More budget cuts coming at ya!

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your support of glenn1's selective distortion of the Constitution constitutes self-ownage, genx87. He bolds the bit about "common defence", yet completely ignores the "and" operative applied to "general welfare" in the same phrase of the original document.

That's only seeing what you want to see, a form of denial, of avoiding cognitive dissonance that's profound, and entirely obvious to anybody not blinded by their own ideology...

The supposed "strict" constitutionalist types always ignore the "general welfare" part of the constitution. It makes them feel better about condemning social programs that promote the general welfare.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your support of glenn1's selective distortion of the Constitution constitutes self-ownage, genx87. He bolds the bit about "common defence", yet completely ignores the "and" operative applied to "general welfare" in the same phrase of the original document.

That's only seeing what you want to see, a form of denial, of avoiding cognitive dissonance that's profound, and entirely obvious to anybody not blinded by their own ideology...

The supposed "strict" constitutionalist types always ignore the "general welfare" part of the constitution. It makes them feel better about condemning social programs that promote the general welfare.

No, they promote someone else's welfare. Not mine.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your support of glenn1's selective distortion of the Constitution constitutes self-ownage, genx87. He bolds the bit about "common defence", yet completely ignores the "and" operative applied to "general welfare" in the same phrase of the original document.

That's only seeing what you want to see, a form of denial, of avoiding cognitive dissonance that's profound, and entirely obvious to anybody not blinded by their own ideology...

The supposed "strict" constitutionalist types always ignore the "general welfare" part of the constitution. It makes them feel better about condemning social programs that promote the general welfare.

No, they promote someone else's welfare. Not mine.

But that's the point! The "general welfare" means the welfare of all Americans, you, me, everyone.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your support of glenn1's selective distortion of the Constitution constitutes self-ownage, genx87. He bolds the bit about "common defence", yet completely ignores the "and" operative applied to "general welfare" in the same phrase of the original document.

That's only seeing what you want to see, a form of denial, of avoiding cognitive dissonance that's profound, and entirely obvious to anybody not blinded by their own ideology...

The supposed "strict" constitutionalist types always ignore the "general welfare" part of the constitution. It makes them feel better about condemning social programs that promote the general welfare.

No, they promote someone else's welfare. Not mine.

But that's the point! The "general welfare" means the welfare of all Americans, you, me, everyone.

Oh, so the select few poor who receive welfare at the rest of the country's expense are now "all Americans"?

 

[glenn1]

But that's the point! The "general welfare" means the welfare of all Americans, you, me, everyone.

Ummm... you might think it's gospel and self-evident that boondoggles like guv'mint cheese and midnight basketball supports the welfare of all Americans, but that is not a viewpoint shared by a sizable number of us (IMHO it's the majority, but I'll leave it as the less-defined "sizable number" for now).

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Are these real cuts or lesser increases being called cuts? Never understood how increasing spending on something by 5% instead of 7% could be considered a cut. Anyway, just wondering if that is the case here as well.

Because of inflation, most funding programs have to increase by at least the rate of inflation each year to be able to provide the same services. For example, if a school program's funding increase is cut back and the rate of inflation stays the same or goes up then the number of books/desks/whiteboards that the funding pays for decreases over time, so it winds up being a cutback in the program.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: glenn1

But that's the point! The "general welfare" means the welfare of all Americans, you, me, everyone.

Ummm... you might think it's gospel and self-evident that boondoggles like guv'mint cheese and midnight basketball supports the welfare of all Americans, but that is not a viewpoint shared by a sizable number of us (IMHO it's the majority, but I'll leave it as the less-defined "sizable number" for now).

So what does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? Let them eat cake?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your support of glenn1's selective distortion of the Constitution constitutes self-ownage, genx87. He bolds the bit about "common defence", yet completely ignores the "and" operative applied to "general welfare" in the same phrase of the original document.

That's only seeing what you want to see, a form of denial, of avoiding cognitive dissonance that's profound, and entirely obvious to anybody not blinded by their own ideology...

The supposed "strict" constitutionalist types always ignore the "general welfare" part of the constitution. It makes them feel better about condemning social programs that promote the general welfare.

No, they promote someone else's welfare. Not mine.

But that's the point! The "general welfare" means the welfare of all Americans, you, me, everyone.

Oh, so the select few poor who receive welfare at the rest of the country's expense are now "all Americans"?

Its not just welfare, its stuff like public health, public schooling, food inspection, the FDA... all organizations like this receive federal funding and are part of the whole "provide for the general welfare" idea. But I'm sure you'd rather go without food inspection, so long as the rich get richer and aren't burdened by "unfair" regulation.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your support of glenn1's selective distortion of the Constitution constitutes self-ownage, genx87. He bolds the bit about "common defence", yet completely ignores the "and" operative applied to "general welfare" in the same phrase of the original document.

That's only seeing what you want to see, a form of denial, of avoiding cognitive dissonance that's profound, and entirely obvious to anybody not blinded by their own ideology...

The supposed "strict" constitutionalist types always ignore the "general welfare" part of the constitution. It makes them feel better about condemning social programs that promote the general welfare.

But socialist programs actually decrease the general welfare. Therefore, the "strict" constitutionalists are right in condemning them.

 

[Jhhnn]

"But socialist programs actually decrease the general welfare. Therefore, the "strict" constitutionalists are right in condemning them."

Mere assertion of rightwing talking points isn't an argument, Train. So you'll need to actually make one for that bit of fluffery to pass muster...

