• 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!

House bans welfare recipients' money from strip clubs, liquor stores

Both sides say they are willing and neither side actually does it. It's a bunch of bi-partisan finger pointing bs. Your just gullible enough to buy into it. The democrats have you right where they want you. Blindly believing in everything they do and always blaming the other side.

American politics at its finest.

The Democrats have made spending cuts and proposed others including our most wasteful spending, the military. What tax cuts have the other side proposed???
 
The Democrats have made spending cuts and proposed others including our most wasteful spending, the military. What tax cuts have the other side proposed???

Why exactly is the military our most wasteful spending? Protecting our country is a bigger waste than the majority of things our government blows money on? You can't be serious.
 
You're not getting it. Our taxes created the surplus, which was squandered. We would have to be taxed AGAIN to replace it. The money doesn't come from anywhere else but us.
The working class created the SS surplus as they pay 90% of payroll taxes. The top 1% pay virtually no payroll taxes. So eliminating the tax cuts to the 1%, who got their tax increases at the expense of the SS and the working class that built up the surplus would not be taxing them again. They would simply be repaying their debt.



Doing those things reduces the deficit, but does not replace the SS surplus that no longer exists.

Part of the deficit is the money owed to SS. You seem to be very confused.



Nothing necessitated robbing SS, are you kidding me?

If their had been revenues for the Iraq war there would have been no need to borrow money from SS to pay for it.



In the case of a private contract, no, I am. But if "government owes us" $1000, it charges it to OUR collective credit card. We have to pay ourselves back when government squanders our money.

We do have a contract. That is what the Social Security program is. And you are not paying yourself back. As I explained above, the working class pays for the SS program, and the tax cuts to the wealthy is what created the debt in the first place.
 
Why exactly is the military our most wasteful spending? Protecting our country is a bigger waste than the majority of things our government blows money on? You can't be serious.

Because we waste more money on it than any other program. For the last decade we have spent almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military/industrial complex. Tell me what other US program that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on???
 
Because we waste more money on it than any other program. For the last decade we have spent almost as much as the rest of the world on the military/industrial complex. Tell me what other US program that we spend as much as the rest of the world on???

The key term there is waste. I believe American lives are worth protecting. I would not risk the lives or safety of Americans, or any nationality for that matter to save some money. That is a rediculous idea.
 
The key term there is waste. I believe American lives are worth protecting. I would not risk the lives or safety of Americans, or any nationality for that matter to save some money. That is a rediculous idea.

What American lives did the $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq save? From what I've read it cost us almost 5,000 American lives and tens of thousand wounded and maimed for life.

We spend almost a Trillion dollars a year on the military when we could spend 3/4 less and still spend more than the next top spender on military.
 
The working class created the SS surplus as they pay 90% of payroll taxes. The top 1% pay virtually no payroll taxes. So eliminating the tax cuts to the 1%, who got their tax increases at the expense of the SS and the working class that built up the surplus would not be taxing them again. They would simply be repaying their debt.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever. I have no words for a response. This might as well be Chinese.

Part of the deficit is the money owed to SS. You seem to be very confused.

Weren't you just insisting there's a surplus?

If their had been revenues for the Iraq war there would have been no need to borrow money from SS to pay for it.

Did you just come up with that? That the SS surplus paid for the Iraq war?

How can I possibly argue with someone who just makes it all up every post?

We do have a contract. That is what the Social Security program is.

NOPE! Completely wrong.

As I explained above, the working class pays for the SS program,

No, everyone pays the tax and everyone receives SS benefits. It is mostly PAYGO except that because of our deficits we have to borrow significantly to cover the SS liability.

and the tax cuts to the wealthy is what created the debt in the first place.

Unbelievable. I'm done. This is futile.
 
Last edited:
What American lives did the $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq save? From what I've read it cost us almost 5,000 American lives and tens of thousand wounded and maimed for life.

We spend almost a Trillion dollars a year on the military when we could spend 3/4 less and still spend more than the next top spender on military.

You just ignore the millions of people oppressed under Saddam? The 10's of thousands of people he mercilessly slaughtered? The US had a means to stop him. To help protect those people. Are you really so heartless that you'd like to see an entire nation of people suffering to save a few dollars.

Money isnt everything. There is no better use for money than helping to free people living under those conditions.
 
You just ignore the millions of people oppressed under Saddam?

You mean as opposed to the millions of people that were oppressed when we were his ally, or as opposed to the millions of people that are oppressed under the new corrupt regime.

The 10's of thousands of people he mercilessly slaughtered? The US had a means to stop him. To help protect those people. Are you really so heartless that you'd like to see an entire nation of people suffering to save a few dollars.

Money isnt everything. There is no better use for money than helping to free people living under those conditions.

We were his ally then, and US companies even provided him with the precursor for the Mustard gas he used.
But that was different, Iraq had not nationalized their oil and kicked out the western oil companies. Funny, how things changed after that, eh?
 
