FLASH: Confidence Shattered

[Spekkio]

Only about $500 billion of a 3 trillion bidget goes to welfare programs. The rest are used for things that you theoretically use or benefit from either now or in the future regardless of income. You don't lose the ability to collect social security, drive on the interstate, have cheap gas, live in a lawful orderly society, take subsidized education loans, or eat FDA certified groceries if you make more money than the next guy.

That's not counting the myriad of regulatory agencies and higher minimum wages that raise the barrier of entry into business and thus protects big business owners, nor the billions spent bailing out the banking and auto industries.

We can talk about which of these things are expendable or how to do it cheaper, but take off the tinfoil hat -- many government programs are conceived to benefit people of all income levels.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Only about $500 billion of a 3 trillion bidget goes to welfare programs. The rest are used for things that you theoretically use or benefit from either now or in the future regardless of income. You don't lose the ability to collect social security, drive on the interstate, have cheap gas, live in a lawful orderly society, take subsidized education loans, or eat FDA certified groceries if you make more money than the next guy.

That's not counting the myriad of regulatory agencies and higher minimum wages that raise the barrier of entry into business and thus protects big business owners, nor the billions spent bailing out the banking and auto industries.

We can talk about which of these things are expendable or how to do it cheaper, but take off the tinfoil hat -- many government programs are conceived to benefit people of all income levels.

So people that make more pay more in taxes, both in the total amount and as a percentage of their income. According to you "Only" about 1/6 of what the government spends is dedicated to welfare programs. So if you take more money from the "rich" and give it to the "poor" how is that not wealth redistribution? Somehow pointing out obvious facts means I'm wearing a tin foil hat? Sure much of what the government spends money on is for things most people will benefit from, but not all of it. That's called taking from one group to give it to another.

 

[HercDriver]

So your argument is that it isn't wealth redistribution because poor people are poor? That's almost as insightful as your idea that taxes must be raised because spending is so high.

Defining taxes going toward social programs as "wealth redistribution" is meaningless. It's simply a way to re-frame the argument "I work hard and shouldn't pay taxes".

Are you saying we shouldn't have social programs? Or we shouldn't have taxes?

You can make whatever excuses you want for the President, but he said he would close gitmo and he didn't despite having a majority in both houses of congress.

Wait, Congress blocks closing Gitmo 6 times, but since Obama didn't get it closed in the few months his party had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, it's his fault? Hilarious.

Sounds like you're the one making excuses for Congress (how embarrassing).

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Defining taxes going toward social programs as "wealth redistribution" is meaningless. It's simply a way to re-frame the argument "I work hard and shouldn't pay taxes".

Are you saying we shouldn't have social programs? Or we shouldn't have taxes?

Wait, Congress blocks closing Gitmo 6 times, but since Obama didn't get it closed in the few months his party had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, it's his fault? Hilarious.

Sounds like you're the one making excuses for Congress (how embarrassing).

He could have closed gitmo if he really wanted to. He didn't. You can try to pass the blame around all you want, but I thought the buck stopped at the White House. He's a politician, and he says things that sound good when they are convenient. Why don't you look up what he thought about raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator? As for the social programs, there is obviously a lot that needs to get cut from the budget (if we had a real budget), and most social programs would be high on my list to go away.

 

[wink]

You don't get something for nothing, but all of those programs would siphon money from wealthier states to poorer states.

If you live in a county of 1,000 residents in Alabama with a median household income of $40,000/year, the property taxes that go toward education isn't going to cover a whole lot compared to one where 10,000 residents with median household income of $90,000/year pay into it. Republicans run on a platform saying that's a-okay (and some take it a step further and want private schools to be the wave of the future), while Democrats run on a platform of wanting to use funds from wealthier states to raise the education standards across the country

Nope, see above. The blue states would generally be the economic losers under Democrat policies because they have large cities with associated suburbs and higher wages. Their money would be going to pay to educate someone in Alabama.

