Ryan's Budget and the debt limit

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Right. Don't let the facts get in the way.

you presented no facts as always, you presented an unrelated link
your game continues

Actually, the response it right on point. You want to claim that conservatives cut spending on the backs of the poor or the working class. Its senseless rhetoric, as if reductions in government spending only come at the expense of a certain group of people.

get a clue, the less you have the more it hurts when you receive less

I just don't get you insistence on blind devotion to the robber barons.

Have you ever reflected on this in private or therapy? Would you like to explore it in PM? I may be able to guide you to some self awareness.

How can it be that increases in government spending only benefit the poor, and reductions in tax burden or reductions in spending only benefit the rich?

How could you of not noticed that I do not play this game with you?

How can it be that (the argument is made by some on this forum) we must tax the rich because they make the heaviest use of infrastructure, but decreasing government spending then hurts the poor the most?

I was just listening to the Rolling Stones.

How can it be that unemployment benefits are stimulative (as the left would have us believe), but the idea that the government returning capital to the free market so that it can be put to productive use is not stimulative?

this is common sense.

How can it be that record levels of consumer debt is "bad", but record levels of public debt should be allowed to increase unabated?

Who is it that advocates this? Your imaginary liberal?

How can it be that health care for a fee managed in the private managed in the private sector is too expensive largely due to overconsumption and government interference in the marketplace, but single payer unrestricted access to medical care will be less expensive and more efficient (and free of political considerations which may impact delivery of services)?

That's a mouthful but I think what you are trying to say is that you don't understand that government can run healthcare more cheaply than private insurance. You should read up on it then. It's really simple enough to figure out on your own and we have a terrific model , Medicare available for you to look at.




Whell, you never learn here. Never. I believe you are the only poster here that I have learned nothing from and has learned nothing in his time here. Unless you engage in discussion you will continue to stay stagnant. That is ashame because this is clearly not an intellect problem but rather a choice.
Understanding why you have cut yourself off from reason in political regards may be of benefit to you.

I am gonna throw on some more Stones myself.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

get a clue, the less you have the more it hurts when you receive less

Well, if that's your logic, they don't you think the government is being cruel and heartless by doling out a mere pittance, and keeping the poor in poverty? Why not just pay out $50K a year to anyone who falls below a particular income level. Or why not just raise minimum wage so that everyone can make at least $50K per year?

Originally Posted by noonereal

That's a mouthful but I think what you are trying to say is that you don't understand that government can run healthcare more cheaply than private insurance. You should read up on it then. It's really simple enough to figure out on your own and we have a terrific model , Medicare available for you to look at.

If Medicare is your model of a efficient and solvent system, then it no wonder you think single payer is a wonderful thing.

Originally Posted by noonereal

Whell, you never learn here. Never. I believe you are the only poster here that I have learned nothing from and has learned nothing in his time here. Unless you engage in discussion you will continue to stay stagnant. That is ashame because this is clearly not an intellect problem but rather a choice.
Understanding why you have cut yourself off from reason in political regards may be of benefit to you.

Projection. Very interesting.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, if that's your logic, they don't you think the government is being cruel and heartless by doling out a mere pittance, and keeping the poor in poverty? Why not just pay out $50K a year to anyone who falls below a particular income level. Or why not just raise minimum wage so that everyone can make at least $50K per year?

finally we agree! However, I don't think cash or your dollar amount is well though out, it seems Whell though out.
I firmly believe each family should have a decent place to live and a bit of land, food and health insurance.

If Medicare is your model of a efficient and solvent system, then it no wonder you think single payer is a wonderful thing.

What would you submit as better? I think you don't know what you are talking about.

Projection. Very interesting.

No not at all. I think you are a good egg with a fear of honest reasoned dialogue. You seem trapped in a cycle of partisanism that somehow gives you security that independent thought does not.
I am very serious I find it fascinating.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

finally we agree! However, I don't think cash or your dollar amount is well though out, it seems Whell though out.
I firmly believe each family should have a decent place to live and a bit of land, food and health insurance.

So how would that work, exactly? You're suggesting that each family should just "have" a decent place to live, a bit of land, food and health insurance? Is that just given to families? By whom?

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it? How much land should each family get, and who decides?

What about single individuals? Do they get no land because they're not part of a family, or do they get less? What if they get married and start a family later? Does they have to find someplace on their own, or does a government agency relocate them to land deemed appropriate for families?

Is food just given away then? Would farmers, grocery workers, food distributors and manufacturers become gov't workers? Do restaurants still get to be owned by private individuals? How do they stay in business when food is available for free?

