You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[Warrior102]

I'm sorry, but when did I say, "I agree with everything the POTUS is doing?"
I don't play sides, I don't play parties I play with facts.

Well - the fact is we're involved in seven global conflict, 5 additional since GWB was in office. And you're in here yelping "Cut Defense" while our men and women are in harm's way.

You should be waterboarded for idiocy.

I'm sorry, was I speaking to you? No, I wasn't. Please run off and do what ever it was you were busy with, I can't be bothered with people who lack an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

No problem. I'll be sure to keep a sharp eye on your brilliant mega-dittos posts and IQ on the boards thusfar, to date.

Carry on

 

[LiberalHere]

My question was rhetorical. Folks like to suggest its the "top 1%" when they mean far more than the "400" people they throw around.



In all honesty, most must know it's much more complicated than "the top 1 percent." But no matter what I still believe that we need to cut out a lot of spending and the first that should go is defense, the problem with that is the DOD has made too many people rich and has too many lobbyist, but that's a different story.

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

When we consider cutting defense spending it isn't for the purpose of putting armed services men and women in harms way. It's about not getting involved in the first place, thus we don't spend the money on them. I have nothing but respect for our military and thank for defending freedom. But the issue is most of their missions now don't involve much of that. Instead we're nation building and being the world police in the name of humanitarianism. Those are the things that needlessly put american soldiers in harm's way and create foreign relations nightmares. The purpose of our military is to defend against foreign agressors and it doesn't cost what we're spending to do that. We don't need gigantic military bases in a hudred countries to do that.

Thank you! That is exactly how I feel. I respect our military and what they do, but I also believe we shouldn't be involved in all the countries we are in.

 

[Warrior102]

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

When we consider cutting defense spending it isn't for the purpose of putting armed services men and women in harms way. It's about not getting involved in the first place, thus we don't spend the money on them. I have nothing but respect for our military and thank for defending freedom. But the issue is most of their missions now don't involve much of that. Instead we're nation building and being the world police in the name of humanitarianism. Those are the things that needlessly put american soldiers in harm's way and create foreign relations nightmares. The purpose of our military is to defend against foreign agressors and it doesn't cost what we're spending to do that. We don't need gigantic military bases in a hudred countries to do that.

Thank you! That is exactly how I feel. I respect our military and what they do, but I also believe we shouldn't be involved in all the countries we are in.

Then call 911 and ask to speak to Obama. The warmongering chickenhawk has our military deployed around the globe. I am sure he will drop his golf club and get to you right away.

 

[LiberalHere]

When we consider cutting defense spending it isn't for the purpose of putting armed services men and women in harms way. It's about not getting involved in the first place, thus we don't spend the money on them. I have nothing but respect for our military and thank for defending freedom. But the issue is most of their missions now don't involve much of that. Instead we're nation building and being the world police in the name of humanitarianism. Those are the things that needlessly put american soldiers in harm's way and create foreign relations nightmares. The purpose of our military is to defend against foreign agressors and it doesn't cost what we're spending to do that. We don't need gigantic military bases in a hudred countries to do that.

Thank you! That is exactly how I feel. I respect our military and what they do, but I also believe we shouldn't be involved in all the countries we are in.

Then call 911 and ask to speak to Obama. The warmongering chickenhawk has our military deployed around the globe. I am sure he will drop his golf club and get to you right away.

hold on, let me fix that for you.

"
Then call 911 and ask to speak to BUSH. The warmongering chickenhawk has our military deployed around the globe. I am sure he will drop his golf club and get to you right away."

 

[Bern80]

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

When we consider cutting defense spending it isn't for the purpose of putting armed services men and women in harms way. It's about not getting involved in the first place, thus we don't spend the money on them. I have nothing but respect for our military and thank for defending freedom. But the issue is most of their missions now don't involve much of that. Instead we're nation building and being the world police in the name of humanitarianism. Those are the things that needlessly put american soldiers in harm's way and create foreign relations nightmares. The purpose of our military is to defend against foreign agressors and it doesn't cost what we're spending to do that. We do don't gigantic military bases in a hudred countries to do that.

Kindly don't lecture me on Defense cuts.
I served, for over 20 years -
And I know what it felt like when Carter and Clinton were in office and we were all welfare cases, eating dogfood and on welfare to feed our families, living in slum-level housing.

