Rule of Unintended Consequences

"Train them to police the crime-ridden areas of inner cities."

Sorry; but this isn't Canada and we don't have soldiers patrolling our streets, unless it's a major disaster like hurricans or such.

Soldiers patrolling the streets in Canada? Where is that happening?

My point was they could be trained as Police Officers. In other words leave the services and work for a Police Force and the Federal Government could still pay their wages and it wouldn't cost any more in taxes.
 
Soldiers patrolling the streets in Canada? Where is that happening?

My point was they could be trained as Police Officers. In other words leave the services and work for a Police Force and the Federal Government could still pay their wages and it wouldn't cost any more in taxes.

And the Federal Government should pay for a local Police Force; because..........................................??
 
His whole entire rant is FULL of liberal socialist stupidity. We're supposed to have our trained soldiers out there building roads? What about the people who already have jobs (or are looking for jobs) building roads? And somehow, we are "cutting spending" by still paying contractors to build appliances, after converting their facilities from building fighter jets and night vision systems. I'm not seeing where any of his ideas are going to SAVE money or CUT costs. It sounds like he just wants to dismantle the military...at ANY cost!

It sounds like I'm trying to address the resultant job loss that someone (hint, hint) brought up regarding closing bases. Find jobs for the armed personnel who would be cut and freeze military hiring except for specialized professions.

The point is for the average citizen to get something back for their taxes. If taxes are paying a person's salary let's make sure they're working here and not 1/2 way across the world. Is that so difficult to grasp?
 
And the Federal Government should pay for a local Police Force; because..........................................??

Because it's better than paying for a Police Force in a foreign country which is what's happening now.

Let the taxpayers benefit from the taxes they pay.
 
Because it's better than paying for a Police Force in a foreign country which is what's happening now.

Let the taxpayers benefit from the taxes they pay.

Having a Police Force that is paid from the Federal Government is akin to having the Military patrolling our streets; plus it kind of brings up having the Feds interfer with Local Government, because the Government never lets loose anything they already have their hooks in.
 
Having a Police Force that is paid from the Federal Government is akin to having the Military patrolling our streets; plus it kind of brings up having the Feds interfer with Local Government, because the Government never lets loose anything they already have their hooks in.


The Gestapo... Storm Troopers... SS.... I think Apple must be history illiterate or something.

And oh by the way, App... I'm not going to bother responding to your reply, you didn't cite examples of countries as large as ours... Brazil is half the size, Canada is 1/10 the size... and I am talking POPULATION, since that's really all that matters in this argument. And when you replace a democratic system of government with a socialist system, it is no longer a democratic system...it is merely CALLED Democratic Socialism... there is nothing "democratic" about it.
 
this shit is hillarious

so now food stamps, welfare, medicaid, no income tax is not enough for the bottom 40% who are losers.
wtf they didn't get any of that in the 60's & 70's
 
Most of them like Legion get EIC and get money back from the IRS even though they paid no taxes to begin with.
 
It sounds like I'm trying to address the resultant job loss that someone (hint, hint) brought up regarding closing bases. Find jobs for the armed personnel who would be cut and freeze military hiring except for specialized professions.

The point is for the average citizen to get something back for their taxes. If taxes are paying a person's salary let's make sure they're working here and not 1/2 way across the world. Is that so difficult to grasp?

It sounds like you are completely ignorant of economics and finance, as well as business, capitalism, and human nature. Retraining and retooling cost enormous amounts of money, especially when done by an inefficient bureaucratic government as opposed to private enterprise. Our debate is over how we can cut spending, not how we can find ways to spend more! Nothing you have presented is going to cut costs, it is going to cost MORE! Not only will it cost taxpayers more, at the same time, it will destroy jobs and put people out of business. You just yammer on and on with these cockamamie ideas that could never be implemented, and if they could, would make the situation worse! I wonder if you look as goofy as you sound?

