|
Post by osha on May 18, 2017 9:52:22 GMT -7
Okay, here: www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/trump-budget-cuts/Trump has an idea as to what he would like cut. Now, chances are that his ideas will not be passed without a fight. So, through a "deal", he will try and fight for his ideas with his party. The left and some of the right will not like his ideas. So, they will go back and forth working out details and at some point both sides will be happy and a budget will be passed. Some will lose and some will win the deal. This is how the government works. When a party wants something, they go to the other party and bicker back and forth until a deal is made. Then presto... A deal is made. Just to add, let's throw out an example just using made up points. Trump and his party wants to cut the tax rate for the rich, wants to raise the retirement age and wants to cut 300 billion in the food stamp program and more military. The left wants to lower the age for medicare, increase SS income for the elderly and disabled and keep PBS alive. Okay, so a bickering starts. The lefts most important idea is raising SS income and the right wants all of their ideas. So they fight it out and the right eventually agrees to allow them to give more money to SS and in exchange the left has to except the 300 billion in cuts to food stamps. Retirement age was left alone. We got: More military SS improved Tax break for the rich Food stamps cut This is how it works.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on May 18, 2017 12:12:53 GMT -7
I read the CNN story you referenced. Food Stamps (SNAP) is handled by the dept of agriculture which he proposes a $5 billion cut (20%). These are budget proposals, and nothing out of line in my opinion. If a department has a budget cut, the cuts need to be intelligent. Directors tend to make budget shortfalls painful to the public to instigate outcry, rather than trying to run the department in a more efficient manner. Billions are wasted on unused service contracts, rent paid on empty buildings an acreage, and operational bonuses and get togethers. At the end of every fiscal year, there is a spending spree to use up untapped budget money. I know, since in the past, I did a lot of business with States and Federal agencies. We always looked forward to August and September to make deliveries by October 1. You watch those 20-25% proposed cuts get whittled down to 5% or less, but if it happens every year, the debt will start coming down. Here is your same source writing about Trump's tax reform proposal. Make sure you read all of it, not just the gotcha quips. money.cnn.com/2017/04/26/news/economy/trump-tax-plan/I look forward to keeping more of my paycheck.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 18, 2017 12:23:56 GMT -7
Tax cuts are always good. After all, I believe taxes are robbery.
BUT... What will be the cost of those cuts? Tell me, in you house can you take in less money and still afford to feed your family the way you do now? Could you take huge cuts in income and not make cuts in other areas to make your new income more sustainable?
Cuts have to happen and where do they happen? On the backs of the poor. All while the net income of the rich rises and the poor have to live on less. That's the governmental equivalent to you no longer eating filet mignon when your income drops.
So watch, incoming cuts to programs that help people.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on May 19, 2017 6:07:21 GMT -7
Tax cuts are always good. After all, I believe taxes are robbery. BUT... What will be the cost of those cuts? Tell me, in you house can you take in less money and still afford to feed your family the way you do now? Could you take huge cuts in income and not make cuts in other areas to make your new income more sustainable? Cuts have to happen and where do they happen? On the backs of the poor. All while the net income of the rich rises and the poor have to live on less. That's the governmental equivalent to you no longer eating filet mignon when your income drops. So watch, incoming cuts to programs that help people. Funding federal agencies isn't 'income'. So a cut to an agency means that that agency needs so operate within its means. The IRS spent millions of dollars on 'conferences' rather than upgrading their computers. The IRS gave millions in bonuses to employees that owed back taxes. What do they do? They complain they don't have enough money to properly man the phone banks to answer questions. That's mismanagement government style.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 19, 2017 8:11:53 GMT -7
Of course.
If the government goes after wasteful spending. bravo. If not it plays out as I said.
We will see.
|
|
|
Post by JMHO on May 19, 2017 14:28:10 GMT -7
Evangelicals largely support the right. That is proven as the right is always looking for their support. The right would like to gut programs that help others and that is also known. So the right wing ideology is propelled by the church since that is the rights group and largely who votes for the right. I am very, very, very much anti church. And the reason for this is Jesus believed very much in loving others. He also believed in taking care of our brothers and sisters. But the right uses their vote to hurt others. I know not all Christians do this and I know they don't all vote like that. But to many do. And Christianity as a brand suffers for it. Sorry, when we claim a title we have to live with the title. If the title you carry largely hurts others then that title has an issue. That's quite a bit of broad based painting you're doing, osha. "Christianity as a brand"? Perhaps, if you were more concerned about the people you claim to be in support of and less about generalizing and branding entire groups of people based on erroneous assumptions, you would see the world in colors beyond black and white. I may be wrong, (I hope I'm wrong), yet it appears you enjoy or at the very least cannot stop yourself from placing labels on various pieces of society (that one's a Christian, that one's a liberal). Worse, you then apply traits to those labels that may hold no truth or affinity with reality (If she's Christian, then she's conservative; and if she's conservative, then she must be ok with taking away all social programs that benefit the poorest among us). It's mind boggling how an otherwise seemingly logical person can 'think' in these terms.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 19, 2017 15:20:46 GMT -7
Evangelicals largely support the right. That is proven as the right is always looking for their support. The right would like to gut programs that help others and that is also known. So the right wing ideology is propelled by the church since that is the rights group and largely who votes for the right. I am very, very, very much anti church. And the reason for this is Jesus believed very much in loving others. He also believed in taking care of our brothers and sisters. But the right uses their vote to hurt others. I know not all Christians do this and I know they don't all vote like that. But to many do. And Christianity as a brand suffers for it. Sorry, when we claim a title we have to live with the title. If the title you carry largely hurts others then that title has an issue. That's quite a bit of broad based painting you're doing, osha. "Christianity as a brand"? Perhaps, if you were more concerned about the people you claim to be in support of and less about generalizing and branding entire groups of people based on erroneous assumptions, you would see the world in colors beyond black and white. I may be wrong, (I hope I'm wrong), yet it appears you enjoy or at the very least cannot stop yourself from placing labels on various pieces of society (that one's a Christian, that one's a liberal). Worse, you then apply traits to those labels that may hold no truth or affinity with reality (If she's Christian, then she's conservative; and if she's conservative, then she must be ok with taking away all social programs that benefit the poorest among us). It's mind boggling how an otherwise seemingly logical person can 'think' in these terms. It comes down to who largely does this or that and everything is basically done like that. Murders are largely done by guns so the left blames all guns and gun owners for murders. Christians largely support the right. I mean after all, we don't hear about the left chasing the vote of evangelicals. I know that not all Christians vote in the same way. But as a group taken in a whole, they largely do more then any other group in our nation. Whites also largely vote for the right but that's way to broad. Christians do have a problem as a brand. I have people here in the bible belt coming to my door to save my soul all the time. I am nice to them but explain the politics, explain the judgments made by the brand they represent (I knew a girl who went to church who divorced an abusive husband and was kicked out of the church. The house of God). And they end up agreeing with me, it's a issue the church should really solve. Jesus said care about other people and it's simple, care about other people. When the evangelicals use their vote to harm others, they are not caring. It doesn't matter how much they try to do their small part with donations and such when they are creating more problems then they can solve. I was talking to my brother in law about this whole thing today. If your anti abortion you then have to sign on to the whole ideology of a party in order to get your way. Sadly, the single issue voter has to "suffer?" with all the other policies that come along with that one issue vote. That creates the other side of the problem. What about me who supports gun rights and owns guns but also believes in helping people? Or what about me who supports a womans right to choose but also supports tax cuts for the working people? Or how about the person that gets food stamps but is against abortion? There is no way to vote two ways here. We either care and support people who support caring or we don't and we support the other party. But what about me the Centrist? There is no way for me to get the policies I would like to see. Nope, I have to vote to make it harder for people to love my guns or vote for to the other because I support universal health care and possibly lose my guns. My point is that everything is a broad brush. This party and all it's faults or this party and all it's faults? For my single vote I can get that one important issue and alienate the rest of the important issues. Evangelicals sacrifice the poor and elderly in order to support the party that hurts people but saves the fetus. I believe they should be accountable for that.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 19, 2017 21:24:54 GMT -7
www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-19/media-silent-christian-extremists-slaughter-muslims-central-africaAnd why is religion not the cause of war? This is why religion should be abolished in the world, yes, I said abolished. How many people have died over the course of history due to religion? Let's not forget the Salem witch trials. Part of the reason I attack religion. We will never EVER find peace until we come to a point of thinking its alright to believe what you want to believe and we learn to respect other people and their beliefs, Until that day it is just people hurting people in the name of religion whether that be save the fetus or them savage Muslims. I guess as Garth Brooks says- "It's just people, loving people"
|
|
|
Post by JMHO on May 22, 2017 15:43:10 GMT -7
It comes down to who largely does this or that and everything is basically done like that. Murders are largely done by guns so the left blames all guns and gun owners for murders. Christians largely support the right. I mean after all, we don't hear about the left chasing the vote of evangelicals. I know that not all Christians vote in the same way. But as a group taken in a whole, they largely do more then any other group in our nation. Whites also largely vote for the right but that's way to broad. Christians do have a problem as a brand. I have people here in the bible belt coming to my door to save my soul all the time. I am nice to them but explain the politics, explain the judgments made by the brand they represent (I knew a girl who went to church who divorced an abusive husband and was kicked out of the church. The house of God). And they end up agreeing with me, it's a issue the church should really solve. Jesus said care about other people and it's simple, care about other people. When the evangelicals use their vote to harm others, they are not caring. It doesn't matter how much they try to do their small part with donations and such when they are creating more problems then they can solve. I was talking to my brother in law about this whole thing today. If your anti abortion you then have to sign on to the whole ideology of a party in order to get your way. Sadly, the single issue voter has to "suffer?" with all the other policies that come along with that one issue vote. That creates the other side of the problem. What about me who supports gun rights and owns guns but also believes in helping people? Or what about me who supports a womans right to choose but also supports tax cuts for the working people? Or how about the person that gets food stamps but is against abortion? There is no way to vote two ways here. We either care and support people who support caring or we don't and we support the other party. But what about me the Centrist? There is no way for me to get the policies I would like to see. Nope, I have to vote to make it harder for people to love my guns or vote for to the other because I support universal health care and possibly lose my guns. My point is that everything is a broad brush. This party and all it's faults or this party and all it's faults? For my single vote I can get that one important issue and alienate the rest of the important issues. Evangelicals sacrifice the poor and elderly in order to support the party that hurts people but saves the fetus. I believe they should be accountable for that. But then that's just generalizations, and, like you, most individuals are complex, multi-layered individuals. If only the Right chases the Christian vote, does that mean only the Left chases the poor vote? There was a time 20+ years ago, I voted with an agenda almost solely aligned with keeping Abortion Legal. In the ensuing years I came to the conclusion that as much as I'm still on the side of a woman's right to choose, I could not ignore the other issues facing each presidential election nor did I or do I believe Roe V. Wade is likely to be overturned. You may disagree and that is your right to do so. Just as it is mine and your right and that of every other citizen to have conflicting opinions that do not align with one party. Or one denomination. Or one educational level. And so it goes. I do not care for generalizations; I find them speculative, inaccurate and far too easy to assign. I respect your right to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 22, 2017 21:12:59 GMT -7
But then that's just generalizations, and, like you, most individuals are complex, multi-layered individuals. If only the Right chases the Christian vote, does that mean only the Left chases the poor vote? There was a time 20+ years ago, I voted with an agenda almost solely aligned with keeping Abortion Legal. In the ensuing years I came to the conclusion that as much as I'm still on the side of a woman's right to choose, I could not ignore the other issues facing each presidential election nor did I or do I believe Roe V. Wade is likely to be overturned. You may disagree and that is your right to do so. Just as it is mine and your right and that of every other citizen to have conflicting opinions that do not align with one party. Or one denomination. Or one educational level. And so it goes. I do not care for generalizations; I find them speculative, inaccurate and far too easy to assign. I respect your right to disagree. I agree that people are complex. But when they come together as a group. That's where I have a problem. If as a group, you would like to kick my wife off health insurance, your opening yourself up to generalization. What about Kentucky only having one abortion clinic left and people coming together to protest that clinic? They are making it harder for a woman to make an informed decision about their own life. Then, to make matters worse, as a group they believe life should be harder for the women they are denying a right to make a choice. They appreciate their choice, but not hers. What about a group coming together to lower/abolish food stamps? It is known that most people that get food stamps work for a living. These people would be against someone getting food stamps but would as a group say nothing about wage increases to offset the policies they support. It's complex and I know this as I have been following the mess that is politics for many years. But in the end it just comes down to two groups. That is what is politics in America. Your either on the side of XX issues, or your on the side of YY issues. And of course this is not some 100 percent in type thing. You might be a strong supporter of gun rights (as I am) but believe in a women having the right to choose. But then again, you can't really vote both ways. That's my take anyhow. And as you said, I respect your right to disagree as well. It would just be extremely nice if everyone understood the struggles of others and kept that in mind when it comes time to vote. My wife works and I am disabled and we are a family of 5 that gets food stamps. On the amount we get we feed our family on a little over $6 a day and that is very tough. Is Trump going to force me to feed my family on less? We are at the point of about impossible as it is. Then what about my wife? She works full time in a daycare making crap wages. They can't offer health insurance because the daycare don't make a lot of money. My wife deserves to lose insurance because she offers a public service that needs to be offered? Higher paying jobs here? Appalachia and the area is poor and high wage jobs are few and far between. Besides, I would have a hard time asking my wife to work in a factory 12 hours a day. So all these complex individuals make things harder for my family. They come together as groups and make that happen. Then we have school teachers force feeding my kids the bible while at the same time voting to hurt my kids. Trump supporters en mass of course. We are complex beings that are forced to pick a side. That kind of removes all complexity in my book.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 23, 2017 16:37:59 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on May 24, 2017 5:39:32 GMT -7
Another illustration
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 24, 2017 6:16:30 GMT -7
Well, I don't believe in Liberal ideology much at all. I tend to side more with them on some issues but that's as far as it goes.
Let's look at this from a logical perspective.
There are women in this country that pop out children, live in section 8 housing, collect welfare and have medical. They are a waste on the system. They have built their life around mooching and that is the sole purpose of their existence. I completely support kicking them square in the rear.
Now, my wife gets up every morning at 4:30 to get to work. She works in a day care providing a service that allows other people to go off to work to pay taxes into the system. My wife also pays taxes.
We have two people here. One is a mooch and is a waste on society and the other makes it possible for others to work and works themselves.
The government is going to take a broad brush and look at both people and say they equally deserve to lose medical. Why is this? Is it the fault of my wife that she provides a service that is needed and that she makes low wages? No, it's not. Because that service is needed and without that service the government would make less revenue because a parent would be forced to stay home and raise the child. So my wife generates revenue for the system. The mooch that is the first example creates nothing at all except a financial liability on the system.
I am disabled and never asked to be. I did not set out and ask for the reality that is my life. Why is it that somehow, people like me are the target of the government cuts? Why is it that the elderly has to deal with the same types of things I myself do? We is it our government looks at the people who try (my wife) and the most vulnerable in society (the elderly and disabled) and attack us and make us fear for our financial security? Why is this right?
And per the illustration I posted, why do God loving, bible reading, church going, God fearing people who claim to follow their brand of existence feel like they can vote against the people I speak of here? Are they loving me? Are they loving my wife? Are they caring about the disabled? No, they are not. Instead they love their tax dollars and somehow feel like the people who are not in the same class structure as themselves should suffer. Even if those people are tax payers themselves.
Do I believe that we should all earn the same? No, I don't. Do I believe that I should have some sort of financial advantage over others? No, I don't. Do I believe that if you can go out and make a million dollars you should? Yes, I do. Do I believe that if we all collectively pay in we should be taking care of our most venerable? Yes, I do.
Because really, if we are the richest country on earth and the elderly and the disabled are struggling to live, we are doing a dis justice. If we are the richest country on earth and we are looking at people like my wife and saying they don't deserve medical, we are doing a dis justice. If we are looking at children and education and are unwilling to invest in them, we are doing a dis justice. If we look at people who work and those who are elderly and disabled and say they should not be able to eat, we are doing a dis justice.
Are these Liberal ideas or human ideas? I believe caring is a trait and we sure would be much better as a nation if we practiced a little bit of compassion.
|
|
|
Post by John Doe on May 24, 2017 6:37:58 GMT -7
well said osha
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 24, 2017 12:46:56 GMT -7
And per the illustration I posted, why do God loving, bible reading, church going, God fearing people who claim to follow their brand of existence feel like they can vote against the people I speak of here? Are they loving me? Are they loving my wife? Are they caring about the disabled? No, they are not. Instead they love their tax dollars and somehow feel like the people who are not in the same class structure as themselves should suffer. Even if those people are tax payers themselves.
|
|