spending money we don't have for wars, and running up a debt, but support free college so the debt goes even higher?

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

Kinda like the Kenyan’s plan for Obeaner Care?

No, not at all.

 

[pknopp]

Nowhere does it state that defense does not have to be paid for and education falls under "general welfare".

No, the general welfare clause means only those items listed in the Constitution. The Constitution charges our leaders with the defense of this country. In this day and age, that's impossible to do without funds.

The Constitution does not state that we do not have to pay for that defense. When are you going to stand up and start paying for it?

Those who argue for the education are willing to pay for it.

So how do you suppose we could defend this country without funding, throw rocks at the next fighter jet from China?

Pay for it.

I agree. Let's start drastically cutting social programs to pay for it since they are not outlined in the Constitution, but defense is.

Nowhere does it state that defense should be free. For some reason you keep on ignoring this.

(The reason is actually obvious)

 

[BrokeLoser]

Actually, financial support for the military is mandated in the CONSTITUTION, dumbass...

You know, that "piece of paper" that the Liberals hate...

Right, but we are not financing it. We are running the wars on debt. When are you going to step up and start paying for them?

Let me see if I have your line of thinking straight. Your complaint is we are spending money we don't have for wars, and running up a debt, but support free college so the debt goes even higher?

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

Kinda like the Kenyan’s plan for Obeaner Care?

No, not at all.

I thought he claimed we’d all save $2,500 a year?
I mean, surely if a politicians “plan” makes a claim then it must be true...right?

 

[Desperado]

it’s a phrase used by republicans to denigrate the left for wanting tuition free college or socialized healthcare, but they don’t really understand how these concepts are no different than programs already in place.

When a republican’s house is on fire or they need police assistance do they pay the responders personally? Uh no. They keep the “free shit”. You see, something like free tuition or socialized medicine are no different. All of these programs are paid for with tax payer revenue. Bernie, after all, has tax proposals to pay for his ideas.

Hey Dipshit, no matter how you try, the Police and Fire Departments are not free shit. You pay for them through your local taxes, How fucking dumb are you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay. Does society benefit from me having a car? After all, I would use that car to go to work and back, use that car to buy food for my family, so shouldn't government provide me with one? Does society benefit from me having a home; a place where I can live, a place to raise my family? Would society benefit from me having this internet? I can educate myself on the internet, look for a new job, buy things for my home?

What society can benefit from is the most pathetic excuse of them all. We still benefit from these people with those careers anyway. In fact, some careers have too many people in them already, such as a few you named above like psychologists, economists, and lawyers. They are all around us.

You have way too much all or nothing thinking about this. No the government shouldn’t provide you a car. However, a job should pay enough to where you can afford to buy one. If it doesn’t, the government needs to intervene for the sake of the common good.

And there you go again, supporting my point. Now you believe that government should dictate what an employer pays an employee. See how correct I am? You said the federal government doesn't make every decision for you, and yet you now say that government should dictate what employees should be paid. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Show me where in the US Constitution it says that this is a responsibility of the federal government our founders created.

I’m not supporting your point because the government simply doesn’t control your every decision. What you are referring to is totalitarianism which is waaayyy on the other end of the spectrum.

What I am saying is that government makes too many personal decisions in our life as it is. In spite of our differences, I appreciate that you have an open mind about this instead of a defensive stance. But I also want you to understand that the path you wish to take is the ultimate goal of the party to have a totalitarianism state. Much like terrorists, they take one step at a time. It's only a matter of when people like you say the line has been drawn.

I’m glad we can have a civil discussion as well. Why do you assume totalitarianism is the goal of democrats? Based on what?

This topic is a perfect example. Government taking on personal decisions and burdens in life. Every time the Democrat run for office, they talk about doing just that.

Take DumBama for instance. He proudly claimed that 20 million Americans were forced to be on Commie Care. After he lowered standards to receive SNAP benefits, that increased the amount of recipients by another 20 some million. That means between those two programs alone, he and the Democrats created 40 million more government dependents. Think that was an accident?

So now we have another election, and what is the campaign message of the Democrats? More government dependency.

The problem is people don't realize that the more we depend on government, the less freedom we have. Take a kid that graduates high school. He or she still lives at home because they still depend on their parents. Just because you are now a legal adult doesn't mean you can make your own rules. You still have to live by theirs.

So you get a job, get an apartment, and now you have more freedom. But that still has limitations. You can't paint the walls any color you like. You can't have a pet either. You can't have all night parties because you have people living on the other side of your walls, floor and ceiling. So eventually you buy your own house, and have more freedom.

My point is the more independent you are, the more freedom you have. But when you depend on cradle-to-grave government, you will Iive your life with the most minimum of freedom.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

it’s a phrase used by republicans to denigrate the left for wanting tuition free college or socialized healthcare, but they don’t really understand how these concepts are no different than programs already in place.

