Quit hogging all the "A's" ...it's not fair...time to redistribute GPA's

• sleeper

  

  isadore;1157514 wrote:oh really, you want people living below or near the poverty level pay taxes from the small amount of income available to them. Yes and lets cut the military to the very basic things, the lowest possible pay possible, the lowest Quality and least amount of equipment possible. And what for the poor the minimum possible calorie intake of the most inexpensive foods, medical care at the most basic level to keep them alive with the cheapest housing. After all that is all they deserve.

  Why do the poor deserve anything else? If you aren't working, you get ramen, frozen broccoli and milk. Then, from 9-5 every day, you don't just get to sit around at home watching Oprah and playing the lottery, you get to go to an abandoned warehouse with a bunch of chairs and sit. You can get up for 10 minutes each hour to stretch and use the restroom, and then return to your seat and sit.
  
  I guarantee you people would get back to work immediately. There are plenty of fields, hotel maids, and service jobs to be had, but Americans are too good for them.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1157543 wrote:That view on military spending has cost American lives at time of national emergency for over 200 years. Then you want to put income tax on poorest while decreasing the tax on those most able to pay. And then to provide those in need with the minimal for their survival. I was listening to guy talk about north korean gulags. How they could house, cloth and feed people at the minimal and still survive. Maybe you should check that out, it could provide those basic needs at a price you would be willing to pay.

  Such cuts may in fact save this country from the impending disaster soon coming if we don't reduce spending. Should that occur, you won't see cuts but rather the cease of all safety nets.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1157551 wrote:Such cuts may in fact save this country from the impending disaster soon coming if we don't reduce spending. Should that occur, you won't see cuts but rather the cease of all safety nets.

  What I see are folks who basically what to pay the least possible and are willing to cut into the protection of nation and the support for those in need in order to accomplish it.
• isadore

  sleeper;1157544 wrote:Why do the poor deserve anything else? If you aren't working, you get ramen, frozen broccoli and milk. Then, from 9-5 every day, you don't just get to sit around at home watching Oprah and playing the lottery, you get to go to an abandoned warehouse with a bunch of chairs and sit. You can get up for 10 minutes each hour to stretch and use the restroom, and then return to your seat and sit.
  
  I guarantee you people would get back to work immediately. There are plenty of fields, hotel maids, and service jobs to be had, but Americans are too good for them.

  thanks for your input.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1157575 wrote:What I see are folks who basically what to pay the least possible and are willing to cut into the protection of nation and the support for those in need in order to accomplish it.

  You see very clearly then...at least on this point.
• I Wear Pants

  So isadore is literally one that wants to see spending everywhere. Doesn't want to see any cuts/reforms in social programs (which I agree with to an extent) and doesn't want to see any cuts at all to the military (completely disagree). Seems like isadore just agrees with anything the government does.
• Al Bundy

  I Wear Pants;1157737 wrote:Seems like isadore just agrees with anything the government does.

  If that other party had the White House, everything the government would be wrong in isadore's eyes.
• dwccrew

  

  isadore;1157414 wrote:That is a comment on what you have said long term at this site. so the fact you said it this time was hardly a surprise as it would be hardly a surprise if sleeper, gut or al bundy had written the same thing.

  And? What is your point? Why do you continue to point out the obvious? Are you trying to stay relevant in this conversation?
  

  I Wear Pants;1157737 wrote:So isadore is literally one that wants to see spending everywhere. Doesn't want to see any cuts/reforms in social programs (which I agree with to an extent) and doesn't want to see any cuts at all to the military (completely disagree). Seems like isadore just agrees with anything the government does.

  A lamb being led to slaughter is what Isadore has become.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;1157737 wrote:So isadore is literally one that wants to see spending everywhere. Doesn't want to see any cuts/reforms in social programs (which I agree with to an extent) and doesn't want to see any cuts at all to the military (completely disagree). Seems like isadore just agrees with anything the government does.

  not a big supporter of subsidies to the oil companies and to the agriculture corporations. but yes i believe that our military deserve good pay and the best equipment. And the needy deserve true protection not stripped to the bare minimum for survival
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1157744 wrote:If that other party had the White House, everything the government would be wrong in isadore's eyes.

  gosh a ruddies I agreed with much of reagan's foreign policy, not much of the domestic, H. W. was one of our best foreign policy Presidents and he had the guts to raise taxes to save our economy and lead us toward a budget surplus.
• isadore

  dwccrew;1157849 wrote:And? What is your point? Why do you continue to point out the obvious? Are you trying to stay relevant in this conversation?
  
  
  
  A lamb being led to slaughter is what Isadore has become.

  read and learn little man.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1157600 wrote:You see very clearly then...at least on this point.

  so we findly get to the core of who you are, send the aged, the handicap and the children to the poor house and save you some bucks. And at the same time gut our defense.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1157911 wrote:so we findly get to the core of who you are, send the aged, the handicap and the children to the poor house and save you some bucks. And at the same time gut our defense.

  I don't want to send people to the poor house. I was under the impression they were already there seeing how they were in need of assistance.
  
  I don't want to gut the military. I do want to reduce it's costs.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1157924 wrote:I don't want to send people to the poor house. I was under the impression they were already there seeing how they were in need of assistance.
  
  I don't want to gut the military. I do want to reduce it's costs.