Of course, none of it is free, really? Someone's going to have to pay for this somehow, right? Who might that be?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

So how would that work, exactly? You're suggesting that each family should just "have" a decent place to live, a bit of land, food and health insurance? Is that just given to families? By whom?

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it? How much land should each family get, and who decides?

What about single individuals? Do they get no land because they're not part of a family, or do they get less? What if they get married and start a family later? Does they have to find someplace on their own, or does a government agency relocate them to land deemed appropriate for families?

Is food just given away then? Would farmers, grocery workers, food distributors and manufacturers become gov't workers? Do restaurants still get to be owned by private individuals? How do they stay in business when food is available for free?

Of course, none of it is free, really? Someone's going to have to pay for this somehow, right? Who might that be?

Land is not a problem, we have lots.
By birth we have a God damned right to earth and some of it's resources.

As you said nothing is free so most your questions are bogus.

We all share in both the labor and rewards, not one group labors and the other group enjoys the rewards as now. But if people cannot labor we are plenty wealth enough to alone them to live on a piece of land and not force them to live homeless.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Land is not a problem, we have lots.
By birth we have a God damned right to earth and some of it's resources.

As you said nothing is free so most your questions are bogus.

We all share in both the labor and rewards, not one group labors and the other group enjoys the rewards as now. But if people cannot labor we are plenty wealth enough to alone them to live on a piece of land and not force them to live homeless.

We have a right to the earth and it's resources. WTF? My city still charges me for water. Will you please talk to them for me?

I wanna live in your world, man. I won't need to work. Just show up with one of those notes that the docs were handing out to the union folks in Wisconsin, and I can get me some land to squat on and a hunk of government cheese.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

We have a right to the earth and it's resources. WTF? My city still charges me for water. Will you please talk to them for me?

You need to talk to them if you are unhappy about it. Take some personal responsibly.

I wanna live in your world, man.

You already do.

I won't need to work.

Why? Would you be happy with a meager sustenance? I would not.

Just show up with one of those notes that the docs were handing out to the union folks in Wisconsin, and I can get me some land to squat on and a hunk of government cheese.

Buffoonery is alive and whell.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

So how would that work, exactly? You're suggesting that each family should just "have" a decent place to live, a bit of land, food and health insurance? Is that just given to families? By whom?

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it? How much land should each family get, and who decides?

What about single individuals? Do they get no land because they're not part of a family, or do they get less? What if they get married and start a family later? Does they have to find someplace on their own, or does a government agency relocate them to land deemed appropriate for families?

Is food just given away then? Would farmers, grocery workers, food distributors and manufacturers become gov't workers? Do restaurants still get to be owned by private individuals? How do they stay in business when food is available for free?

Of course, none of it is free, really? Someone's going to have to pay for this somehow, right? Who might that be?

Holy smokes! I simply state that I don't believe in simply letting people slide into disease, homelessness and abject poverty. But, by the time your brain gets done processing it you have me wanting to give everyone Bentleys, Beluga Caviar and waterfront estates in the Hamptons. (Actually, I'm sure we already do this for people who can damn well afford to buy their own.)

Good Lord, man, get a hold of yourself. It aint all that.

Dave

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it?

Clearly, that is exactly what he is saying. I say we start with yours.

So, just to recap, what you're saying is, those of us with some money should drive up property value as far as we can so our investments are worth more and people who can't afford the high prices should be bussed to the desert without food or water and left to die of exposure. Is that right? If Jesus wants them to survive he’ll provide manna from heaven.

It’s good to know we’ve firmly established that any idea has to be taken to the most absurd extreme imaginable. We don’t want common sense rearing its ugly head.

Shoot, why should I have to pay to bus poor people to the desert? Let’s just shoot them. But wait until after they’re born. We don’t want to commit abortion. No, much better to whack them after they come out. That’s the Christian way.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Clearly, that is exactly what he is saying. I say we start with yours.

So, just to recap, what you're saying is, those of us with some money should drive up property value as far as we can so our investments are worth more and people who can't afford the high prices should be bussed to the desert without food or water and left to die of exposure. Is that right? If Jesus wants them to survive he’ll provide manna from heaven.

It’s good to know we’ve firmly established that any idea has to be taken to the most absurd extreme imaginable. We don’t want common sense rearing its ugly head.

Shoot, why should I have to pay to bus poor people to the desert? Let’s just shoot them. But wait until after they’re born. We don’t want to commit abortion. No, much better to whack them after they come out. That’s the Christian way.

This is so awesome, I may just have it tattooed to my body somewhere.

Dave