• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

You aren't putting it into context. All republicans want to destroy social programs. The money would be taken from programs like Food Stamps. This is why people are like "wtf"

I'm still curious as to why destroying social programs when the country is $14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and climbing is such a bad thing, considering social programs constitute over 60% of the Federal Budget.

Social Programs are merely political bribes for votes wrapped in the lie of "for the children"
 
I'm still curious as to why destroying social programs when the country is $14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and climbing is such a bad thing, considering social programs constitute over 60% of the Federal Budget.

Social Programs are merely political bribes for votes wrapped in the lie of "for the children"

Take away all the money from all the social programs and the free market will take care of everyone....

Then why isn't that happening now? Dispersed responsibility? That would happen without government assistance as well.

My contention is that starting point. Start with subsides, bloated military, reform welfare to be a welfare to work program like Scandinavian countries etc. But completely removing them would cause more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
After this I'm done derailing

The repubs offered no solutions (minus Ron Paul) for fixing health care for the same reason why dems aren't now.

And on that point, there is no justification. As I said, both parties are too worried about strategies for reelection to legislate honestly. It needs to end. We need to show people that when they don't work, they won't work for us anymore, instead of continually voting the same people or type of people into office expecting new results.
 
Take away all the money from all the social programs and the free market will take care of everyone....

Then why isn't that happening now? Dispersed responsibility? That would happen without government assistance as well.

My contention is that starting point. Start with subsides, bloated military, reform welfare to be a welfare to work program like Scandinavian countries etc. But completely removing them would cause more harm than good.

People just assume that all of those on welfare would magically become amazing employees if a job was handed to them. Welfare recipients are largely unskilled, uneducated, unmotivated, and welfare encourages that type of existence. If we removed everything those people would be helpless and it would continue to be a generational problem. Training programs, mandatory skill-based services, and other programs designed to prepare these people to be productive are essential in the process of limiting or eradicating existing programs. I don't see anybody advocating to shut off the faucet tomorrow.
 
People just assume that all of those on welfare would magically become amazing employees if a job was handed to them. Welfare recipients are largely unskilled, uneducated, unmotivated, and welfare encourages that type of existence. If we removed everything those people would be helpless and it would continue to be a generational problem. Training programs, mandatory skill-based services, and other programs designed to prepare these people to be productive are essential in the process of limiting or eradicating existing programs. I don't see anybody advocating to shut off the faucet tomorrow.

But you also don't see repubs offering this.

And on that point, there is no justification. As I said, both parties are too worried about strategies for reelection to legislate honestly. It needs to end. We need to show people that when they don't work, they won't work for us anymore, instead of continually voting the same people or type of people into office expecting new results.

Then vote libertarian.
 
Last edited:
But you also don't see repubs offering this.



Then vote libertarian.

I've actually never discussed my voting record that I recall. I choose to keep my ballot private.
 
But you also don't see repubs offering this.



Then vote libertarian.

As for the first statement. No, many of them are not. But I've heard a few mention similar ideas. As soon as somebody from either party is brave enough to stand up and make the suggestion, then defend it and fight for it despite the very obvious political price tag...I'll be the first one in line to advocate for the bill.
 
Jesus, for the 213425345634th time...Nobody said Joplin wouldn't get or would have to wait for funds. Cantor said that Joplin will get funding, and the costs of that funding will be offset by cuts from other areas. He's saying, "we're paying for this responsibly". And that's a good thing. This is reactionary, emotional crap at it's best. If Harry Reid had said it verbatim, would you still be freaking out, calling for his head on a spike?

I agree with your post. However, if Harry Reid had said it, the likes of these conservative haters here would have reveled in his prudence. The read what they want to read, then regurgitated nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject of providing funds for tornado victims. I guess they are so used to irresponsible government that they think citizens are privy to the entitlement de jour. Their responses provide evidence that it doesn't matter where the funds to pay for everything come from, the government damn well better provide it, and shame on you for not seeing things their way.

haters2.jpg
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059537402 said:
I agree with your post. However, if Harry Reid had said it, the likes of these conservative haters here would have reveled in his prudence. The read what they want to read, then regurgitated nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject of providing funds for tornado victims. I guess they are so used to irresponsible government that they think citizens are privy to the entitlement de jour. Their responses provide evidence that it doesn't matter where the funds to pay for everything come from, the government damn well better provide it, and shame on you for not seeing things their way.

haters2.jpg

LOL @ the graphic.

Does your screen name have an English alphabet translation (not to sound ignorant, as I'm sure I do)?
 
I won't be asking if I can avoid it. As I said, my life is my responsibility.

I'm surprised you included the phrase "if I can avoid it." That implies that sometimes the need for aid cannot be avoided. Interesting.
 
I'm surprised you included the phrase "if I can avoid it." That implies that sometimes the need for aid cannot be avoided. Interesting.

I more meant that some things are mandated. I'm not aware of having the ability to deny government services like social security, medicare, etc.
 
I more meant that some things are mandated. I'm not aware of having the ability to deny government services like social security, medicare, etc.

