The "progressives" are socialists. Both Billary and Obama are 100% socialists. They would like nothing more than to socialize medicine; socialize industry (by taking their profits); control the masses with their handouts, etc. That is socialism.
quote:somehow that just doesn't seem logical, seems to me you are calling people who have gone the extra mile socialists.... definitely nonesensical.
What don't you understand about that. These people are wealthy and they are socialists. They don't want to become part of the people, they want to run the show - control the country. They will take from all the hard working middle class, give to the poor, and take the power and billions of dollars for themselves. It's all about the power!
Posts: 786 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "progressives" are socialists. Both Billary and Obama are 100% socialists. They would like nothing more than to socialize medicine; socialize industry (by taking their profits); control the masses with their handouts, etc. That is socialism.
LOL... insurance IS socialism by your definition.. i assum eyou have no insurance at all?
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:somehow that just doesn't seem logical, seems to me you are calling people who have gone the extra mile socialists.... definitely nonesensical.
What don't you understand about that. These people are wealthy and they are socialists. They don't want to become part of the people, they want to run the show - control the country. They will take from all the hard working middle class, give to the poor, and take the power and billions of dollars for themselves. It's all about the power!
you need to "brush up" on what socialism is...
you are describing any of several OTHER things, but not socialism....
it could be fascism or oligarchy but that is most definitely NOT socialism.
you don't even know what you are fighting...
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Monday May 19, 2008 New US Farm Bill will anger the world EARTHTRENDS By MARTIN KHOR
The US Congress has just passed a new Farm Bill that continues the system of high subsidies even when food prices and farm profits are at record highs. It will incense the rest of the world.
this bill that Bush says he is against is VETOPROOF.
that's why Bush can afford to be against it.
it will pass no matter whether he signs it or not.
the bill is not adding much that was not already being done. it is increasing some subsidies to poor people and farmers, but it is not substantially different from the last farm bill Bush signed...
this bill has bipartisan support as well multi geographic support.
Farm bill tied to GOP future
By JIM GALLOWAY The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 05/17/08
U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss said he's told President Bush that vetoing the $300 billion farm bill would be a "huge mistake" that could hurt Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.
"He and I have had a couple personal conversations about that. I think it's a huge mistake for him, politically and otherwise," said Chambliss, a Republican who himself faces re-election this year. Chambliss said he pointed out to Bush that the states in the South and West that gave him his strongest support all had agricultural economies.
"These are people that want to vote for John McCain. If they get turned off by Republicans, it's going to make it tough," Chambliss told reporters after a speech to the state GOP convention.
The House and Senate both passed the massive bipartisan bill this week by veto-proof margins. Both Chambliss and U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson have promised to help override the veto that Bush has promised.
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Today, because we have 49 Republicans, we're able to take bad legislation and either shape it, and make it better, or kill it," Chambliss said. "But if we get our number down to where we don't have those 41 votes we need on a regular basis, then this country will be worse off, I promise you."
Only afterwards, in a session with reporters, did Chambliss address Bush's criticism of the farm bill, including Bush's contention that the legislation awards subsidies to high-income farmers.
"That's ridiculous. It really is. I get upset when some of my colleagues say, well we're giving money to rich farmers. We're not doing that," Chambliss said.
The former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee pointed out that the last farm bill passed in 2002 had no income limit on participation. The new limit would cut off subsidies from farmers with incomes of $750,000 and more.
Chambliss pointed out that 70 percent of the bill's spending goes toward food stamps, school lunches and food banks — which benefit one in every 10 Georgians.
wow, it just doesn't make any sense at all does it? a Conservative Southern GOP Socialist? nah, couldn't be....
so? a farmer and his wife get subsidies UNLESS they make over 1.5 million$ a year? LOL... those daggone Socialists are killing our country...
at least they set a limit this time
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:you are describing any of several OTHER things, but not socialism....
Of course it's socialism and we all know it.
quote:yes, including being a Socialist...
You see, Mach knows it's socialism.
quote:Funny thing you do not say the GOP/rich or "Conservatives" take from the poor to make the rich richer.
Ridiculous! You can't take more income tax from someone who doesn't pay income tax!
quote:pointed out that 70 percent of the bill's spending goes toward food stamps, school lunches and food banks — which benefit one in every 10 Georgians.
As I've said many times before, all of these entitlements need to be stopped and people need to be introduced to WORK! Our society can NOT afford to support all these deadbeats and all this entitlement spending is bankrupting the country. We'll all be paying a high price for this in the near future.
quote:wow, it just doesn't make any sense at all does it? a Conservative Southern GOP Socialist? nah, couldn't be....
I agree with this 100%. It's a shame that anyone that calls himself a conservative would support this bill.
Posts: 786 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
As I've said many times before, all of these entitlements need to be stopped and people need to be introduced to WORK! Our society can NOT afford to support all these deadbeats and all this entitlement spending is bankrupting the country. We'll all be paying a high price for this in the near future.
we'd pay a higher price now if we canceled it.
but we do have to come up with a plan to pay as we go instead of borrowing from our grandchildren.
some inconvenient facts (for you) about food stamps and nutrition programs:
What is the average income of food stamp recipients?
