Anthony Weiner Goes Ballistic At GOP

It's obvious we share a difference in ideology here. I simply do not agree with giving money to every group that's had a hard life. 9/11 rescuers aren't the only ones that had it hard. There are many other people in this country that deserve compensation. We can't give money to everyone. Why don't people realize the U.S. is broke?
 

"We remember" for about 9 years.

First these guys are proper heroes ... until the seemingly empty rhetoric translates into dollars. Then they're just another guy wanting a hand-out.
 
If the US is broke, it should slash tax cuts, increase corporate payments to the state and make people with the wealth provide more to their country. Taxation is unpopular, but let's face it, how bad do you want your country to become?
 
Disgustipated said:
It's obvious we share a difference in ideology here. I simply do not agree with giving money to every group that's had a hard life. 9/11 rescuers aren't the only ones that had it hard. There are many other people in this country that deserve compensation. We can't give money to everyone. Why don't people realize the U.S. is broke?
Click to expand...

This isn't about "had a hard life". This is about people who were injured while serving the country in an emergency situation. I suppose next you want to abolish the VA?
 
Merkinball said:
What in the hell are you talking about? Now, granted, I haven't read the bible in quite some time. But I seem to recall that somewhere it says that everyone is supposed to a 10% tithe to the church for charitable purposes and to help the poor. Nowhere do I remember Jesus saying, "You don't have to give unless you make $40,000 a year, and then you pay 25%. If you earn more than $250,000 you have to pay 34% to the government for every dollar thereafter."

10% goes to God because God would like to see it voluntarily given.
20% goes to the wanna be God who demands it and will imprison you for not giving.

I think there's a disconnect here with any liberal who uses the "Jesus was a socialist" schtick.
Click to expand...

Merkinball said:
What on earth are you talking about? Good gravy...

You passages on Acts say nothing about requirements to give everything away and share you possessions. It talks about how the apostles lived, and nothing about what they were required to do. When the Apostles who occupy Mordor on the Potomac begin giving away their riches instead of other peoples property, I may be a bit more compelled to follow them.
Click to expand...

The book of Matthew is the better example:

Matthew 19:16 – 19:24

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear that he was in favor of the rich giving away their wealth to the poor.


OT: The Democrats need more firebrands with spines like Weiner. Too often do they just roll over for the Republicans.
 
Disgustipated said:
and how much money did we donate to 9/11 victims and rescuers? They don't need any more of my money. The left handing out money to everyone is getting ridiculous. Don't they understand where it comes from? The rich aren't that rich they can support the entire nation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the rich are really struggling right now with all their money being taken by taxes, right? :rolleyes:
 
It distresses me that overt display of emotion is considered a redeeming quality in a politician.
 
Ziggy Stardust said:
Not a clue what it's all about. But that was inspiring.

More people should fly off the handle that passionately in politics.
Click to expand...

This is all that really comes out of this.

Weiner and the Dems come off very well
 
So Party A pulls a move designed to head off any chance of making amendments by the other Party B. To achieve this Party A is forced to up the requirements for passage through the house from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority. Meanwhile Party B has made clear that it isn't happy with the contents of the package. Party B accordingly votes against the package. I don't see how this is Party B's fault for being intransigent when Party A adopted a take-it-or-leave-it approach to the deal to begin with. Party A must have known what Party B was thinking and could have met them halfway on the matter. Party A didn't and it lost. Michael Bloomberg got it right when he said:

"It was wrong for the overwhelming majority of Republicans to vote against the bill, and it was wrong for Democrats to bring the bill to the floor under rules that made passage so much more difficult," he said.
Click to expand...

Good job all!
 
SS-18 ICBM said:
It distresses me that overt display of emotion is considered a redeeming quality in a politician.
Click to expand...

Dude, politics is entirely about rhetoric, not rationality. That's how it always was and always will be - the goal is to convince people, not have them say "Oh my god, he made an excellent logical argument! My mind and worldview is changed!" - because human psychology does not work like that.
 