No one forces you to take social security or medicare. You have to sign up for both which I'm sure you won't because you won't need them.
 
No one forces you to take social security or medicare. You have to sign up for both which I'm sure you won't because you won't need them.

Hopefully not, because at this rate they won't even exist.
 
I hate probably 80% of liberal ideology. I think it's bad for the country. But I don't hate liberals. They honestly think (or so it seems) that their methods are best. But emotional generalizations and baiting attackings against the opposition are pointless. Avoiding reality specifically so you can blame the other guy? Also pointless. Not that Ikari is as guilty of the last, but plenty are.

Libertarians are not liberals. As it relates to government response to its own people, it's well more important than running around "bringing freedom" to people we have no business interfering with. In this case specifically, the government is saying that they have to find the money first to try to fix it. But our own government has had a horrible record fixing our problems lately. They didn't say anything about "reasonable spending" when they were giving our money to the banks and hedge funds which caused the economic collapse. They don't talk about reasonable spending when giving out handouts and subsidies to corporations. Why is it that it comes up when we need to fix our own stuff, when our towns are broken and theoretically we could use government to expidite the repair process? Only now do they talk about reasonable spending. It's only when people they are unconcerned about are affected that it must become reasonable.

This government was not built for the protection of others, to serve people in other countries. It was made to serve OUR needs, OUR rights, OUR liberties.

As for "emotional outburst" or whatever the hell you want to say; it was nothing of the sort. It was a simple comment. It was double speak.
 
Libertarians are not liberals. As it relates to government response to its own people, it's well more important than running around "bringing freedom" to people we have no business interfering with. In this case specifically, the government is saying that they have to find the money first to try to fix it. But our own government has had a horrible record fixing our problems lately. They didn't say anything about "reasonable spending" when they were giving our money to the banks and hedge funds which caused the economic collapse. They don't talk about reasonable spending when giving out handouts and subsidies to corporations. Why is it that it comes up when we need to fix our own stuff, when our towns are broken and theoretically we could use government to expidite the repair process? Only now do they talk about reasonable spending. It's only when people they are unconcerned about are affected that it must become reasonable.

This government was not built for the protection of others, to serve people in other countries. It was made to serve OUR needs, OUR rights, OUR liberties.

As for "emotional outburst" or whatever the hell you want to say; it was nothing of the sort. It was a simple comment. It was double speak.

Did I not clearly say in my post that you were not guilty of an emotional outburst?
 
Did I not clearly say in my post that you were not guilty of an emotional outburst?

Hmm...let's look into this

I've learned my lesson. I'm not arguing ridiculous comments anymore. This isn't an argument, it's an emotional piece of text vomit.

So what was that you were saying again?
 
Hmm...let's look into this



So what was that you were saying again?

Actually, having gone back over those posts. You were rather emotionally irrational. Perhaps My "Ikari" was not was in reference to the other part of that statment.

Having made several posts today I don't remember vertbatim everything I've said.
 
Last edited:
Actually, having gone back over those posts. You were rather emotionally irrational. Perhaps My "Ikari" was not was in reference to the other part of that statment.

Having made several posts today I don't remember vertbatim everything I've said.

So you are saying I was replying emotionally. And thus when I said that it was not emotion, but rather a statement of fact; that was proper retort to your claim of emotion. Well so long as you agree with me, that at least makes you right. hehehe
 
No one forces you to take social security or medicare. You have to sign up for both which I'm sure you won't because you won't need them.

SS and medicare are statutory payroll tax deductions that must be withheld from an employee's paycheck. So why wouldn't you access SS and medicare when you qualify? You paid for it.
 
So you are saying I was replying emotionally. And thus when I said that it was not emotion, but rather a statement of fact; that was proper retort to your claim of emotion. Well so long as you agree with me, that at least makes you right. hehehe

Actually, now I'm just confused. The two posts I was refering to were completely emotional and not entirely based in fact.

For now, let's just say I didn't say anything...I honestly can't remember my point.
 
Actually, now I'm just confused. The two posts I was refering to were completely emotional and not entirely based in fact.

For now, let's just say I didn't say anything...I honestly can't remember my point.

Your point was to make a claim that a statement was emotionally charged (when it was not) so that you can dismiss the statement all together. But you later contradicted yourself and have thus been backpedaling to correct it.
 
Your point was to make a claim that a statement was emotionally charged (when it was not) so that you can dismiss the statement all together. But you later contradicted yourself and have thus been backpedaling to correct it.

No, now you're making assumptions. The word vomit response was related to two posts that were both emotional charged and at least partially, if not wholey, invalid. The other statement...I honestly can't remember what I was excepting you from. As I said, I don't remember the intention behind every single post I've made today and I didn't go back and look through 10 pages to trace the entire line of thought...so oops there. Otherwise, I'm not backpedaling on anything.
 
Dismissive statements are dismissive.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059538008 said:
SS and medicare are statutory payroll tax deductions that must be withheld from an employee's paycheck. So why wouldn't you access SS and medicare when you qualify? You paid for it.

Of course they are and of course you would but you don't have to.
 
Back
Top Bottom