Conservatives Answer This; Which Costs More?

what do all the people who work winter seasonal jobs do when spring comes? what do spring seasonal workers do when summer comes? what do fall seasonal workers do when winter comes?

all your questions have answers, you act as if everything stops and nothing moves forward... what happens when someone quits a job? what happens when someone gets fired from a job? all these answers are the same... people move forward or get left behind... what happens when college towns are out for summer, does the entire economy collapse of that town, or have they learned to cope and manage their business in a way it does not? does a company that depends entirely on halloween like a haunted house do for the rest of the year and still manage to come back next year?!?!

 

We can kill two birds with one stone. Hand all welfare recipients a uniform and a gun and send them somewhere to kill someone.

 

military is roughly 20% of federal spending. In 1965 it was roughly 40%. Depending on how you define 'welfare' it is approx. 60% of federal spending, compared to about 24% in 1965.

The real question is, why not eliminate all unnecessary federal spending whether military, welfare, or state department likes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ment-spent-630000-to-increase-facebook-likes/

 

You do understand that is what is being done correct? Do you know Foreign Policy?

Your post "Why don't they send the poor is a great match for the decades later, why do they ALWAYS send the poor.." Obviously, we always send the poor. Welcome to 2015.

[video=youtube;zUzd9KyIDrM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUzd9KyIDrM[/video]

 

Ummmm... Cannon fodder
A noble tradition

 

I've posted this FACT for nearly a decade because I'm worried about party puppets repeating what they are supposed to say instead of thinking for themselves. I have done the math. But you know this because your response was troll and bitter and directly insulting that I didn't do the math without stating numbers, which was the OP topic.

No amount of mad will make you smart.

 

No it's not. And it is funny that sarcasm is treated as truth. That is how far gone the left's thinking has gone down.

 

The country is broke to feed homeless children or build bridges, but if Haliburton needs some money to bomb a useless country... we have an unlimited source of funds. Republicans have simply become a danger to America and its future.

 

So, not sure what jobs are seasonal for winter. What jobs would those be and are there enough around, say the strawberry fields of California, that it would be realistic for people to work these seasonal jobs without moving twice a year? The more strange hardships (lack of pay, lack of stability, lack of work half the year, located well outside of a city) the less appealing the job is.

 

well in winter there are all sorts of seasonal jobs... ski towns and such have a dramatically seasonal business, snow plowing, shoveling, salting... all major seasonal companies... now you could of course say well that stupid I live someplace without snow... well what about stores that hires for seasonal work for the holidays, walmart, kohls, every major retailer hires hundreds of thousands of people just for the winter season... there are tons of industries in every season who only cater to that season, or some who have spikes and dips and constantly hire and lay off folks every single year across this country... I don't know why you're trying to make farming the big exclusion to this, as if we'd never be capable of surviving any change... in fact where I live, many of the illegals are often hired by the landscapers who have a tremendous winter business, yet I just called them landscapers, but it seems they wanted work in winter so they adjusted their business to that desire and started to plow and shovel and salt... so try sitting back and grasping the concept, millions of people work seasonal jobs every single year in america, and yet they find ways to live still, most in part because all they needed was that seasonal work to fit into their schedules of something else... its okay... don't sweat it...

 

First it isn't a fact, in fact it is completely at odds with the facts. For one thing constitutionally all federal welfare is not only unnecessary it is unconstitutional. 2nd whether or not a given war is unnecessary or not is entirely a matter of opinion. 3rd the numbers you state are mostly fiction and involve costs that we would have paid just for having a military whether we ever went to war or not.

 

Yep, when the Right runs out of facts, they attack the Left instead of getting facts. It's why I Left the Right.

 

Haliburton is only a Construction Corporation that payed it's way into the Federal Reserve, (yep, the people we owe money to).

Haliburton is using tax dollars to rebuild Iraq.

The Military Industrial Complex is causing more war. Big donors like Lockheed Martin see a window and pay to have their weapons used. They pay some News Sources (Note how many times Fox News has wanted to go to war over the last decade, as if it's free) They also pay Presidents big money so they won't think about pulling the trigger, they are paid in advance to pull it.

 

"For one thing constitutionally all federal welfare is not only unnecessary it is unconstitutional." ~ Crazy how that old FEDERAL DOCUMENT CALLED THE CONSTITUTION argues otherwise. I know you guys are trying to make new definitions of the words like Welfare, it only works on the weak minded.

Perhaps you are smart enough to get back to the OP and tell me how much GENERAL WELFARE costs and then tell me how much FRAUDULANT WELFARE costs. Because I've done that homework, have you? The Right Wing is cutting food stamps to blind people because they use blanket coverage tactics instead of thought. It's why blind people in America now have less money for food, because the Right wing thinks everyone on welfare is undeserving. Not very Christian like kids....

Now take a step back and ask yourself why you had no factual data in your post.

 

Sorry you do not promote the general welfare by taking from a and giving to b in fact it is debatable, given that the overwhelming majority of the money only benefits the bureaucracy that must needs grow ever larger as by it's very nature it impoverishes more and more people, that you are truly helping either. And US poor old Christians do as much or more to help the poor as any government program ever has.

 

Republicans pretend they care for veterans when they only care to increase war profits:








On the other hand, patriots care for our veterans.

 

Interesting question. Let's look to Europe for an example.

Countries in Europe have much more established social welfare programs than the U.S. Free medical care, early retirement laws, great financial assistance for those who choose not to work; it is quite the socialist paradise in many ways.

Conversely, Europe had, during the Cold War, relied on the U.S. defense umbrella so as to not become yet another Soviet satellite state.

Sadly, the end of the Cold War has not changed this; they still depend on the U.S. defense industry and trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to keep their oil flowing from the middle east, keep Russia at bay, as well as depending on military bases in their country to provide for local economies.

If the U.S. had become isolationist after WWII, this wouldn't be the case; Germany, the UK, France and others would have either had to have massively built an armed forces, or would have gone the way of Poland, East Germany, etc.

So was the U.S. military buildup after WWII necessary? Many in Europe will say yes, but ironically, their leftists took advantage of this to build social programs.

So perhaps preparing for war is necessary?

Personally, I believe the U.S. should close all the European bases, as well as withdraw from the mideast. Let the Arabs fight, let them cut off the flow of oil to Europe. We have oil self-sufficiency now due to fracking, so let the middle east, and later Europe, burn to the ground.

Then we'll see how much the leftists in Europe dedicate to their social programs...

 

Well both welfare and warfare tend to come mostly under Democratic presidents so whats your point?

 

i agree with this. Pull out of ME let them kill each other if they want. IF we fight a war it should be a short swift one. Let our enemies rebuild whatever wreckage remains. We should also route foreign aid locally first. I mean it doesnt do much good if we can cure aids in africa but cant give people potable water here.

 

Erm, no.. This thread is simply nonfactual.

Social Security makes up roughly 20% of federal receipts. Medicare and Medicaid alone account for roughly another 20%. Military spending takes up 20% as well. So just counting the FDR/Johnson "New Deal/Great Society" programs, not welfare, they alone are enough to double the amount we spend on defense. As my avatar illustrates, between 2030 and 2040, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments will exceed all federal revenues. You cannot make a similar statement for military spending.

Personally, I think we ought to cut it all and there's plenty of fat to be trimmed in the Pentagon, indeed. But facts are facts, let's not intentionally attempt to obfuscate information that may be found out in 5 minutes through a quick Google search.