Wrong on the policies of both parties and how education is paid for. The only way DEMs use money from other states to educate is in the sense federal income taxes going to the general fund pay for the Dept of Education. But then fed funds for education are minuscule. They also don't educate a single student. Real education funds come from property taxes in a school district city or county depending on the state. The state then usually kicks in some funds (from income taxes) to even things out and fund statewide priorities. The income and number of residence in a district don't necessarily make a big difference. Even where it does, there is no link to the amount of money spent on education and quality of education. There are plenty of schools in your prototypical poor county that do a better job of education then schools in Chicago, and LA that spend much more. Both parties want high standards. Fact is the last two big standards policy/programs are G.W. Bush products.

But Iran hasn't gotten a nuke through 13 years of Democrat administrations, Republicans have expanded the regulatory state as well in their administrations because it protects big business from competition, and I'm interested on why you think restricting rights for women and gays is 'good for the country.'

Since you are keeping score, looks like Iran gets a nuke on a DEM watch. Where in hell do you get the idea that regulation helps big business, let alone that big corporations are hard over for the GOP? Check your facts man. Regulations cost money. How is that good for any business big or small? The EPA wants to regulate coal plants out of business. Believe what you want about climate change but that is not good for coal plant owners or employees. Private property rights have been diminished by regulations. Small business, farmers and ranchers that can't improve property or access. The stories of businesses going bust or moving out of the country because of regulation are legion. My state gains businesses from CA every month because of their regulation environment. Works the same way on the national level. Companies move out of the country. When they don't the cost of compliance is passed on to the public. That extra expense does nothing for the strength of the economy. DEMs support regulation far more than the GOP because they are simply statist. They believe in a big government that thinks it can make things fair and equal and care for everyone and everything. That one size fits all. Where no one wants to make a tough decision so everything is a regulation that leaves no room for common sense. You can't argue above that the GOP basically wants a free for all where everyone fends for themselves and then argue that they promote a massive regulation bureaucracy.

I said nothing about restricting rights of anyone, including those that shouldn't be made to make wedding cakes for gay marriages or be made to pay for the birth control of women. I am all for freedom.

Oh, and my original point was that people can very well not vote for personal economic reasons because other things are more important to them. It matters not that you don't agreed with their priorities.

 

[HercDriver]

He could have closed gitmo if he really wanted to. He didn't. You can try to pass the blame around all you want, but I thought the buck stopped at the White House. He's a politician, and he says things that sound good when they are convenient. Why don't you look up what he thought about raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator? As for the social programs, there is obviously a lot that needs to get cut from the budget (if we had a real budget), and most social programs would be high on my list to go away.

Love it.
"Mr President, we in congress will not allow you to close Gitmo...and it's your fault since the buck stops with you."
Great stuff.
How would he have closed it with Congress blocking it? Waved a magic wand? Flown Air Force One into Gitmo and spirited the prisoners out? I'm interested to know how.

 

[wink]

Love it.
"Mr President, we in congress will not allow you to close Gitmo...and it's your fault since the buck stops with you."
Great stuff.
How would he have closed it with Congress blocking it? Waved a magic wand? Flown Air Force One into Gitmo and spirited the prisoners out? I'm interested to know how.

Be honest. Closing Gitmo is tough. Even Bush wanted to get it done eventually. McCain kept pushing him even. The president may not be able to close it down and shutter it because of congress, but he can move out every single detainee. He can't find enough countries that will take them, or US states for that matter. The president shot his mouth off to pander in the election. He got in office and found out it was not easy in the least. Members of his party voted for that legislation too. It gives him cover because he couldn't get it done to begin with. But I guess it is too hard to admit he isn't as all powerful and intelligent enough to get it done.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Love it.
"Mr President, we in congress will not allow you to close Gitmo...and it's your fault since the buck stops with you."
Great stuff.
How would he have closed it with Congress blocking it? Waved a magic wand? Flown Air Force One into Gitmo and spirited the prisoners out? I'm interested to know how.

It looks like wink pretty much covered it. The fact that he also had both houses of congress when he was elected just makes your argument even more ridiculous.

 

[Spekkio]

Love it.
"Mr President, we in congress will not allow you to close Gitmo...and it's your fault since the buck stops with you."
Great stuff.
How would he have closed it with Congress blocking it? Waved a magic wand? Flown Air Force One into Gitmo and spirited the prisoners out? I'm interested to know how.

The operation of Gitmo is directly under executive branch control. He could sign an order to release or try all prisoners by a certain date. If Congress wanted to continue funding an empty prison, that's their problem. Like Wink said, he found out it's a lot more complicated than that because no one wants to welcome the prisoners into their territory, including the U.S. Plus there are quite a few lawyers looking to sue Uncle Sam for wrongfully imprisoning people for years without a trial. He used Congressional disagreement as a scapegoat, just like with his Syria rhetoric. He has proven throughout his tenure that if he believes strongly enough in something that he won't wait for Congressional approval, such as when he modified the ACA legislation on his own and tried to make recess appointments.

 

[HercDriver]

The operation of Gitmo is directly under executive branch control. He could sign an order to release or try all prisoners by a certain date. If Congress wanted to continue funding an empty prison, that's their problem. Like Wink said, he found out it's a lot more complicated than that because no one wants to welcome the prisoners into their territory, including the U.S. Plus there are quite a few lawyers looking to sue Uncle Sam for wrongfully imprisoning people for years without a trial. He used Congressional disagreement as a scapegoat, just like with his Syria rhetoric. He has proven throughout his tenure that if he believes strongly enough in something that he won't wait for Congressional approval, such as when he modified the ACA legislation on his own and tried to make recess appointments.

Where would the prisoners go? Where would the $ come from to move and house them? What states would accept them? What other countries would accept them? Closing a prison costs dollars-who would cover that? This ain't him delaying something (which incurs no add'l funding), this is something that costs a lot of greenbacks. If any of you think he can wave a wand to fund it, you are naive.

He can say it's closed, but all of the logistics cost millions; who will pay for that? His Nobel Peace Prize dollars will only go so far.

 

[jmcquate]

While all of this discussion about Gitmo is fascinating ..............the traffic here has gotten worse after the shutdown. It took me an hour to drive the 4 miles to get to work yesterday. Inside the beltway is truly a bizzaro world.

 

[Renegade One]

Would there at least be overtime or a bonus for those who kept working or is it just punishment for being the most useful?

I assume this is a rhetorical question?

 

[Spekkio]

Where would the prisoners go? Where would the $ come from to move and house them? What states would accept them? What other countries would accept them? Closing a prison costs dollars-who would cover that? This ain't him delaying something (which incurs no add'l funding), this is something that costs a lot of greenbacks. If any of you think he can wave a wand to fund it, you are naive.

He can say it's closed, but all of the logistics cost millions; who will pay for that? His Nobel Peace Prize dollars will only go so far.

Yea, cuz he doesn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in DoD operations budgets, hundreds of Naval vessels, dozens of USAF transport aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of servicemembers to work with. He definitely needs to hire more people and build more assets to get it done.

Again, if he really wanted to do it, he would.

 

[HercDriver]

Yea, cuz he doesn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in DoD operations budgets, hundreds of Naval vessels, dozens of USAF transport aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of servicemembers to work with. He definitely needs to hire more people and build more assets to get it done.

Again, if he really wanted to do it, he would.

I'm trying to take this seriously. You think he can just do this on his own, with little oversight. Seriously?

Where would he put the prisoners? In the White House basement. As the kids say: ROTFLMAO.

 

[jmcquate]

Budget concerns were about reason 27 why Gitmo shouldn’t…….not couldn’t have been closed. I t was a solution to a difficult problem designed by a few big brained lawyers to solve what we know now to be a short term problem after 9/11. The intel gathered there was……well……quite useful. Unfortunately it became the cause celeb of the left with tales of constant water boarding and a flushed Koran, and made its way into a Presidential campaign.
It still remains useful, but less and less every day. One day it will go away with a whimper and a page 17 story in the NYT……..and will become a blip in history.
We should all be thankful that the IC won the argument with DOJ in the current administration about it.