20 years in the military doesn't make you smart (clearly) and does not absolve you from having your position challenged. Do I need to say this twice. We aren't talking about budget cuts that make things worse for people in the miltary or their lives harder. We're talking about not committing our military to things that are not for the clear purpose of defending the nation. That does not mean cutting spending by cutting resources for the troops. It means getting them out of their so we aren't spending the money at all. You are the one that should feel like turd really for advocating wars that have nothing to do with national defense.

 

[Jarhead]

They can't do any worse than the upper half is already doing .. .

Hmmmm...really?

Not sure of the exact number, but my guess is ALL people that are currently employed in the private sector are employed by the upper half.

Why would you see the upper half as doiing a poor job?

Really, could you show me the numbers on your guess? I don't see these jobs you are seeing.

Really?
I will make it easy for you.

Unemployment is at 9.2%
That means employment is at 90.8%

And likely, that 90.8% are employed by the upper half income earners.

SO....with that being said....

both the lower and the upper half income earners take the blame for 9.2% being unemployed.

Yet, only the upper half have ensured the number isnt worse.

I find that kind of ironic......especially since people like you want to put the blame of unemployment on the upper half..

I say...."hey...lower half....why dont YOU hire some people".

 

[LiberalHere]

Hmmmm...really?

Not sure of the exact number, but my guess is ALL people that are currently employed in the private sector are employed by the upper half.

Why would you see the upper half as doiing a poor job?

Really, could you show me the numbers on your guess? I don't see these jobs you are seeing.

Really?
I will make it easy for you.

Unemployment is at 9.2%
That means employment is at 90.8%

And likely, that 90.8% are employed by the upper half income earners.

SO....with that being said....

both the lower and the upper half income earners take the blame for 9.2% being unemployed.

Yet, only the upper half have ensured the number isnt worse.

I find that kind of ironic......especially since people like you want to put the blame of unemployment on the upper half..

I say...."hey...lower half....why dont YOU hire some people".

I don't deal with assumptions, assumptions are the mother of all ****ups.

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

Hmmmm...really?

Not sure of the exact number, but my guess is ALL people that are currently employed in the private sector are employed by the upper half.

Why would you see the upper half as doiing a poor job?

Really, could you show me the numbers on your guess? I don't see these jobs you are seeing.

Really?
I will make it easy for you.

Unemployment is at 9.2%
That means employment is at 90.8%

And likely, that 90.8% are employed by the upper half income earners.

SO....with that being said....

both the lower and the upper half income earners take the blame for 9.2% being unemployed.

Yet, only the upper half have ensured the number isnt worse.

I find that kind of ironic......especially since people like you want to put the blame of unemployment on the upper half..

I say...."hey...lower half....why dont YOU hire some people".

Actually that's government spin real unemployment is about 17% when you factor in those who stopped looking.




But no, the poor and lower class do not employ people in great quantities.

 

[LiberalHere]

Really, could you show me the numbers on your guess? I don't see these jobs you are seeing.

Really?
I will make it easy for you.

Unemployment is at 9.2%
That means employment is at 90.8%

And likely, that 90.8% are employed by the upper half income earners.

SO....with that being said....

both the lower and the upper half income earners take the blame for 9.2% being unemployed.

Yet, only the upper half have ensured the number isnt worse.

I find that kind of ironic......especially since people like you want to put the blame of unemployment on the upper half..

I say...."hey...lower half....why dont YOU hire some people".

Actually that's government spin real unemployment is about 17% when you factor in those who stopped looking.




But no, the poor and lower class do not employ people in great quantities.

wouldn't that number be less if you factor in the people who don't report their income?

 

[Jarhead]

Really, could you show me the numbers on your guess? I don't see these jobs you are seeing.

Really?
I will make it easy for you.

Unemployment is at 9.2%
That means employment is at 90.8%

And likely, that 90.8% are employed by the upper half income earners.

SO....with that being said....

both the lower and the upper half income earners take the blame for 9.2% being unemployed.

Yet, only the upper half have ensured the number isnt worse.

I find that kind of ironic......especially since people like you want to put the blame of unemployment on the upper half..

I say...."hey...lower half....why dont YOU hire some people".

I don't deal with assumptions, assumptions are the mother of all ****ups.

I dont understand.

The left claims that business owners are greedy bastards who capitalize on the hard work of their employhees so they can maximize profits.
So business owners must be the upper half.

My "assumption" is based on your "facts".

So you are doing nothing more than diverting.

 

[Jarhead]

Really?
I will make it easy for you.

Unemployment is at 9.2%
That means employment is at 90.8%

And likely, that 90.8% are employed by the upper half income earners.