Bill3000 said:
Dude, politics is entirely about rhetoric, not rationality. That's how it always was and always will be - the goal is to convince people, not have them say "Oh my god, he made an excellent logical argument! My mind and worldview is changed!" - because human psychology does not work like that.
Click to expand...

Which is why a system of politics where the executive doesn't have to appeal constantly to the populace is so much better than one where the executive is directly elected. :p


More to the point, this bill does not solve the basic problem. America needs free government healthcare, and then there wouldn't be a problem as far as half this money (the bit to pay for the rescuers' healthcare) is concerned, and the other half (the compensation) obviously ought to be given to these people, who ought by rights to have received such compensation automatically ages ago. The fact that you need a government bill to give compensation to workers harmed in the course of their duties is ridiculous, unless, of course, the terms of their employment were such that they should not get automatic compensation, in which case they shouldn't get it. Surely hundreds of public sector workers get injured every year at work in the USA? Surely you don't need a bill in Congress for every single incident?
 
Arakhor said:
If the US is broke, it should slash tax cuts, increase corporate payments to the state and make people with the wealth provide more to their country. Taxation is unpopular, but let's face it, how bad do you want your country to become?
Click to expand...


They are already providing more than anyone else, while half the country pays nothing.

Increasing taxes decreases freedom. Drastically reduce taxes, and even more drastically cut programs.

Aegis said:
The book of Matthew is the better example:



I think it's pretty clear that he was in favor of the rich giving away their wealth to the poor.
Click to expand...

I agree, except when you change the bolded phrase to "Government taking away their (The rich men's) wealth.
 
Right, so the way to increase revenue is to decrease taxes. There's a brilliant idea!
 
Arakhor said:
Right, so the way to increase revenue is to decrease taxes. There's a brilliant idea!
Click to expand...

Actually yes, as decreasing taxes encourages new businesses to spawn, creating jobs, and for the Old, bigger businesses to make more jobs.

Also, I said to decrease the immoral programs FDR and Johnson created.
 
Immoral programs that allowed America to rebuild and to become stronger, and better, and for the old bigger businesses to make more jobs.

Oh wait.
 
Masada said:
So Party A pulls a move designed to head off any chance of making amendments by the other Party B.
Click to expand...
Such as banning any funds from going to undocumented immigrants who also risked their lives at "Ground Zero". Or do you think that absurd change is getting "it right"?

Masada said:
Good job all!
Click to expand...

You mean partisan politics from the Republicans, as usual. What did you expect from the Republican mayor of NYC? Praise for the Democrats for trying to provide badly needed federal funding for these injuries, instead of the paltry settlement the city and state are trying to provide?
 
Cull said:
Immoral programs that allowed America to rebuild and to become stronger, and better, and for the old bigger businesses to make more jobs.

Oh wait.
Click to expand...

They didn't make America stronger. WWII, not the New Deal, ended the Great Depression. The Great Society was just to make LBJ look good, and it worked! We still have it! I'm not fooled though, and neither was Reagan.
 
Do you have any facts or figures to back up your wild claims, Domination? You do actually want to break a habit of a lifetime, don't you?
 
The New Deal pushed open the door to end the Great Depression. Without it, America simply couldn't enter WWII in the state that it did IRL.

The Great Society gave Medicare, and I'm sure many other things as well.
 
No, he's just towing the party line: FDR was a commie, wars cure economic problems and Reagan was a god...

Domination3000 said:
Actually yes, as decreasing taxes encourages new businesses to spawn, creating jobs, and for the Old, bigger businesses to make more jobs.
Click to expand...

Conservatives have been spouting this for 30 years and there is no proof. They just want to cut taxes to give the well off more money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crezth
  • Locked
Why Should the security of Ukraine cause the U.S. government to shut down?
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
5K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Zardnaar
How Do You Explain Politics to a 22 YO?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
3K
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
amadeus
The retconning of the President
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Hygro
Hygro
Birdjaguar
2024 Election: 2023 Edition
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
4K
MrRandomGuy
M
P
Another Stupid Letter to the Editor
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Hygro
Hygro
Top Bottom