There are strict income and resource limits for eligibility in the Food Stamp Program.
In fiscal year 2002, approximately 88 percent of food stamp households lived in poverty. Nearly ninety percent of food stamp households have gross incomes at or below the poverty line; 36.1 percent have incomes below half the poverty line.
Who are food stamp recipients?
Over half of food stamp recipients are children aged 17 and under. About one-third (33.2 percent) of children on the program are preschool age (under age 5).
Over 79 percent of benefits go to households with children. The average size of food stamp households with children is 3.3 persons; the average size of all food stamp households is 2.3 persons.
Over one-quarter (27 percent) of food stamp households contain at least one disabled person. 1.7 million seniors receive food stamps, nine percent of all recipients; nearly 19 percent of food stamp households contain at least one elderly person.
Over 90 percent of benefits go to households with either a child, senior, or disabled individual.
How long do people usually receive food stamp benefits?
Half of food stamp participants receive benefits for nine months or less. The average length of participation is less than two years.
Elderly and disabled individuals tend to receive food stamp benefits for longer periods of time. While over 60 percent leave the program within a year, their average length of participation in the program is slightly under two-and-one-half years. Can unemployed people automatically qualify for food stamps?
There are strict eligibility requirements for participation in the Food Stamp Program, based on financial and non-financial factors. Households must have gross incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line and net incomes below 100 percent of poverty, except households with elderly or disabled members. Countable resources (e.g., checking/savings account, cash, stocks/bonds) cannot exceed $2,000. For example, the market value of a car in excess of $4,650 is considered a countable resource, and could make a household ineligible for benefits.
Eligibility in the Food Stamp Program includes work requirements. All non-elderly adults receiving benefits who are able to work are required to be employed or to register for employment. Many must participate in work training and job search programs.
Able-bodied, childless persons between the ages of 18 and 50 are limited to three months of food stamp receipt in a 36 month period unless they are working at least 20 hours a week or participating in an employment and training program.
seems they are either working poor or unable to work....
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: You see, Mach knows it's socialism.
Funny how you take what i say out of context and twist it around... I never said it was Socialism... what i said is people have the right to be a Socialist in this country if they want to unlike you and the GOP who wants to supress people's rights and only be what you want them to be with no choices if you had your way...
quote:Ridiculous! You can't take more income tax from someone who doesn't pay income tax!
Funny, last I checked not all poor people are unemployed so therefor the ones that do work are being taxed...
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3261 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Funny, last I checked not all poor people are unemployed so therefor the ones that do work are being taxed...
Poor people do not pay income taxes, although they do pay payroll taxes for medicare and social security. In fact, not only do they not pay income taxes, many/most get the earned income tax credit which is nothing more than a government handout. However, this is one handout I support because it encourages people to work. Incentives to work are a good thing!
quote:what i said is people have the right to be a Socialist in this country if they want to unlike you and the GOP who wants to supress people's rights and only be what you want them to be with no choices if you had your way...
I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
Posts: 786 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Poor people do not pay income taxes, although they do pay payroll taxes for medicare and social security. In fact, not only do they not pay income taxes,i guess I imagined the income taxes I paid when I worked a minimum wage job(s) in my youth...
[QUOTE][qb]I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
Actually, I would say most of us would see you as fascist then conservative and true liberals do not try to supress people's rights.
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3261 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
OK, so now i just have to ask, WHO are these conservatives that we should be voting for.
do they even exist?
i hear alot of talk about them. they have al kinds of stuff on the radio, but when i listen to them? i mostly hear a bunch of braying....
tell me you aren't going to say vote for Grover Norquist...
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am completely against what the GOP (now very liberal) is doing. However, true conservatives (like me) believe in the constitution and are strong on people having free choice (and being responsible for their decisions and actions).
------------------------------------------------- I just would like to know what is a conservative?
My call on Bush says that he is one he ran as one did pretty much what he said he was going to do and was voted in by people that said they were conservatives.
Looks like a duck sounds like a duck most likley is a duck.
Most conservatives that I have known are Relegious right fascist,homophobic,gun nuts.
By the way a Democrat for the most part has never taken anybody gun away from them,told anybody there relegion and its doctorin should be the law of the land. And believe that equal rights are equal rights for everybody not just a few.
But I really don't know what a conservative is,since every time one gets voted into to office and screws up every thing he touches and takes away our rights,all I hear from people that put him in is he is not a conservative
Posts: 5810 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bond006: But I really don't know what a conservative is,since every time one gets voted into to office and screws up every thing he touches and takes away our rights,all I hear from people that put him in is he is not a conservative
Odd how history since the 20th century perhaps has shown the GOP throws the country into dissaray starting with Herbert Hoover imo. And it is always a Dem who has to clean up the mess. Not to say Dems never make mistakes but most are caused or on a GOP's watch.