  A poorhouse or workhouse was a government-run facility in the past for the support and housing of dependent or needy persons, typically run by a local government entity such as a county or municipality.
  
  What was used before social security when the aged lived in poverty
  
  Your statements have all been about cutting things to the minimum for the needy and the military. You cut that deep, you draw blood.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1157963 wrote:A poorhouse or workhouse was a government-run facility in the past for the support and housing of dependent or needy persons, typically run by a local government entity such as a county or municipality.
  
  What was used before social security when the aged lived in poverty
  
  Your statements have all been about cutting things to the minimum for the needy and the military. You cut that deep, you draw blood.

  I said cut to the minimum. I didn't say cut to the point they are sent to the poor house. Those were your words. In addition, I never said cut the military to the minimum. Those were your words. I said I would like to see the military cut.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1158005 wrote:I said cut to the minimum. I didn't say cut to the point they are sent to the poor house. Those were your words. In addition, I never said cut the military to the minimum. Those were your words. I said I would like to see the military cut.

  isadore wrote: What I see are folks who basically what to pay the least possible and are willing to cut into the protection of nation and the support for those in need in order to accomplish it.

  To which you wrote

  isadore wrote:You see very clearly then...at least on this point.

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1158035 wrote:To which you wrote

  Yes, and. ????
  
  It says and they are your words mind you, "willing to cut into the protection of nation and support for those in need in order to accomplish it".
  
  It doesn't say I want to cut the military to the minimum. I don't. I do want it cut.
  
  I do want the social safety nets reduced to the minimum.
• isadore

  cut military pay, cut military equipment, endanger soldiers lives.
  and how do you answer the below quote
  

  isadore wrote:And what for the poor the minimum possible calorie intake of the most inexpensive foods, medical care at the most basic level to keep them alive with the cheapest housing. After all that is all they deserve.

  Con_Alma wrote:Yes, everyone.
  
  I agree. The military does need to be cut to a degree.

  you know even Scrooge and Grinch's heart finally started to grow. (too sarcastic?)
• I Wear Pants

  isadore;1157904 wrote:not a big supporter of subsidies to the oil companies and to the agriculture corporations. but yes i believe that our military deserve good pay and the best equipment. And the needy deserve true protection not stripped to the bare minimum for survival

  That we can agree on.
  
  However you're not making an honest argument in the second part of your post. It'd be like me saying "I believe in not bankrupting the country so that we can afford to pay for protection and benefits for our troops" as an argument for cutting defense spending. What I said was merely an attempt to emotionally cloud the discussion and not bring any substance to the table.
  
  Nobody here thinks that military members should not be paid adequately or that they shouldn't have the equipment they need. That doesn't mean, however, that cuts cannot/should not be made to our defense spending which is absurdly out of control.
  
  As for protection for the poor/others that need help. I am not for getting rid of it but I am certainly not against reforming parts of it that make sense and cutting areas that currently don't provide a benefit greater than their cost. I'm not well studied enough in the area to suggest exactly what those changes or cuts (or increases if it makes sense) should be though.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;1158271 wrote:That we can agree on.
  
  However you're not making an honest argument in the second part of your post. It'd be like me saying "I believe in not bankrupting the country so that we can afford to pay for protection and benefits for our troops" as an argument for cutting defense spending. What I said was merely an attempt to emotionally cloud the discussion and not bring any substance to the table.
  
  Nobody here thinks that military members should not be paid adequately or that they shouldn't have the equipment they need. That doesn't mean, however, that cuts cannot/should not be made to our defense spending which is absurdly out of control.
  
  As for protection for the poor/others that need help. I am not for getting rid of it but I am certainly not against reforming parts of it that make sense and cutting areas that currently don't provide a benefit greater than their cost. I'm not well studied enough in the area to suggest exactly what those changes or cuts (or increases if it makes sense) should be though.

  Yes people on here believe the military is overpaid. That anyone could do their job. Even some who doubt their bravery.
  I am not opposed to the natural cuts that would come to military spending with the end of the war in Iraq and the coming end of war in Afghanistan. For one thing national guard units will no longer need to be deployed and that would be a savings I would imagine. 11 years ago we had a budget surplus, then came the Bush tax cuts. Those cuts are about to be rescinded. At least the upper level cuts should still be.
  As to cuts to the needy, people are much too quick to be willing to take from those most in need.
• dwccrew

  

  isadore;1157910 wrote:read and learn little man.

  
  Do better inglish and gramer
• isadore

  this is as better as my grammar gets.
• dwccrew

  

  isadore;1158347 wrote:this is as better as my grammar gets.

  Must be that rich people didn't give you the same opportunities to get a quality education. Give me your address so I can send you a check to go back to school. See, no taxes needed. You can be my personal charity case.
• isadore

  wow I can get a new set of teeth and work on my GED, my hopes and dreams are fulfilled.
  
  please mail the check to Barry at
  , P.O. Box 802798, Chicago, IL 60680.
• dwccrew

  

  isadore;1158387 wrote:wow I can get a new set of teeth and work on my GED, my hopes and dreams are fulfilled.
  
  please mail the check to Barry at
  , P.O. Box 802798, Chicago, IL 60680.

  I'll also send a food care package, so no need for food stamps. Spam and some M&M's. I'm feeling generous......peanut M&M's.