People who joined the military, didn't join so they could be police officers! If they had wanted to be police officers, they would have done that instead of joining the military! They don't want the job of taking seniors to medical appointments, that's not why they joined the military! But to you, I guess it really doesn't matter what people want, they need to just do as you say and not complain. The military doesn't "hire" people, they ENLIST people, then train them to be soldiers, not social workers.


The point is for the average citizen to get something back for their taxes.

The government doesn't earn profits, they don't produce anything. For every dollar you pay in taxes, you get about .20 in actual benefit, because you have to pay all the bureaucrats all the way down the line, and no matter what service it is, the money would have gone much further in the hands of private business in the free market system. The "average" citizen doesn't pay taxes, that's one of the biggest problems here. Nearly half of America pays no tax at all. The problem is, we are currently spending about $3 billion a day more than we're taking in, and you are proposing some mighty ambitious and expensive undertakings. We simply don't have the money to do what you are suggesting, even if we were all retards like you!
 
The Gestapo... Storm Troopers... SS.... I think Apple must be history illiterate or something.

And oh by the way, App... I'm not going to bother responding to your reply, you didn't cite examples of countries as large as ours... Brazil is half the size, Canada is 1/10 the size... and I am talking POPULATION, since that's really all that matters in this argument. And when you replace a democratic system of government with a socialist system, it is no longer a democratic system...it is merely CALLED Democratic Socialism... there is nothing "democratic" about it.

Brazil is 2/3 the size in population. Are you the guy who has problems with 1/3s? :dunno:
 
It sounds like you are completely ignorant of economics and finance, as well as business, capitalism, and human nature. Retraining and retooling cost enormous amounts of money, especially when done by an inefficient bureaucratic government as opposed to private enterprise. Our debate is over how we can cut spending, not how we can find ways to spend more! Nothing you have presented is going to cut costs, it is going to cost MORE! Not only will it cost taxpayers more, at the same time, it will destroy jobs and put people out of business. You just yammer on and on with these cockamamie ideas that could never be implemented, and if they could, would make the situation worse! I wonder if you look as goofy as you sound?

People who joined the military, didn't join so they could be police officers! If they had wanted to be police officers, they would have done that instead of joining the military! They don't want the job of taking seniors to medical appointments, that's not why they joined the military! But to you, I guess it really doesn't matter what people want, they need to just do as you say and not complain. The military doesn't "hire" people, they ENLIST people, then train them to be soldiers, not social workers.


The point is for the average citizen to get something back for their taxes.

The government doesn't earn profits, they don't produce anything. For every dollar you pay in taxes, you get about .20 in actual benefit, because you have to pay all the bureaucrats all the way down the line, and no matter what service it is, the money would have gone much further in the hands of private business in the free market system. The "average" citizen doesn't pay taxes, that's one of the biggest problems here. Nearly half of America pays no tax at all. The problem is, we are currently spending about $3 billion a day more than we're taking in, and you are proposing some mighty ambitious and expensive undertakings. We simply don't have the money to do what you are suggesting, even if we were all retards like you!

Why do you have such difficulty grasping common sense?

We were talking about cutting the military and you complained about the people losing jobs so I offered a suggestion. If those who are downsized don't want to do another job, fine. They can just walk away and do their own thing.

Now, as to saving money, the military personnel whose jobs are cut and still want to remain employed can do work here. Taxes can be slightly raised to cover a part of their pay and they can supply services to the population such as taking seniors to medical appointments.

If a senior would pay $20.00 in taxi fare to go to a doctor's appointment once a month it would be worth it for them to pay an extra $10.00/mth in taxes instead. They would have their needs met and the money would go towards paying the military budget. It's just common sense if the military personnel did work here instead of in foreign countries the citizens here would benefit. It wouldn't cost the government any more money and with a hiring freeze the budget would shrink over time as people retired.

If the guys can build permanent military bases I'm sure they could build retirement homes. All that money and material and labor....why waste it in a foreign country instead of using it here?

What are you having difficulty understanding, Dixie?
 