Last edited:
My favorite part of the discovery that you made all on your own and posted that ended the discussion - "trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036"

Here's my favorite part:

We’ll start with the basic numbers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its most recent projections for Social Security’s income and outgo Jan. 26, along with its twice-yearly "Budget and Economic Outlook." What those numbers show is that Social Security ran a $37 billion deficit last year, is projected to run a $45 billion deficit this year, and more red ink every year thereafter.

Look up ad hominem to see what you just did.

Look up "biased source".
 
You just ignore the millions of people oppressed under Saddam? The 10's of thousands of people he mercilessly slaughtered?

So when he was the U.S. "buddy", what did the U.S. do to help those millions of people oppressed under Saddam?
 
You mean as opposed to the millions of people that were oppressed when we were his ally, or as opposed to the millions of people that are oppressed under the new corrupt regime.



We were his ally then, and US companies even provided him with the precursor for the Mustard gas he used.
But that was different, Iraq had not nationalized their oil and kicked out the western oil companies. Funny, how things changed after that, eh?

Are you insane? The US and Iraq have not been allies for quite some time dude. And regardless of the history that any two countries may or may not have it doesn't change anything. Saddam needed to be removed from power. And if this new regime is just as bad or worse then the US government should be held to blame for pulling out and not completing what they went in their to do. The United States has a means to stop these things from happening. People are being tortured at the hands of some of these governments. I believe freedom, not just freedom for Americans, is worth more than money.

And are you really justifying Iraq's use of mustard gas? That is sick. You need help. But I guess you are one of those who thinks humanity ends at America's borders and the rest of the world deserves to suffer.
 
So when he was the U.S. "buddy", what did the U.S. do to help those millions of people oppressed under Saddam?

Well if the US didnt do anything in 1974 I suppose that justifies ignoring anything that ever happens their. No flaws in that reasoning. It's disgusting that you people put the value of money above the value of life.
 
Well if the US didnt do anything in 1974 I suppose that justifies ignoring anything that ever happens their. No flaws in that reasoning. It's disgusting that you people put the value of money above the value of life.


No, what's disgusting is that the U.S. supports dictators at ANY point and time or does business with them. Also, what about the millions who are slaughtered in Africa under dictators? Where is your concern there. What about the millions that have died and are suffering under North Korea's regime? Where is your concern there.

Simply put there were other more horrible places that the U.S. could have actually done some good, but it wasn't "profitable" enough for the U.S.

Whether you like it or not, U.S. interest and money play the part in who gets saved and who doesn't.
 
No, what's disgusting is that the U.S. supports dictators at ANY point and time or does business with them. Also, what about the millions who are slaughtered in Africa under dictators? Where is your concern there. What about the millions that have died and are suffering under North Korea's regime? Where is your concern there.

Simply put there were other more horrible places that the U.S. could have actually done some good, but it wasn't "profitable" enough for the U.S.

Whether you like it or not, U.S. interest and money play the part in who gets saved and who doesn't.

Or a bunch of people would throw hissy fits and protest the war if the US tried to get involved in either of those places. Sadly our politicians are more worried about reelections than they are doing what's right.

Your assuming I don't have concern with what's happening in Africa, or North Korea but you could not be further from wrong. I would fully support the US removing these governments.


And now your claiming that going into Iraq was profitable for the US? You can't really think that.
 
Are you insane? The US and Iraq have not been allies for quite some time dude.


We were Saddam's ally whey he was at his murderous worst, but Western oil companies had not yet been kicked out of Iraq, so.............


And regardless of the history that any two countries may or may not have it doesn't change anything.

Just facts, thats all

Saddam needed to be removed from power.

If we wanted to get big oil back in Iraq, which we very much did as recommended in Cheney's Energy Task Force Report.


And if this new regime is just as bad or worse then the US government should be held to blame for pulling out and not completing what they went in their to do.

The regime we helped set up was corrupt, how would us staying there longer change that???

The United States has a means to stop these things from happening. People are being tortured at the hands of some of these governments. I believe freedom, not just freedom for Americans, is worth more than money.

There are plenty of countries where people were being tortured, but none other with the worlds 2nd largest reserves of oil.

And are you really justifying Iraq's use of mustard gas? That is sick. You need help.

The US justified it, not me baby. But then, we were getting oil, so..............................



But I guess you are one of those who thinks humanity ends at America's borders and the rest of the world deserves to suffer.

I am the one that believes that property rights don't end with our borders. Sorry don't believe in killing innocent people for their property. Its just the way I was brought up.
 
Last edited:
WTF are you talking about? Do you REALLY think that's how I see things? That they are "less worthy"?

Man you got a ****ed up world view son.

You, a person, are free to buy whatever you want, eat what you want, MORE POWER TO YOU. With your own money, that you earned.

When you are on the tab of the TAX PAYER, essentials. Yeah, it sucks, I get that, but that's life. Governmen t isn't there to help you enjoy the nice things in life, it's there to help when you need it most. If you're buying luxury items... YOU DON'T NEED THE ****ING HELP.

My problem is people using OTHER PEOPLES MONEY instead of their own.

What part of that do you see as oppression?

I absolutely do not get how you see my stance as anything about "unworthy" or oppression.

Me, mine, green money, that has determined meaning because we deem it so.

