On poverty

To a republican, 'pork' is any expenditure for anything other than police, fire, and defense. That's not our definition, it's also stuff to help lift people.

Here's why there are a lot of things in the bill--dems want to get passed a lot of stuff, which repubs will block. So.....I'll repeat my reply from another post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...of-senate-republicans.585733/#post-1072488730
For good reason, because outside of the budget reconciliation process, a bill requires 60 votes, and this is onlhy because repubs abuse the filibuster, they filibuster EVERYTHING. See? If that 40% were as separate bills outside of BR, they won't get passed. Repubs are not interested in doing the people's business, they are only interested in regaining power, and their trick is to block ALL dem bills so they can put forth the argument dems are incompetent and can't get bills passed, as an argument to get people to vote for them.

So, the reason is simple, really. If you know your opponent is going to block every bill you put on the floor, and you know one of your own won't' vote to kill the filibuster, then you are going to put as much in the budget reconciliation bill as possible,given that only one per fiscal year is allowed, eh?

So, the essence of the thing is that your side does this, we must operate in this fashion. Y'all give us no choice.

Many accuse dems of being 'far left', but what we support is the norm, judging by policies of the vast majority of western developed nations.

So, I whatever point you are making, it doesn't change the above point.

Ever there ever were a false comparison, therein is the text book example, congratulations, you might want to submit that
one to the Encyclopedia Britannica under the 'false comparison' entry. Snap a photo of it, while you are at it.

Alas, folks, therein belies the unpinning of the conservative mind, why they think they way they do.

I used to be like that, I used to see the world from your lens, but as I matured, intellectually, I realized it was bunk.

Oh my, how to the right y'all have drifted, and yes, they are most certainly radical, check out the republican platform of 1955. today, anyone with that platform would be accused of being a communist by the right Righties call us dems communists all day long on this forum, and that IS radical.



I rest my case.

 

I suspect it isn't. If you asked the majority for the vote on it. Majority rule does not mean only those with vested interest

 

Many of the advanced industrialized ones. Parliamentary democracies are close enough in practice.

I don't accept that the rate of a tax is the most relevant criterion by which to judge it.

Better than the soulless, amoral greed robots that constitute the American ruling class.

As Churchill observed, it's the worst system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

No it isn't. Whatever could have possessed you to imagine you could get away with such disingenuous filth? The franchise is limited to those who can be expected to exercise it responsibly, and you know it. In many US states, felons -- such as rapists -- are disenfranchised for life.

It took me about ten seconds to get over my astonishment that anyone could offer such fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous garbage and expect to be taken seriously. Does that count as thinking on it for a bit?

If, like you, their only political priority is their own narrow financial self-interest.

True, being radical would imply honesty and logical consistency.

 

If 4 people vote for it, and one doesn't, what happens?

 

Things outside our control are as mentioned: bereavement, war, natural disaster, accident/illness (not of our own making), etc etc. Divorce is most definitely within our control, so no .. no pass on that.

If you genuinely want to know what we planned for, I can say that we have most things covered - the details of which I'll list below. Meantime, the entire point of planning ahead for the unknown was BECAUSE we were not wealthy. We literally couldn't afford to take such a huge risk, and potentially end up destitute, or worse - impose destitution on our children just because we didn't care to plan ahead.

Our 'security measures':

*Off grid for power and water
*Grow much of our food
*Raise chickens for eggs
*Never borrow money - all cars and property paid for in cash - because we can't afford the premiums attached to debt
*Adopted a frugal lifestyle early, and stuck to it
*Own several properties, so can provide rent/mortgage free housing for our kith & kin who cannot secure same. It also provides the fundamentals for our children and their future families, and so on. No responsible, hard working, clean living kith or kin will ever need to be homeless. We don't pay property taxes in this country, and have high quality public healthcare, so it's possible to live on virtually nothing if you do all the above.

I would add that had we been Big Earners we might have been able to get away with not planning ahead, since we'd have been able to afford to cover ourselves in emergencies. As it was, we weren't in that position. Frugality and careful long range planning was what our status demanded, if we were to have anything like the security of the rich.

 

How am I (personally) 'condemning' people?

REALITY is what it is. If you're poor, reality dictates that you shouldn't waste money.

It's damned physics Love, cause and effect. Nothing to do with me.

 

"Victims" ... LOL.

How are working class people who have the determination and self-discipline to get ahead - and ultimately become very wealthy, victims exactly? Were they saints until a certain bank balance, then became demons? If so, are you literally demonising anyone who steps off your 'plantation'? Just who do you work for Dude? Sure seems like the Big Money behind the puppet thrones.

