The benefits you'll collect and potentially collect heavily from are the one passed decades ago . Now those are just fine given they are the ones you will collect from But, the ones passed in recent years and chances are won't be programs you'll qualify to collect from, now those in your mind's eye are wasteful spending bill passed by a party that's getting "crazier".
Combined buildings
- Thread starter purplelife
- Start date
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I directly addressed what you wrote.
Where did you get lost little lady?
The program was in existence before most of us here were born. It's part of working to pay into SS with the expectation that we will draw against it someday. That it's in place doesn't mean that we can spend countless trillions on every idea progressives come up with. At what point do you consider it prudent to be careful with our tax revenue and not continue to increase debt?
I've said repeatedly, but you never acknowledge that I have, that if there's a necessary program that we can afford then by all means pay for it. But let's look at some of the spending going on. For example why isn't more going towards homeless vets? Why are huge amounts being spent on pointless wars? On non-citizens? When you can explain to me why politicians are throwing money at certain constituencies to keep votes coming in but ignoring groups like homeless vets I will listen. Don't try to tell us that everything proposed and spent on is necessary. SS and Medicare are two of the best things, if not the best, the Democrats ever devised. But throwing trillions at poverty but never alleviating poverty suggests these programs are used to buy votes and line pockets. The same goes for getting us into wars to make defense contractors happy. You want to attack on a personal level everyone who disagrees with constant spending but you damn sure want us to contribute every week from our paychecks. By the way, because I didn't file for several years I didn't get any stimulus checks. Which means I owe less than what I would've gotten. So save your BS for someone else.
Yet you were for taking out Saddam, Osama, and probably Ho Chin Min. How about the central American states you seem to love, and the "drug" wars in S. America. your new home land?
I was for taking out Hussein until I learned there weren't any WMD's. Iraq had the largest Christian community in the Middle East at 2 million. Guess who protected them? Now they're either dead or have fled the country. Monasteries established in the 300's destroyed. I was all for getting bin Laden. Not for fighting a 20 year war we could have easily ended well over a decade ago. By the way, what drug wars in South America? That's almost entirely a Mexico thing now. What you're not seeing is I'm 100% for defending the country and our allies. Not stretching out wars with little strategic value so that our military/industrial complex can make profits.
If you are so worried about the debt despite the fact that you freely admit that you've paid no federal income tax for many years, then why not start with eliminating the programs you will depend on in your advancing age and deteriorating health?
You're beginning to sound like a Vietnam Era anti war liberal. What did you say your name was? Abbie Hoffman? Or was it George McGovern.?
Why is it so important to you to get people to not take benefits that everyone gets after a lifetime of contributing to them?
Interesting that you think it's ok to get ourselves into wars that have no real value beyond churning profits for defense contractors. You're starting to sound like a neocon. Do you think it's no big deal to put our troops in harm's way to make money?
Cactus
Just telling it like it is
I’m sure they’ll look great parked right next to the 3 manure spreaders you use every day on this forum.
falcon back
Well-Known Member
Others living the good life irritates you. You had your chance.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
Because idiotic ideas are his bread and butter.
So, now you're an anti war pacifist? Your hero Bush invaded Afghanistan and later using the lie of the existence of WMD's invaded Iraq. Where those wars "profit churners" as well?
Do you not read my posts? I said I was against the Iraq war after no WMD's were found. I'm against any war that is sustained long beyond its stated objective in order to churn profits.
The nonexistence of WMD's before the invasion was a matter of public knowledge. Nevertheless , it didn't stop Bush. So what were his real motives? Did he believe that in the aftermath of Saddam's attempt on Bush 41's life that he had some unfinished personal business with Saddam?
No, it wasn't public knowledge. If so show me the news reports before we went in.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Still pushing these decades old lies.
Get some new material lady.
Cactus
Just telling it like it is
No…YOU irritate me and everyone else here except for Swanson and Oldfart….oh wait.
falcon back
Well-Known Member
Can I increase the amount of space I take up in your head? Seems like It must be over 50% now.