 

[Engineer]

Seems that student loan cuts were a sore point in the cuts as there isn't enough votes to get it through (as of now). As one rep stated, China and India are ramping up their educational system in a major way (in spending) and here we are trying to cut ours.

Cut the pork, not the substance.

 

[conjur]

Pelosi is fighting against the "immoral" budget wanted by the GOP.

http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder


:thumbsup:

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"But socialist programs actually decrease the general welfare. Therefore, the "strict" constitutionalists are right in condemning them."

Mere assertion of rightwing talking points isn't an argument, Train. So you'll need to actually make one for that bit of fluffery to pass muster...

Mere assertion of american history.

Many of threads have been posted in this forum about the downward spiral of social programs. Theres decades worth of evidence that shows welfare only increase the poverty rate, the exact opposite of what it is intended to do.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"But socialist programs actually decrease the general welfare. Therefore, the "strict" constitutionalists are right in condemning them."

Mere assertion of rightwing talking points isn't an argument, Train. So you'll need to actually make one for that bit of fluffery to pass muster...

Mere assertion of american history.

Many of threads have been posted in this forum about the downward spiral of social programs. Theres decades worth of evidence that shows welfare only increase the poverty rate, the exact opposite of what it is intended to do.

Then how do you explain the last 5 years? One thing this administration has been set on doing is eliminating social programs. Yet, the number of people living at or below poverty levels has increased.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"But socialist programs actually decrease the general welfare. Therefore, the "strict" constitutionalists are right in condemning them."

Mere assertion of rightwing talking points isn't an argument, Train. So you'll need to actually make one for that bit of fluffery to pass muster...

Mere assertion of american history.

Many of threads have been posted in this forum about the downward spiral of social programs. Theres decades worth of evidence that shows welfare only increase the poverty rate, the exact opposite of what it is intended to do.

Then how do you explain the last 5 years? One thing this administration has been set on doing is eliminating social programs. Yet, the number of people living at or below poverty levels has increased.

Hmm, lets cherry pick some more evidence. :roll:

5 years vs 60 years. Gee I wonder which is more accurate? I could pick out the 5 years after welfare reform went into effect, and blow your 5 years out of the water. But how about we stick to the big pucture?

Besides "Set on eliminating them" and actually doing so are two different things.

 

[conjur]

What do you think they've been doing for the last 5 years?


Now, stop avoiding the question and answer it. Or are you bucking to be the next Brave Sir Robin?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur
What do you think they've been doing for the last 5 years?


Now, stop avoiding the question and answer it. Or are you bucking to be the next Brave Sir Robin?

To answer your question you'll have to point me to what social programs were "eliminated" in the last 5 years.

 

[conjur]

It starts with cutting the budgets. Cutting a budget results in people being dropped from programs. Simple math.


Now, answer the question.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur
It starts with cutting the budgets. Cutting a budget results in people being dropped from programs. Simple math.


Now, answer the question.

It seems you're now equating all govt spending as social programs? Trying to gray out a losing argument are we?

Which Budget cuts have actually gone into effect? You of all people should know the fed is spending more money than ever. Even if some programs were cut, others grew, therefore, your "simple math" really sucks.

 

[conjur]

I don't count the military as a social program, sorry.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"But socialist programs actually decrease the general welfare. Therefore, the "strict" constitutionalists are right in condemning them."

Mere assertion of rightwing talking points isn't an argument, Train. So you'll need to actually make one for that bit of fluffery to pass muster...

Mere assertion of american history.

Many of threads have been posted in this forum about the downward spiral of social programs. Theres decades worth of evidence that shows welfare only increase the poverty rate, the exact opposite of what it is intended to do.

Then how do you explain the last 5 years? One thing this administration has been set on doing is eliminating social programs. Yet, the number of people living at or below poverty levels has increased.

I'd attribute a good chunk of any poverty increase to the flight of living wage factory jobs (that just about anyone could do, even poor Americans) overseas.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't count the military as a social program, sorry.

Neither do I. At least we can be on the same page and agree that not all govt spending is social spending.

But what social program was cut? You still havent answered that question.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't count the military as a social program, sorry.

I count most military spending as corporate welfare. The money that goes to feed, house, and train the soldiers no. Just about everything else, yes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't count the military as a social program, sorry.

Neither do I. At least we can be on the same page and agree that not all govt spending is social spending.

But what social program was cut? You still havent answered that question.

What hasn't been?

Poor suffer more
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p15s01-cogn.html

Cutting NCLB and WIC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54741-2005Feb25.html

Screwing the Veterans
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/polit...8074212093b13ce&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Veterans_groups_030304.htm
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Apr/10/ln/ln12p.html

Cutting vocational education
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/rel2303.html
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21104b.html

Cutting Veteran healthcare and public housinghttp://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index_np.html

Minority Students Would Be Hurt by Both Bush's Affirmative Action Decision and His 2004 Budget Cuts
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=9866



But...military:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/bush.budget/index.html

The Pentagon's total proposed budget of $379 billion, when adjusted for inflation, would be the biggest since the Cold War.

...

In other areas, the White House proposal includes mandatory spending of $472 billion for Social Security and $231 billion for Medicare. It includes $355 billion for all other domestic spending.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040202-0301.html

President George W. Bush today sent Congress his fiscal 2005 defense budget. The budget requests $401.7 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Defense (DoD). This represents a seven percent increase over fiscal 2004 funding levels, after taking into account Congressionally directed rescissions.

(and that doesn't include the costs of the war in Iraq nor Afghanistan