.
Maybe historians will label this time in the early 21st century as
"The Time of Bush Wars"?
.
Liberal lies! Its out of context! its all democratic spending prograaaaaaams! the debt clock is all the democrats fault!
It's (it is) has an apostrophe. Just sayin'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's (it is) has an apostrophe. Just sayin'.
Give the guy a break. He's a friggin' wolf. You try typing with paws.
It's only a matter of time before we all descend to anarchy.
The only thing I'll be worrying about is how to survive when all hell does break loose.
But if we just put another fiscally conservative Republican in office promising to cut taxes and boost military spending, he'll give us a balanced budget. He says so.
More flanks of meat to the wolves! It will fix the economy! The fact that this strategy will benefit me and my pa.. erm friends greatly has absolutely nothing to do with why I'm advocating it!
I've seen the rich get richer and the poor getting even more poor. Not just in America, but in Finland as well. Do you really think I can stay optimistic with the kind of atmosphere in here? Besides, history loves repeating itself, and we have a lot of problems in the world slowly building up into one big brown snowball rolling downhill. By this part, I doubt anything can stop it, really.
But this time we've got nukes!
Grover Norquest may be a problem to getting any tax hike ever.
Grover Norquest may be a problem to getting any tax hike ever.Who elected him?
The Republican party.
|
I've seen the rich get richer and the poor getting even more poor. Not just in America, but in Finland as well. Do you really think I can stay optimistic with the kind of atmosphere in here? Besides, history loves repeating itself, and we have a lot of problems in the world slowly building up into one big brown snowball rolling downhill. By this part, I doubt anything can stop it, really.Take the long view.
Yeah, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. In the US, we're getting close to Gilded Age levels again. Though there's a fraying, but much better safety net than there was then.
But that's my point. We've been here before. It's going to get worse and it's going to be hard to change, but we've done it before.
And when that net breaks i think we have not only a much larger population but more violence prone as well. When welfare fails to give whatever folks demand there will be blood in the streets. When the last days of the american empire come, the rich who will be pretty much the only ones to keep the system going WILL jump ship to escape the taxes eventually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think we're more violence-prone than the Gilded Age, well, here:
And when that net breaks i think we have not only a much larger population but more violence prone as well. When welfare fails to give whatever folks demand there will be blood in the streets. When the last days of the american empire come, the rich who will be pretty much the only ones to keep the system going WILL jump ship to escape the taxes eventually.I've seen the rich get richer and the poor getting even more poor. Not just in America, but in Finland as well. Do you really think I can stay optimistic with the kind of atmosphere in here? Besides, history loves repeating itself, and we have a lot of problems in the world slowly building up into one big brown snowball rolling downhill. By this part, I doubt anything can stop it, really.Take the long view.
Yeah, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. In the US, we're getting close to Gilded Age levels again. Though there's a fraying, but much better safety net than there was then.
But that's my point. We've been here before. It's going to get worse and it's going to be hard to change, but we've done it before.
Exactly what I was getting at. Also, it's not cynicism. We're being realistic.
|
|
Exactly what I was getting at. Also, it's not cynicism. We're being realistic.And when that net breaks i think we have not only a much larger population but more violence prone as well. When welfare fails to give whatever folks demand there will be blood in the streets. When the last days of the american empire come, the rich who will be pretty much the only ones to keep the system going WILL jump ship to escape the taxes eventually.I've seen the rich get richer and the poor getting even more poor. Not just in America, but in Finland as well. Do you really think I can stay optimistic with the kind of atmosphere in here? Besides, history loves repeating itself, and we have a lot of problems in the world slowly building up into one big brown snowball rolling downhill. By this part, I doubt anything can stop it, really.Take the long view.
Yeah, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. In the US, we're getting close to Gilded Age levels again. Though there's a fraying, but much better safety net than there was then.
But that's my point. We've been here before. It's going to get worse and it's going to be hard to change, but we've done it before.
There are reasons i want to live in a cabin in the woods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when that net breaks i think we have not only a much larger population but more violence prone as well.
What makes you think that? People are people, they haven't changed.
When welfare fails to give whatever folks demand there will be blood in the streets.
Which is why it won't fail.
When the last days of the american empire come, the rich who will be pretty much the only ones to keep the system going WILL jump ship to escape the taxes eventually.