 

Through the whole process, they had to pay the privileged full market value just for permission, and then had to pay taxes on their earnings to fund subsidies to the privileged. That should do for a start, and explains why such success is so rare.

Unless you provide some sort of relevant quote for context, that appears to be unrelated to anything I have said.

Unless you provide some sort of relevant quote for context, that appears to be unrelated to anything I have said.

Liberty, justice, and truth.

You are aware that the truth is the opposite of your claim.

 

You mean like a board of directors voting on a resolution? The one presumably remembers the terms of his appointment.

 

The vote would be carried. Assuming they were in a democracy of 5 people.

 

How did you manage all this in your Manhattan 18th floor flat?

I would ask how you avoided divorce, but I assume you are either lucky or living in misery.
Incidentally saving up for a home is really stupid and costs far more than mortgage interest. Neither does it protect you, if you lose your job the rent is still due. Unless you lived in a drain culvert while you saved up?

 

That you don't see your attitude as scathing it not a surprise to me.

 

When did I EVER claim to live in an 18th floor flat in Manhattan? You must have me confused with my relatives who do live in such a one, and live quite similar lives to mine - albeit sans chickens.

You think divorce is something that happens to people, like a tsunami? That people have no control over it or power to resist it? That it's either the Will of the Gods, or misery? That's incredibly tragic, but also emblematic of a society which refuses to be adult. However, if you genuinely don't know how to avoid divorce, I'm happy to give you the hot tips:

Be as discriminating and choosy as humanly possible in your choice of spouse. Consider their history, and have a good look at their parents and friends while you're at it. Things to avoid are blindingly obvious (but apparently not to you): smokers, drinkers, people who do drugs, people who don't complete things, the financially irresponsible, people with an unstable or chaotic relationship history (divorced people, etc), or with a flakey work history, the self-indulgent, the mentally lazy, wilful misfits, people with a casual attitude to marriage and children, the physically unfit, the obese, etc etc. All of these things point to a person who refuses to grow up. A person who will visit bad things on themselves and those close to them. A person unlikely to be able to withstand the realities of a long life at close quarters, given it requires more maturity than they possess.

And now be none of those things yourself, so that you're worthy of the best and most solid of partners. Looks. class, and wealth don't matter a good *******n. Maturity, stamina, moral fibre, and good character are crucial. And maturity isn't a function of age ... it's a function of self-discipline. There are plenty of 20 year olds with more maturity than some 40 year olds.

 

Calling water wet, is not scathing. It's an observation of reality.

You will call it cruel only if you're personally invested in water being dry.

 

What are you talking about here? I genuinely don't know.

We paid our last mortgage off over 15 years ago. We paid it off fast, to avoid that interest. We now only buy property in cash. We also don't pay property tax in this country, so a fully owned property (especially when it comes with even a modest amount of land ... minimum of about one eighth an acre) is absolutely a bulwark against sudden loss of income. It costs almost nothing to retain, and provides quite a few of the basics of survival. Food plants, protein via eggs, shelter, etc. And if you're sensible enough to add solar power while you have an income to pay for it, then you're powered up for free as well.

 

You didn't, that's the point. You lived with a nice bit of land round your home. But you don't consider the many who do live in flats, that aren't blessed with the advantages you had.
You are self-centred in the true meaning of the phrase. (Considering everything only through your own life)

Oy yes, your the only one that has worked on their marriage aren't you. Everyone who ended up divorced just didn't try hard enough.
What utter self praising crap.

 

And a person who doesn't like the outcome, can walk away. Not so much when it comes to unrestricted governmental powers.

 

You will apparently need to Google "unconstitutional" and "emigration" and get up to speed before you will be qualified to participate in a serious discussion of political legitimation (which you could also Google to advantage).

 

So if one political group 'controls' both house and senate, along with the Presidency, what do you think the result is going to be?

Your attempt at belittling and sideling is weak, at best.

 

Sure, that's all well and good, but you are down to maybe 1% of the population. What are the chances that you will find a superhuman who ticks all those boxes, and also offers what you want in a romantic/sexual relationship, and wants what you offer? Good luck with that.

So once again... "Shut up and get back on the freakin' treadmill!!!"

 

A lot of work for the Supreme Court that the other group corruptly stacked when it controlled the Senate.

You are obviously unacquainted with the concepts of constitutional limitation, emigration, and political legitimation. If you want to participate in serious discussion of such matters, you need to familiarize yourself with them. Just sayin'.

 

You have yourself a stupendous day, aye?

 

Can't respond to diatribe...

 

In short he wants to:
Take all privately owned property by force. Give it to the government. Rent it back to the highest bidder.
What could possibly go wrong.
Its not open to discussion any questions are met with a hail of accusation and derision.

 

This is la-la-land talk...