When a republican’s house is on fire or they need police assistance do they pay the responders personally? Uh no. They keep the “free shit”. You see, something like free tuition or socialized medicine are no different. All of these programs are paid for with tax payer revenue. Bernie, after all, has tax proposals to pay for his ideas.

You seem pretty uninformed.

It's people like Warren who make it out to be free by not admitting that we will pay for it via higher taxes. The right simply mock the lefts dishonesty

 

[pknopp]

Right, but we are not financing it. We are running the wars on debt. When are you going to step up and start paying for them?

Let me see if I have your line of thinking straight. Your complaint is we are spending money we don't have for wars, and running up a debt, but support free college so the debt goes even higher?

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

Kinda like the Kenyan’s plan for Obeaner Care?

No, not at all.

I thought he claimed we’d all save $2,500 a year?
I mean, surely if a politicians “plan” makes a claim then it must be true...right?

He did. He won lie of the year for that one but once again you display the cult like thinking of many.
.
That since I support Bernie I must have supported Obama. I do (did) not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the general welfare clause means only those items listed in the Constitution. The Constitution charges our leaders with the defense of this country. In this day and age, that's impossible to do without funds.

The Constitution does not state that we do not have to pay for that defense. When are you going to stand up and start paying for it?

Those who argue for the education are willing to pay for it.

So how do you suppose we could defend this country without funding, throw rocks at the next fighter jet from China?

Pay for it.

I agree. Let's start drastically cutting social programs to pay for it since they are not outlined in the Constitution, but defense is.

Nowhere does it state that defense should be free. For some reason you keep on ignoring this.

(The reason is actually obvious)

Where did I state that defense should be free? What I said is that the defense of this country is the constitutional responsibility of our federal representatives. Given that it isn't free, and actually costs a lot of money, the only way they can adhere to the Constitution is to pay for it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Let me see if I have your line of thinking straight. Your complaint is we are spending money we don't have for wars, and running up a debt, but support free college so the debt goes even higher?

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

Kinda like the Kenyan’s plan for Obeaner Care?

No, not at all.

I thought he claimed we’d all save $2,500 a year?
I mean, surely if a politicians “plan” makes a claim then it must be true...right?

He did. He won lie of the year for that one but once again you display the cult like thinking of many.
.
That since I support Bernie I must have supported Obama. I do (did) not.

Negative...that’s not my assertion at all.
Politicians say crazy shit they may or may not believe to be true all the time. Bernie has outlined a plan and said some shit to rile up his base of beggars...that doesn’t mean shit...has anyone audited his plan to prove him right or wrong?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol you keep talking about supporting lazy bums when you really aren’t. The large majority of us pay taxes.

So then what is the problem? If you’re so successful and you’re paying all of these taxes, pay for your own fucking education and your own fucking healthcare. What’s the problem?

Uh because idiot the large majority of people can’t afford college unless they take out loans they can never pay back.

Then they shouldn't go to college, they should attend a trade school and learn a career deeply in demand.

Or they can go part time and pay as they go

That would be too difficult. Nobody wants to actually work for their money anymore.

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution does not state that we do not have to pay for that defense. When are you going to stand up and start paying for it?

Those who argue for the education are willing to pay for it.

So how do you suppose we could defend this country without funding, throw rocks at the next fighter jet from China?

Pay for it.

I agree. Let's start drastically cutting social programs to pay for it since they are not outlined in the Constitution, but defense is.

Nowhere does it state that defense should be free. For some reason you keep on ignoring this.

(The reason is actually obvious)

Where did I state that defense should be free? What I said is that the defense of this country is the constitutional responsibility of our federal representatives. Given that it isn't free, and actually costs a lot of money, the only way they can adhere to the Constitution is to pay for it.

We aren't paying for the military.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, you're saying that the taxpayers should be forced to pay for someone's college education when they will end up never making enough to make it worth the investment ??? (Otherwise, the increase in earning power should be enough to pay off the loans!!!)

That sounds like typical liberal logic!!!

But if you're really that interested in "FREE SHIT", maybe you should consider moving to San Francisco... I hear it's laying around in the street all over town, and they're just BEGGING people to take it!!!

When are you going to stand up and start paying for the wars?

Actually, financial support for the military is mandated in the CONSTITUTION, dumbass...

You know, that "piece of paper" that the Liberals hate...

Right, but we are not financing it. We are running the wars on debt. When are you going to step up and start paying for them?

Let me see if I have your line of thinking straight. Your complaint is we are spending money we don't have for wars, and running up a debt, but support free college so the debt goes even higher?

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

And you believe that? So how's he going to pay for it?

 

[pknopp]

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

Kinda like the Kenyan’s plan for Obeaner Care?

No, not at all.

I thought he claimed we’d all save $2,500 a year?
I mean, surely if a politicians “plan” makes a claim then it must be true...right?

