Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    My argument hasn't changed from the beginning. The veterans deserve the benefits they have, and there are a million better places to start making cuts than veteran benefits. If you'd like to provide some quotes where I've changed arguments or positions, go for it. Otherwise, stop saying it in every post, it's getting ridiculous.



    Your entire argument is that cuts are supposed to hurt, and that all programs should be viewed equal. 71 billion in foreign aid should be considered equal to veteran's benefits. If everything's equal, and it's supposed to hurt, why don't we cut food stamps while leaving 92 billion in corporate welfare intact? Everything's equal and we should cut indiscriminatively right?

    So let's cut:
    - Food stamps
    - Social security
    - Medicare
    - Veterans benefits

    And leave in place:
    - 71 billion in foreign aid
    - 92 billion in corporate welfare (non-Tarp)
    - 25 billion annually in rennovating and maintaining vacant and unused federal properties. [1]
    - 295 billion in defense weapons projects overruns [2]
    - 3 billion resanding beaches [3]
    - 2.5 billion for broadband internet research (that actually didn't even get used)[4]

    But no, you're right, let's start with veteran's benefits. After all, they're cuts and they should hurt right?

    Why not downsize the military (like we're doing) so that fewer potential veterans will need benefits, instead of trying to bone the current vets? How is that not more rational of a move?
    Again, you are making up an argument i did not make. I have pretty much maintained that those other cuts should be made also. You seem to want to avoid the cuts you don't like while demanding the cuts you do. I think it would be great to get all the cuts in gear, but i see no reason to stop some if we cannot get all. it is just the typical reason why the sequester was needed because they are never going to agree on programs to cut because they all actually want the benefit programs in place. Even the original argument doesn't actually do much but suggest that this is a place to be cut and you are reacting as if it is going to happen. This idea that people should not suggest cuts you don't like in lieu of ones you do is one of the major reasons we don't get any real discussion on how o fix any of our debt problems. Your argument is typical emotional argumentation also. They are veterans so they must get this pay even though they don't do anything for us anymore. yes, i get it you love the veterans but that does not make a good argument. The cuts should be made because we need to save money, but like I have been saying we should only cut some benefits and make it like regular unemployment. I think it would be best to cut these benefits and the others you mentioned, but I am looking at it from a realistic standpoint that you are never going to find a place that you can cut and everyone is going to feel great about it. There will always be someone with an emotional attachment who is going to get hurt. perhaps that is why we should not have run an imperialistic war on terror to begin with? Especially without getting the benefits of the resources from the lands we took. The reason why imperialism worked so well for place like england was they got stuff from the countries they took. they did not spend resources invading only to give the profits to private business that didn't pay tax on it.

    So feel free to make up another imaginary argument you want me to make because it is easier to deal with the things you wish i had said instead of those i have said. Just don't expect me to pretend i actually did your absurd claims. It is time to pay the bills, and that means paying people to sit around the full salary of a soldier is in need of ending. you can play the blame game and try to distract from that necessity by pointing to other places that should be cut, but that is just the same old finger pointing and distraction used whenever someone sees cuts they don't like. It is why nothing gets done and we continue along with the same old problems. I don't think the article is wrong for suggesting that something be done about pissing money away. The more places we can make efficient the better off we will be.

  2. #22
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,584

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Again, you are making up an argument i did not make. I have pretty much maintained that those other cuts should be made also. You seem to want to avoid the cuts you don't like while demanding the cuts you do. I think it would be great to get all the cuts in gear, but i see no reason to stop some if we cannot get all. it is just the typical reason why the sequester was needed because they are never going to agree on programs to cut because they all actually want the benefit programs in place. Even the original argument doesn't actually do much but suggest that this is a place to be cut and you are reacting as if it is going to happen. This idea that people should not suggest cuts you don't like in lieu of ones you do is one of the major reasons we don't get any real discussion on how o fix any of our debt problems. Your argument is typical emotional argumentation also. They are veterans so they must get this pay even though they don't do anything for us anymore. yes, i get it you love the veterans but that does not make a good argument. The cuts should be made because we need to save money, but like I have been saying we should only cut some benefits and make it like regular unemployment. I think it would be best to cut these benefits and the others you mentioned, but I am looking at it from a realistic standpoint that you are never going to find a place that you can cut and everyone is going to feel great about it. There will always be someone with an emotional attachment who is going to get hurt. perhaps that is why we should not have run an imperialistic war on terror to begin with? Especially without getting the benefits of the resources from the lands we took. The reason why imperialism worked so well for place like england was they got stuff from the countries they took. they did not spend resources invading only to give the profits to private business that didn't pay tax on it.

    So feel free to make up another imaginary argument you want me to make because it is easier to deal with the things you wish i had said instead of those i have said. Just don't expect me to pretend i actually did your absurd claims. It is time to pay the bills, and that means paying people to sit around the full salary of a soldier is in need of ending. you can play the blame game and try to distract from that necessity by pointing to other places that should be cut, but that is just the same old finger pointing and distraction used whenever someone sees cuts they don't like. It is why nothing gets done and we continue along with the same old problems. I don't think the article is wrong for suggesting that something be done about pissing money away. The more places we can make efficient the better off we will be.
    So let me get this straight. You're trying to attack me saying I want to "cut things I want to cut, while not cutting things I don't."? Are you not doing that? Are you saying you're for cutting 100% of everything in the government? Food stamps, medicare, all of it? Or do you think there are things we should keep, and things we should cut, just like I'm doing?

    Stop acting like you're arguing from a morally or intellectually superior position. You simply want to bone veterans because you don't see them as a priority. Most Americans do see them as a priority, which is why we're not going to be making massive cuts to veterans benefits.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •