Where Is The Logic?

The 700 Billion Tarp Bailout was pretty much welfare for
the rich unions and banks so far, so possibly Welfare spending is our biggest financial
burden in the US.

Now the Democrats are considering extending unemployment benefits for all of 2010, and there is no reason to believe employment is ever coming back under Obama!


Classic buying of the poor vote, but me thinks it will not work!

But why do you support the endless war? What about all the money flushed down the toilet of war, not to mention the lives lost? Why is only ONE kind of spending considered beyond examination? I don't understand you.

With millions of unemployed, why is it bad to give unemployment benefits? Don't people matter?
 
Werbung:
Hmmmmmmm.....plenty o' rhetoric; no details/facts.

Gotta be a LIE!

Somehow I think educating you is a lost cause...

800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
 
With millions of unemployed, why is it bad to give unemployment benefits? Don't people matter?

It should be obvious that it is wrong to force one group of people to give money to another group of people. Every person (all workers) who has their money given to someone else has had their civil rights violated for a cause, that while important, is not as important as civil rights.

So how important are the needs of the unemployed? Well, not important enough for them to have saved when they were employed. Not important enough for them to have purchased insurance that would cover loss of wages. And not important enough for liberals to give freely to charitable causes that would help them as much as conservatives give to these charities.

And how important are civil rights? They are the basis of our society. The erosion of any one erodes them all.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730
 
Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families can’t make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the street.

Huffington Post

I don't know, but I just can't see the logic in continuing wars while the American people are destroyed nearly as fast as our enemies.
 
With millions of unemployed, why is it bad to give unemployment benefits? Don't people matter?

Obama has created an unemployment problem that's why!
So now he wants to fix what he created?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If so you were approving exactly what you and many other American portfolio's received, losses!

People matter and the unemployment benefits will be permanent this time, ie. millions of more welfare recipients at a time where revenues can't support this.
Or extended at least till 2012 so that Obama can win their vote and then lose the election to Palin!

Plus there is no incentive for some unemployed people to work now, as they can live in free homes and collect 1200/month sitting at home watching cable!

There shall be more job losses to come when Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire and he start implementing new taxes on business. He doesn't have to, but he just will and it is so predictable.

The liberal Nobel Prize winner (Krugman) said, "Given the latest GDP number, the date at which we can expect to see a return to full employment is … never."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/gee-thats-de-pressing/
 
.....and there is no reason to believe employment is ever coming back under Obama!
I guess that's why those economic-analyst job-offers keep missing you.

:p
"The jobs report "blew us away," said Phil Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors. "It confirms that the recession ended in the middle of the year and that we are moving ahead, even with some choppiness."
 
However the cost of the entire defense budget is a fraction of the cost for all the social welfare programs.
Mr. Shaman said:
Hmmmmmmm.....plenty o' rhetoric; no details/facts.

Gotta be a LIE!
Gee.....no breakdown???!!!!!

Which of these are you considering social-welfare programs??

And, I'm really anxious to see you identify (what you consider) the entire defense-budget!!!

You're on-the-clock!!!!!

<Tick><Tick> <Tick> <Tick> <Tick> <Tick> <Tick> <Tick>....

(Kinda feelin' like your mouth has gotten you In, Over-Your-Head?? Not to worry. Happens to Dead-O-Heads all-the-time.....)​
 
It should be obvious that it is wrong to force one group of people to give money to another group of people. Every person (all workers) who has their money given to someone else has had their civil rights violated for a cause, that while important, is not as important as civil rights.
Have you (even) TRIED to insist, that...any amount of your money (that you feel has been contributed to Unemployment) should NOT be given to any Black-people??????

:confused:

How hard are you really trying, to protect your assets?

:rolleyes:
 
Okay so you want to cut the VA and veterans pensions too. You lefties are really crazy in the way you hate the military.

The issue really is your hypocrisy. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghan are a small fraction of the overall budget. Yet, you lefties scream about cost when trillions are WASTED on welfare programs.