You realize that the dutch, french, and british empires have all fallen and settled on a comfy socialism as a retirement right? Even if you say thats doomed to fail in europe that phase in america should take longer than you're going to live anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wealthy pay the taxes that make welfare possible. Take their tax money and leave and what will fund those fun programs?
Minor correction: the very wealthy pay no taxes at all. The modestly wealthy and the middle class pay those taxes.
The wealthy pay the taxes that make welfare possible. Take their tax money and leave and what will fund those fun programs?Minor correction: the very wealthy pay no taxes at all. The modestly wealthy and the middle class pay those taxes.
Middle income people? You mean, like Mitt Rmoney thinks someone making 250k/year is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you take into account federal, state and local taxes, the bottom fifth of households still have about a 16% tax burden. Things like payroll taxes, property taxes, sales tax, gas tax, etx.... are all.... drum roll.... taxes. They aren't federal income tax, but they still count.
They aren't federal income tax, but they still count.
<.<
>.>socialist
The wealthy pay the taxes that make welfare possible. Take their tax money and leave and what will fund those fun programs?Minor correction: the very wealthy pay no taxes at all. The modestly wealthy and the middle class pay those taxes.
I live in a tax-heavy country, and we are very aware of this. However, money talks and the rich still have their way 99% of the times.
But if we just put another fiscally conservative Republican in office promising to cut taxes and boost military spending and some more unfunded wars, he'll give us a balanced budget. He says so.
Fixed it for you.
Yeah, you got me. He hasnt explicitly stated that he would go to war with Iran, but then again, unfunded wars, by their very definition, do not go into budget plans.
gah. I was leaning romney, but I have to think what would be better, wars or social programs. Depressing prospects, I'll probably just vote 3rd party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
wars or social programs
I know! Such a tough choice, right? I mean, either helping people in our own country, or indiscriminately bombing brown people? How can you pick just one?! Surely they both have their benefits and drawbacks.
gah. I was leaning romney, but I have to think what would be better, wars or social programs. Depressing prospects, I'll probably just vote 3rd party.
Holy balls, someone actually thinks like this?
Yep
|
|
wars or social programsI know! Such a tough choice, right? I mean, either helping people in our own country, or indiscriminately bombing brown people? How can you pick just one?! Surely they both have their benefits and drawbacks.
Isn't obama bombing brown people? or is romney the "helping our own" choice now?
gah. I was leaning romney, but I have to think what would be better, wars or social programs. Depressing prospects, I'll probably just vote 3rd party.Holy balls, someone actually thinks like this?
More than just someone, it's called the 2012 Republican platform! No to welfare, yes to war!
More than just someone, it's called the 2012 Republican platform! No to welfare, yes to war!gah. I was leaning romney, but I have to think what would be better, wars or social programs. Depressing prospects, I'll probably just vote 3rd party.Holy balls, someone actually thinks like this?
Sure, but it's not every day that you actually hear someone vocalize the idea that choosing between providing for the needy and killing people is a really tough choice!
Isn't obama bombing brown people? or is romney the "helping our own" choice now?wars or social programsI know! Such a tough choice, right? I mean, either helping people in our own country, or indiscriminately bombing brown people? How can you pick just one?! Surely they both have their benefits and drawbacks.
It's not about which is doing which, or if either is doing either. It's about the fact that it seems like the base of people voting for Romney honestly considers going to war and feeding the hungry to be equally damnable vices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about which is doing which, or if either is doing either. It's about the fact that it seems like the base of people voting for Romney honestly considers going to war and feeding the hungry to be equally damnable vices.
To be fair, it's the fault of the hungry that programs which help them end up also helping the wrong sort of person.
Samnell, I'm amazed I hadn't seen that before, but... OMG. Yes, that's exactly it. U win teh mad interwebz.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Since Themistocles established the first professional military using public funds, this has been the norm for Western civilization.
As an aside, I find it interesting that the last of the Western 'barbarians', the Scandinavians, are now the most civilized of all Western societies.
As an aside, I find it interesting that the last of the Western 'barbarians', the Scandinavians, are now the most civilized of all Western societies.
Nonsense. The vikings made themselves wealthy by plundering the hard earned riches of Europe. And, I mean, socialism is just a fancy name for plundering the hard-earned money of the citizens. Same thing!
/sarcasm