SO....with that being said....

both the lower and the upper half income earners take the blame for 9.2% being unemployed.

Yet, only the upper half have ensured the number isnt worse.

I find that kind of ironic......especially since people like you want to put the blame of unemployment on the upper half..

I say...."hey...lower half....why dont YOU hire some people".

Actually that's government spin real unemployment is about 17% when you factor in those who stopped looking.




But no, the poor and lower class do not employ people in great quantities.

wouldn't that number be less if you factor in the people who don't report their income?

Those who stopped looking are unemployed by choice.
They do noit deserve unemployment benefits and should not be included in any stats.

Sadly, they make up about 1/3 of all those on unemployment.

And yes...that is MY stat. I am a business planner/recruiter...and we have 1/3 of our interviewees no show or cancel interviews....and yet we still get calls from their unemployment reps confirming that they are still looking for a job.

 

[Warrior102]

Thank you! That is exactly how I feel. I respect our military and what they do, but I also believe we shouldn't be involved in all the countries we are in.

Then call 911 and ask to speak to Obama. The warmongering chickenhawk has our military deployed around the globe. I am sure he will drop his golf club and get to you right away.

hold on, let me fix that for you.

"
Then call 911 and ask to speak to BUSH. The warmongering chickenhawk has our military deployed around the globe. I am sure he will drop his golf club and get to you right away."

Bush? Who? You mean the guy that's been out of office for nearly three years?
Try another deflection - hack.

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

Really?
I will make it easy for you.

Unemployment is at 9.2%
That means employment is at 90.8%

And likely, that 90.8% are employed by the upper half income earners.

SO....with that being said....

both the lower and the upper half income earners take the blame for 9.2% being unemployed.

Yet, only the upper half have ensured the number isnt worse.

I find that kind of ironic......especially since people like you want to put the blame of unemployment on the upper half..

I say...."hey...lower half....why dont YOU hire some people".

Actually that's government spin real unemployment is about 17% when you factor in those who stopped looking.




But no, the poor and lower class do not employ people in great quantities.

wouldn't that number be less if you factor in the people who don't report their income?

No, we don't count the illegal alien horde.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Indeed, the Left is concerned with these 400

But the "400 million" Chinese owning more than half of our future wealth that Papa Obama and the Left want to keep giving it to,

does not bother them

Funny how that works



Of course, if the Left and Papa Obama can sell enough of our future wealth to the Chinese
then we might be communist by default, since they will own us


This is actually dated, since the debt is even more now

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]‪Child's Pay 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rinata]

Hey, Rabbi, where are you??? I was hoping you would respond to my post # 437. You stated that the economy grows and unemployment shrinks when taxes are cut.

My post is in response to that comment. I'd love to hear from you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have seven conflicts going on that involve our brave men and women - and you want to cut their budget ?

Fuck you asshole.

When we consider cutting defense spending it isn't for the purpose of putting armed services men and women in harms way. It's about not getting involved in the first place, thus we don't spend the money on them. I have nothing but respect for our military and thank for defending freedom. But the issue is most of their missions now don't involve much of that. Instead we're nation building and being the world police in the name of humanitarianism. Those are the things that needlessly put american soldiers in harm's way and create foreign relations nightmares. The purpose of our military is to defend against foreign agressors and it doesn't cost what we're spending to do that. We do don't gigantic military bases in a hudred countries to do that.

Kindly don't lecture me on Defense cuts.
I served, for over 20 years -
And I know what it felt like when Carter and Clinton were in office and we were all welfare cases, eating dogfood and on welfare to feed our families, living in slum-level housing.

Ronnie gave us all a higher level of poverty, and Clinton did better than him. Keep your facts straight, please.

 

[Chris]

The Chinese only own one trillion of our debt.

Why does Neo keep lying?

 

[Neotrotsky]

No lie
You just can't read , "future wealth"

Granted it is speculative and a fine point but sometime fine points
are lost on the dim-witted


Barack Obama will add more debt than 43 prior presidents

BAD NEWS:
But no doubt Papa Obama will have, at this point, the biggest role in
turning over our "future wealth" to the Chinese

GOOD NEWS:
The Left will not be able to play class warfare because we will all be poor


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is there worst enemy

 

[Chris]

Bush and Reagan created 93% of the National Debt.

Truth is hard for Neo.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

 

[Neotrotsky]

Politifact- say it is not a lie
It is a crasy left wing blog site- so it must be true




Barack Obama will add more debt than 43 prior presidents




Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is there worst enemy