|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Jan 20, 2011 14:26:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fuckugettelfinger on Jan 20, 2011 18:32:30 GMT -5
Washington would be the simplest answere. Except for social issues Democrats and Republicans are the same people. The pharmaseudical companies, insurance companies, oil companies, defence contractors, and the super rich who made this war possible and profited from it are friends with the Bush and Obama administration. Basicly untill americans wake up and quit voting for this "two party dictatorship" we have this crap will continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jan 22, 2011 2:57:48 GMT -5
“Washington would be the simplest answere. Except for social issues Democrats and Republicans are the same people. The pharmaseudical companies, insurance companies, oil companies, defence contractors, and the super rich who made this war possible and profited from it are friends with the Bush and Obama administration. Basicly untill americans wake up and quit voting for this "two party dictatorship" we have this crap will continue.” - Fgf In the past I believed I had to vote for either a Dem or Repub or I was throwing my vote away. In reality it doesn’t matter. Neither of these groups represents me, my family, social group, or interests. Obviously, voting for an independent candidate is not going to give us any say in politics, but neither is voting for the established rulers. This article does a good job of explaining the reality, but I believe until we get corporate influence out of the government, we will have no choice. hubpages.com/hub/Ask-Any-Citizen |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jan 22, 2011 3:19:56 GMT -5
Great video Jobs1st. This one shows the reality of American politics instead of pure political party propaganda. One of your better links so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Jan 23, 2011 13:15:59 GMT -5
Couldn't agree with you guys more...no party is for the working man.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucero on Jan 23, 2011 21:06:05 GMT -5
Dirty hippies aint happy unless they are miserable. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by fuckugettelfinger on Jan 24, 2011 6:55:14 GMT -5
In the past I believed I had to vote for either a Dem or Repub or I was throwing my vote away. In reality it doesn’t matter. Neither of these groups represents me, my family, social group, or interests. Obviously, voting for an independent candidate is not going to give us any say in politics, but neither is voting for the established rulers.
This could be changed very easily. I used to be on the CAP committe here at 249. I had this argument with these bone heads so many times I can't count. I was always asking why the union keeps throwing money at candidates that the KNEW would end up screwing us at some point. Clinton being a prime example. They replyed with the typical "Union" talking points. "We are a labor union and only back candidates based on there "labor" voting record." To me this is just plain stupid because the general public....sad to say.....don't give as shit about labor issues...and even less about unions. If the unions would put their money on the independents they would stand a lot better chance. Now there are not enough union members to swing and election. But, we could get an independent enough attention so that they get into the presidential debates. That would at least get the bought and payed for media from being able to say they "can't get enough votes". Then perhaps they would stand a chance. Ron Paul for example...Though he is a Republican and not a super labor friendly candidate. He forwards ideas that would actually decrease the size of government. Giving more power to the little guy. Now isn't that in the long run.....what the unions are SUPPOSED to be about?
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jan 24, 2011 20:19:14 GMT -5
Due to the way our system is setup, if you do not support one of the ruling parties, as a group, then you stand not having any politician willing to stand in your favor. If the Dems loose labor union support, they will have to look for other donors… that would be corporations. That would allow anti labor legislation to break us for good.
As long as unions publicly support dems, they will at least continue to pay lip service and make token gestures of standing for us.
I still say the public needs to stop voting for these two parties, but labor unions cannot officially stop supporting them until after the public stops first. I agree we need to have options other than bad choice #1 or worse choice #2
“He forwards ideas that would actually decrease the size of government. Giving more power to the little guy. Now isn't that in the long run.....what the unions are SUPPOSED to be about?” - fgf
Smaller government means less power/protection for the little guy. When “they” say big government, what they are really talking about is things like Medicare, social security, Dept. of Labor and other programs to protect us “little guys.” Removing any of these will increase corporate earnings, but the lower classes will be at risk of losing health, retirement, and work safety standards.
Giving more power to the little guys is good, taking away our safety net by reducing government programs is not the way to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuckugettelfinger on Jan 27, 2011 10:40:58 GMT -5
So you are ok with the FED, IRS, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, CIA in excange for grossly inefficiant and very limited entitelment programs?
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jan 28, 2011 6:28:36 GMT -5
"So you are ok with the FED, IRS, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, CIA in excange for grossly inefficiant and very limited entitelment programs? " irs - without taxes no military, no roads, no government cia - it may be bloated but we need some kind of security patriot act - no homeland security - no We could debate each federal program and department, but I think we agree getting rid of the 2 party system is a start to fixing the corruption and excesses of government. Efficient medical care… The most efficient way to save money, concerning medical costs, is to let people die. No sick people, no health costs. Keeping people alive costs money. Limited entitlements… the intentions of SSI is to to help people unable to work or at retirement age. If this is not limited the costs will grow and make it even worse, limiting it is a good thing. Just an FYI, the fed (federal reserve) is not run by the government… here is the govt’s brief explanation. Who owns the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects… They have more to try to explain it. Find it here… www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htmfound this site, not sure how accurate it is I have not set down to go through it yet, it seems to have more information though. www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489 |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Jan 28, 2011 12:59:51 GMT -5
The Federal Reserve System virtually controls the nation's mometary system, yet it is accountable to no one. It has no budget, it is subject to no audit, and no Congressional Committee know of, or can truly supervise its opperations.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning".--Henry Ford
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 17:05:27 GMT -5
there never really was an anti-war movement,only an anti-bush movement. electing obama was supposed to end the wars. once the election was over the anti-bush(war) crowd got their bongs back out ,turned on cartoon network and went back to sleep,believing the problem was solved.theyll surely be disappointed should they wake up again.