Why are lefties only concerned about the cost of defense and not about any other government programs? Easy answer...
 
Obama has created an unemployment problem that's why!
Yeah.....that's what's happened......

:rolleyes:
March 20, 2001

"They call him the maestro, but today, not even the maestro could orchestrate a recovery. Fed chairman Alan Greenspan cut interest rates but still the market tumbled, raising fears not only of a bear market, but of an actual recession -- with predictable political reactions.

President Bush said the shaky economy proves the need for his tax cut. The Democrats say it's all his fault. The market would still be strong if he hadn't been so negative in his public comments.

On energy, the opposite debate is raging. Reacting to California blackouts, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham warned the entire nation faces an energy crisis that could change people's lives. Democrats counter that he and Bush are just trying to scare Congress into supporting new drilling up in the Alaskan wilderness. So tonight, two fronts: Is Bush talking down the economy? Is he talking up the energy crisis? Or is he telling the truth about both?

Every time we turn around, this guy is bad-mouthing the economy. Is that lifting our spirit or dumping on it in order to sell his tax cut?

....the fundamentals are still strong. It's sort of like the glass half full or half empty. I mean, unemployment's still down to 4.2 percent, Labor Department says 135,000 new jobs created in February, retail sales are still pretty strong. Maybe the problem is that Bush really wants a look at the dark side."
MAY 2003

"You know what happened as a result? I can tell you from my personal experience, the CFO of the corporation I was working for called a meeting and said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."

And you can see right there how simply the words of President George W. Bush started slamming the breaks of the economy.

This, of course, all snowballed."
 
Okay so you want to cut the VA and veterans pensions too.
Let's seeeeeeeeeeeeeee......

NOPE!! I never said that.

Now....GIT-back to breakin'-down that social-welfare programs vs. the entire defense-budget issue!!!!

It almost seems-as-if you're trying to AVOID doing-so. I thought you had it all-figured-out??

:rolleyes:
 
Let's seeeeeeeeeeeeeee......​


NOPE!! I never said that.​

Now....GIT-back to breakin'-down that social-welfare programs vs. the entire defense-budget issue!!!!​

It almost seems-as-if you're trying to AVOID doing-so. I thought you had it all-figured-out??​


:rolleyes:

He's so busy screaming that 'MONKEY CRY' that the ability to understand his forked tongue speech just blows straight over {or through} that empty head...LMAO

Gipper spends quite a few topics spewing about 'LIBERAL' this/that/everything liberal, yet he missed the hypocrisy of his very own words: "You LIBERALS want to cut defense budgets", while he doesn't offer up any examples of any of us saying anything like that and then he further spreads the fecal matter around his entire spiel by not mentioning the way in which the 'RIGHT WINGED NUT JOBS' just want to keep that military machine chewing up TRILLIONS of dollars that we DO NOT HAVE...hmmm :confused:

But maybe it just proves that old adage of my father: 'You can't hear the logic of a discussion when your mouth is constantly open, it shuts your ears off.' Listening to my father speak to those old moss back union workers was quite an education in itself!
 
He's so busy screaming that 'MONKEY CRY' that the ability to understand his forked tongue speech just blows straight over {or through} that empty head...LMAO

Gipper spends quite a few topics spewing about 'LIBERAL' this/that/everything liberal......
Hell....what else has he GOT??!!!!

:rolleyes:
 
Werbung:
Gipper spends quite a few topics spewing about 'LIBERAL' this/that/everything liberal, yet he missed the hypocrisy of his very own words: "You LIBERALS want to cut defense budgets", while he doesn't offer up any examples of any of us saying anything like that and then he further spreads the fecal matter around his entire spiel by not mentioning the way in which the 'RIGHT WINGED NUT JOBS' just want to keep that military machine chewing up TRILLIONS of dollars that we DO NOT HAVE...hmmm :confused:

Did you really just say that Gipper offers no examples of liberals saying they want to cut defense spending in the very paragraph in which you alluded pretty directly that you want to cut defense spending?
 
Back
Top