He did. He won lie of the year for that one but once again you display the cult like thinking of many.
.
That since I support Bernie I must have supported Obama. I do (did) not.

Negative...that’s not my assertion at all.
Politicians say crazy shit they may or may not believe to be true all the time. Bernie has outlined a plan and said some shit to rile up his base of beggars...that doesn’t mean shit...has anyone audited his plan to prove him right or wrong?

No idea. He has a plan. He presented the plan. His plan has the means to pay for it.

Kinda refreshing to see someone do this as opposed to lying about this great plan one has but never presents it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

um. . yeah, I know, it was a consequence of other policies. It was to make sure those farms did not go under, that is what securing the food supply means.


It doesn't matter. The horse has left the barn. It may not "be the point," but it still affects food security of the nation, and you can't have those farms go under. .. . YOU DO WANT TO EAT AND BE ABLE TO AFFORD FOOD?

Trade deals position US farmers for ‘record year of exports’: US agriculture secretary

 

[pknopp]

When are you going to stand up and start paying for the wars?

Actually, financial support for the military is mandated in the CONSTITUTION, dumbass...

You know, that "piece of paper" that the Liberals hate...

Right, but we are not financing it. We are running the wars on debt. When are you going to step up and start paying for them?

Let me see if I have your line of thinking straight. Your complaint is we are spending money we don't have for wars, and running up a debt, but support free college so the debt goes even higher?

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

And you believe that? So how's he going to pay for it?

From what I recall a tax on trades.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Kinda like the Kenyan’s plan for Obeaner Care?

No, not at all.

I thought he claimed we’d all save $2,500 a year?
I mean, surely if a politicians “plan” makes a claim then it must be true...right?

He did. He won lie of the year for that one but once again you display the cult like thinking of many.
.
That since I support Bernie I must have supported Obama. I do (did) not.

Negative...that’s not my assertion at all.
Politicians say crazy shit they may or may not believe to be true all the time. Bernie has outlined a plan and said some shit to rile up his base of beggars...that doesn’t mean shit...has anyone audited his plan to prove him right or wrong?

No idea. He has a plan. He presented the plan. His plan has the means to pay for it.

Kinda refreshing to see someone do this as opposed to lying about this great plan one has but never presents it.

Well he can't grow the money. Somebody is going to have to pay for it. Better find out who that is before you lend your support to him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So how do you suppose we could defend this country without funding, throw rocks at the next fighter jet from China?

Pay for it.

I agree. Let's start drastically cutting social programs to pay for it since they are not outlined in the Constitution, but defense is.

Nowhere does it state that defense should be free. For some reason you keep on ignoring this.

(The reason is actually obvious)

Where did I state that defense should be free? What I said is that the defense of this country is the constitutional responsibility of our federal representatives. Given that it isn't free, and actually costs a lot of money, the only way they can adhere to the Constitution is to pay for it.

We aren't paying for the military.

We aren't paying for the military.

The checks to pay for military spending are bouncing? Link?

 

[pknopp]

Pay for it.

I agree. Let's start drastically cutting social programs to pay for it since they are not outlined in the Constitution, but defense is.

Nowhere does it state that defense should be free. For some reason you keep on ignoring this.

(The reason is actually obvious)

Where did I state that defense should be free? What I said is that the defense of this country is the constitutional responsibility of our federal representatives. Given that it isn't free, and actually costs a lot of money, the only way they can adhere to the Constitution is to pay for it.

We aren't paying for the military.

We aren't paying for the military.

The checks to pay for military spending are bouncing? Link?

If we had to pay them, yes. Whether future generations will ever be able to pay them is questionable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree. Let's start drastically cutting social programs to pay for it since they are not outlined in the Constitution, but defense is.

Nowhere does it state that defense should be free. For some reason you keep on ignoring this.

(The reason is actually obvious)

Where did I state that defense should be free? What I said is that the defense of this country is the constitutional responsibility of our federal representatives. Given that it isn't free, and actually costs a lot of money, the only way they can adhere to the Constitution is to pay for it.

We aren't paying for the military.

We aren't paying for the military.

The checks to pay for military spending are bouncing? Link?

If we had to pay them, yes. Whether future generations will ever be able to pay them is questionable.

If we had to pay them, yes.

If the checks aren't bouncing, that means we are paying for the military.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, financial support for the military is mandated in the CONSTITUTION, dumbass...

You know, that "piece of paper" that the Liberals hate...

Right, but we are not financing it. We are running the wars on debt. When are you going to step up and start paying for them?

Let me see if I have your line of thinking straight. Your complaint is we are spending money we don't have for wars, and running up a debt, but support free college so the debt goes even higher?

As has been noted many times, the method to pay for this is in Sanders plan. There is no debt added.

And you believe that? So how's he going to pay for it?

From what I recall a tax on trades.

A tax on trades. Okay, now what do you suppose the result of that will be?