Why don't we just print out money for everyone, so we don't have suffering? Because The Fed just printed out 17 trillion dollars to bailout a bunch of rich people.

All of this oppression has to do with fiat currency. Are you ****ing kidding me? Why can't we most past what is mine and worry about how the system is keeping people from living a fulfilling life?
 
We were Saddam's ally whey he was at his murderous worst, but Western oil companies had not yet been kicked out of Iraq, so.............

Exactly. So....... So it doesnt justify ignoring anything.

The regime we helped set up was corrupt, how would us staying there longer change that???

you'd rather abandon those people to a terrible fate at the hands of terrorist to save money? That is a cold and heartless view. Money is more not important than lives. Prioritize. What have those people done to deserve that? How can you be that selfish that you'd prefer to see millions suffer to save some money? That is a very sick and twisted mindset. I cannot understand people like you who want to see the world suffer as long as its not in your back yard. Iraqis are people too.

There are plenty of countries where people were being tortured, but none other with the worlds 2nd largest reserves of oil.

The only one i see focusing on oil is you. The US did not seem to benefit from the oil there. Our war caused gas prices to rise. They made tons of profits for oil companies in other countries. If anything it hurt the United States. Just because a country has oil we should ingore the humanitarian issues and let them all just die at the hands of a dictator.

I am the one that believes that property rights don't end with our borders. Sorry don't believe in killing innocent people for their property. Its just the way I was brought up.

What does that have to do with anything? You think the US was now trying to steal property in Iraq? Make it part of our country?

I am not going to continue this conversation with you. Your greed is disgusting.
 
Your greed is disgusting.

The rich now get 65 cents out of every dollar of income in this country, and it is the 99% that is greedy. Got it!

Best of luck to the 1% in the upcoming election! :2wave:
 
The rich now get 65 cents out of every dollar of income in this country, and it is the 99% that is greedy.

The 99% constantly buy whatever the 1% are selling.

Maybe they should stop whining and think about boycotting.
 
The 99% constantly buy whatever the 1% are selling.

Maybe they should stop whining and think about boycotting.

The 99% have buying less, not voluntarily however, just because the 1% own most of the wealth. 6 members of the Walton family now own more wealth than 93 million Americans combined!
 
The rich now get 65 cents out of every dollar of income in this country, and it is the 99% that is greedy. Got it!

Yea that is relavent to our discussion about you wanting the american government to save money by allowing millions of people to live in torment. Do you just spew forth slogans you see on signs?
 
We were Saddam's ally whey he was at his murderous worst, but Western oil companies had not yet been kicked out of Iraq, so.............

blah, blah, blah..............

The only problem with your little rant is that American oil companies have gotten almost no Iraqi oil contracts. Kinda blows a hole in your entire argument.

Hmmm, wonder why the evil G. Bush and Cheney didn't "order" the Iraqis to give American oil companies sweetheart deals??? Perhaps because your little theory is full of s**t.
 
I'm all for steering - even forcing - people in the right direction when it comes to nutrition but the cards are a more efficient use of our money instead of increasing implementation costs in an attempt to control 100% of it. You will never achieve that kind of control. What's to stop people from buying milk*, an allowed item on almost anyone's list, then simply selling it later? And would it make any difference if that gallon of milk was handed to them by a government employee? Abuses will occur, deal with it.
(Fill in your favorite food item here, it doesn't matter what it is or how it's packaged.)

Great move by the House of Representatives. Now they just need to change the food stamps program so you show up and pick up bags of groceries rather than being given carte blanche to purchase whatever you want. "Ok Mrs. Smith, you've got a family of four so here's your food allotment for the week, and since your son is lactose intolerant, we've replaced the appropriate items. See you next Thursday."
That system was thrown out because it cost too much money to maintain. It's cheaper to issue cards than pay people to sack and hand out groceries at special facilities. Controlling mechanisms costs money and the finer the control the more it costs. At some point increasing control over a system reduces overall output and efficiency.

The American Spirit dies in a person the moment they start taking money from the Government to begin with, so that's a moot point in this discussion.
That's bull. Their spirit starts dying long before they resign themselves to public assistance. Having to beg the government or anyone else for support is just one more slick spot on the downhill slide, it's not the beginning nor the end.

I'd favor that over the current 'buy cigs and energy drinks - nevermind the food' - my solution to this issue is to have stores that offer goods which are all pre-approved and foodstamps would be in-store credit at these stores only.

I see more people buying that than apples and oranges. . . hence why congress and state governments have woken up and realized what's going on.

People abuse the privilidge and freedom given so it gets taken away.
I think eventually computer technology will be useful here. Stores already use cash registers as a kind of first step inventory tracking. If programming were focused that direction it shouldn't take much to lock out certain items from special cards. I don't think we're quite there yet but if the government were to "suggest" this kind of system then some beta testing could start on newer inventory programs and maybe even on updates of some existing ones. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a good teaching mechanism.
 
The 99% have buying less, not voluntarily however, just because the 1% own most of the wealth.

So... like I said. Maybe they should stop whining and think about boycotting.
 
Back
Top Bottom