"turn off your television. its the first step in waking up."
|
|
|
|
Post by lucero on Jan 30, 2011 9:51:59 GMT -5
there never really was an anti-war movement,only an anti-bush movement. electing obama was supposed to end the wars. once the election was over the anti-bush(war) crowd got their bongs back out ,turned on cartoon network and went back to sleep,believing the problem was solved.theyll surely be disappointed should they wake up again. "turn off your television. its the first step in waking up." TRUE DAT!! |
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jan 31, 2011 7:19:43 GMT -5
The U.S. spends the most on "Defense" way more than anything else, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, ect... the percentage is staggering. This vauge term can mean anything from an aircraft carrier to a pencil, as long as it's for "Defense"
I believe some of this money could be better used in other ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Jan 31, 2011 19:53:41 GMT -5
country % GDP spent on military US is number 46 people.
North Korea 33.9
Saudi Arabia 13.0
Ethiopia 12.6
Oman 12.2
Eritrea 12.0
Qatar 10.0
Israel 8.8
Jordan 8.6
Maldives 8.6
Afghanistan 7.7
Bahrain 6.7
Armenia 6.5
Macedonia 6.0
Syria 5.9
Kuwait 5.5
Angola 5.4
Burundi 5.3
New Caledonia 5.3
Yemen 5.2
Brunei 5.0
Greece 4.9
Singapore 4.9
Lebanon 4.8
Swaziland 4.8
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Jan 31, 2011 19:54:38 GMT -5
Wake up on the military crap we spend so much less GDP than most others.Its a small percent
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Jan 31, 2011 21:59:10 GMT -5
Jimmy Carter agreed with you. We had lost in Vietnam, The Cold War was over, and the Soviet Union had won. So he slashed the military budget and disengaged the US from the Cold War.....so we can better use the money......lol
For the next ten years the Soviet Union ran amok, started Wars of National Liberation in South and Central America, across sub-Saharan Africa, in the Middle East, and in Central Asia. They destabilized these regions in the hope that small, well organized, Communist cadres could seize control of the governments in the chaos. The USSR overextended itself, and their house of cards collapsed. But the regions of the world they destabilized are still unstable, and the cause of most of the worlds current problems thirty years later.....hell, they are still building Irans nuclear plants for them....
Bill Clinton agreed with you too. He slashed the military, squandered the “peace dividend” and hog-tied the intelligence community. They weren’t needed in the new, peaceful world. He ignored a mounting series of attacks against US military installations, embassies, and ships overseas assuming that would make them go away. That resulted in 9/11. You think it couldn’t happen again?
I’m sorry, I just don’t buy your arguments. If the US did what you suggest(use the money somewhere else) we would just be begging for another attack on our soil.
no, no, Democrats.... best bet is to spend all we can on our military!!!! i don't wanna learn chinese or go to a "learning center" re-education camp. i want to keep the whole freakin' world scared ****-less of what we "might" do. keep playing the bluff! it's working so far! as long as the world thinks were nutt's, we just might be. (just in case though, we gotta back it up).
this world is very, VERY, dangerous place.
.......but hell, at least we'll get free heathcare....
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Feb 1, 2011 7:26:04 GMT -5
The U.S. spends the most OF THEIR BUDGET on "Defense" way more than anything else, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, ect... the percentage is staggering. This vauge term can mean anything from an aircraft carrier to a pencil, as long as it's for "Defense" I believe some of this money could be better used in other ways. My post was pertaining to the "U.S. budget", not other dictator led countries like N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, ect.. Vietnam??? WTF?? That was 40+ years ago! History has shown that was a disaster to get involved in to start with. It is now a fairly stable region by the way, I guess we "won" by leaving. LOL The U.S.S.R., Which is now gone, due to the same economic pressures the U.S. is now suffering. China is our largest economic partner, we owe them billions, but yes I guess they could attack tomorrow. We were attacked on our own soil, but not by a military force, do you suggest the military should take over home security? Do you want the military on every street corner? Sounds a lot like N. Korea to me. The "Iraq war" that we have been involved in for over 10 years now, with billions of dollars spent, is another place where we will never change cultural values. I believe this country faces a much greater threat internally (think Egypt) than externally. I support our military and troops, I just think there need to be more accountability in the largest part of the U.S. budget. LINK: www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 1, 2011 12:56:16 GMT -5
We never left...lol......my responds was to your "I believe some of this money could be better used".....I was simply disagreeing with you, to cut defense(if thats what you meant)....and gave you examples of what has happened in the past, when we do......dont get me wrong the US is in so much debt that cuts will happened anyways......But when some uses the phase "cut here to better use it there....that means spend it again instead of paying down our debt...."
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Feb 1, 2011 14:29:31 GMT -5
I agree Polar, there shouldn't be wasteful spending in any area.
I don't feel good about spending money developing some new very costly strategic weapons system if our Vets can't get proper health care though.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Feb 1, 2011 19:03:56 GMT -5
Those numbers where recent not 40 years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Feb 2, 2011 7:47:03 GMT -5
My 40+ years was in response to Polars Vietnam war reference, not the numbers you posted.
Of the 45 countries that spend more of a "percentage" of thier budget on military than the U.S. does, what is thier budget total? What is thier total population? How are thier policies on Human Rights and what kind of living conditions do the majority of thier people exist in? I can't compare the society we live in to many of those countries. The reason they spend so much on Military is to keep thier people from revolting.
|
|