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3261 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bond006: But I really don't know what a conservative is,since every time one gets voted into to office and screws up every thing he touches and takes away our rights,all I hear from people that put him in is he is not a conservative
Odd how history since the 20th century perhaps has shown the GOP throws the country into dissaray starting with Herbert Hoover imo. And it is always a Dem who has to clean up the mess. Not to say Dems never make mistakes but most are caused or on a GOP's watch.
I think JFK and LBJ got us into a real mess and Nixon had to straighten things out. Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things. I don't understand what your talking about.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 1512 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: [I think JFK and LBJ got us into a real mess and Nixon had to straighten things out. Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things. I don't understand what your talking about.
Herbert Hoover:
1. Great Depression 2. Stock Market Crash of 1929
Dwight D. Eisenhower (he was ok):
1. Vietnam conflict started in 1959
Richard M. Nixon:
1. Watergate 2. Secret bombings in Cambodia & Laos 3. 1973 Oil crisis 4. His VP (Agnew) charged with various crimes 5. His secret support of the Pinochet led coup in Chile of a elected Government
Gerald Ford:
1. Controversial pardon of Nixon 2. Economy suffered inflation & Recession 3. Did not bail out NYC out of a possible bankruptcy 4. Mayagueyz Debacle
Ronald Reagan:
1. Laizze-faire approach to business leading to untold greed in the 80's 2. The Saving & Loans crisis 3. Iran-Contra Scandal 4. Ignoring detente with regards to the USSR which lead to 40% defense spending increase 5. Increases in Federal Budget Deficit & National Debt (increasing it from about $700 billion to $3 Trillion) which in turn would have it's effects on Bush Sr. when he had to increase taxes 6. Tax cuts for the well off (for the rich as always) while increasing Gov't spending and borrowing. 7. Slow or no response to the HIV/Aids epidemic 8. Involvement with Sadaam Hussein & indirectly with Osama Bin Laden and his minions in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation that would bear consequences in the future 9. High Gold prices 10. High interest rates 11.High Unemployment
Anyways this is just some samplings... I'll leave the Bushs' alone since we know much more about them.... if i left something out or got something incorrectly feel free to post about it...
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3261 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things
Nixon did fix a bunch of the Dems mess
but,
Reagan didn't fix a dam thing. Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Baghdad to encourage Sadam to attack Iran
people love Reagan, but i have no clue why...
and yeah i voted for him, but all he did was give nice speeches...
he wimped out on the marine barrack bombing in Lebanon-1983 look it up...
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things
Nixon did fix a bunch of the Dems mess
but,
Reagan didn't fix a dam thing. Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Baghdad to encourage Sadam to attack Iran
people love Reagan, but i have no clue why...
and yeah i voted for him, but all he did was give nice speeches...
he wimped out on the marine barrack bombing in Lebanon-1983 look it up...
Yah, I didn't want to mention the Lebanon thing since alot of you guys are military or ex military and I figured you would of defended him on anything related... but I'm with you... I don't know why neither other then he was a funny guy... he played a role... he was a actor...
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3261 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
people like to credit Reagan with the collapse of the USSR, but all he did was give the good speeches as it happened. There is nothing i have ever seen pointed out that credited Reagan with ANY strategic move that caused the downfall of the USSR. it just isn't there.
NIXON? hell yes. he and Kissenger did alot.
the USSR fell because they had alot of bad policies. they did it to themselves. sure we helped, we were there to frustrate them at every possible turn, but we did not:
1) Cause Chernobyl. Chernobyl was huge in making the "People" lose faith in their government. The same would happen here. As a matter of fact? IMO 9-11 SHOULD have caused alot more loss of faith than it has.
2) Soviet Farming practices were criminal. they'd harvest grain wet to "pad" production numbers. then of course it would rot.
Carter did in fact contribute to the fall of the USSR. He officially ended Detente by indirectly funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. They produced the Taliban and eventually Osamabinalivetoolong... But Carter's funding of the Mujahadeen was instrumental in drawing the Soviets into a losing military engagement.
there's no evidence that we ever directly funded Osama, but i wouldn't expect any.
we need to stop trying to paint our problems as "GOP" or "DEM". they aren't. We are facing some serious problems right now. and they won't be solved by partisanship
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26312 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
1. Watergate 2. Secret bombings in Cambodia & Laos 3. 1973 Oil crisis 4. His VP (Agnew) charged with various crimes 5. His secret support of the Pinochet led coup in Chile of a elected Government
_________________________________________________
There were many things that he did do that were controversial that were brought out by the media.
The question i have always had was would many of these things have been exposed if he had not gotten us out of Vietnam?
He took longer to get us out than many of us would have liked but he did finally did do it and i still think there were many that did not want him to do that.
I also think we will face this same situation when the next politician decides it's time to get out of Iraq and no matter which person is elected i think he will be thinking of what happen to President Nixon after he pulled the troops out of Vietnam.
No President or party will really want to pull the troops out of Iraq for fear that something will come back to bite them because of their decision.
That old saying that It Will Not Happen on My Watch always comes to mind when pulling out troops.
As far as bombings of Cambodia and Laos were concerned those Arc Light strikes (B-52) sure made nice instant swimming pools all they had to do is just add water.
I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities.
Posts: 2384 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)