Originally Posted by Dixie: It sounds like you are completely ignorant of economics and finance, as well as business, capitalism, and human nature.

That statement describes all liberals.

The ignorance is on the part of those who don't understand the rules can be changed as far as economics and finance, as well as, business and capitalism are concerned. As for human nature why teach/insist children in kindergarten share? It goes against everything a Republican believes. Why not start teaching children the way the Republican believes? The child who grabs the crayon first should be allowed to keep it as long as he/she wants. The child who is bigger and faster and always gets to be first in line should always be allowed to remain first. They got there. It's a competitive world.

Why let children in grade school takes turns at anything? That's not the way of life a Republican subscribes to. Why not teach our children to grab what they can? Why allow a slow kid to get up and bat at a game? Why teach children the exact opposite of what to expect as adults?

Share? What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like we're indoctrinating our children with socialist policies.
 
The ignorance is on the part of those who don't understand the rules can be changed as far as economics and finance, as well as, business and capitalism are concerned. As for human nature why teach/insist children in kindergarten share? It goes against everything a Republican believes. Why not start teaching children the way the Republican believes? The child who grabs the crayon first should be allowed to keep it as long as he/she wants. The child who is bigger and faster and always gets to be first in line should always be allowed to remain first. They got there. It's a competitive world.

Why let children in grade school takes turns at anything? That's not the way of life a Republican subscribes to. Why not teach our children to grab what they can? Why allow a slow kid to get up and bat at a game? Why teach children the exact opposite of what to expect as adults?

Share? What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like we're indoctrinating our children with socialist policies.

What you don't understand that when you go against human nature and natural law you restrict freedom and hurt everyone.
 
What you don't understand that when you go against human nature and natural law you restrict freedom and hurt everyone.

Sure, just like Greenspan believed that when enough people lost money others would not invest and the market would straighten out with that magical hand. The invisible one. Unfortunately, the invisible one helped itself to taxpayer's money!

Take a minute and check out this video from 9:00 - 10:00. Greenspan Admits Philosophical Error in "The Warning"

"Philosophical Error". Believing human nature and freedom and natural law would all work out. Unbridled greed. Dog eat dog. Grab all one can.

I'd say that pretty much hurt everyone. Well, except the greedy, that is. They went home with bonuses.
 
Brazil is 2/3 the size in population. Are you the guy who has problems with 1/3s? :dunno:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/brazil-economy-inflation-idUSN1E76501W20110707

Inflation in the 12 months through June advanced to 6.71
percent, above a government target for the third straight
month.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...e-for-consumers-deloitte-study-124267529.html

Further highlighting the anxiety over escalating health care costs, consumers were mixed in assessing their household capacity to handle future expenses. The least amount of confidence was in Portugal (18 percent), followed by Mexico (22 percent), Brazil (22 percent) and the United States (23 percent).

57 percent of consumers in Brazil, 44 percent in Mexico, 38 percent in the United States and 33 percent of consumers in Portugal rated their health care system's performance as 'failing' ("D" or "F").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What were you saying about Brazilian health care again?
 
Brazil is 2/3 the size in population. Are you the guy who has problems with 1/3s? :dunno:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/brazil-economy-inflation-idUSN1E76501W20110707

Inflation in the 12 months through June advanced to 6.71
percent, above a government target for the third straight
month.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...e-for-consumers-deloitte-study-124267529.html

Further highlighting the anxiety over escalating health care costs, consumers were mixed in assessing their household capacity to handle future expenses. The least amount of confidence was in Portugal (18 percent), followed by Mexico (22 percent), Brazil (22 percent) and the United States (23 percent).

57 percent of consumers in Brazil, 44 percent in Mexico, 38 percent in the United States and 33 percent of consumers in Portugal rated their health care system's performance as 'failing' ("D" or "F").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What were you saying about Brazilian health care again?
 
Sure, just like Greenspan believed that when enough people lost money others would not invest and the market would straighten out with that magical hand. The invisible one. Unfortunately, the invisible one helped itself to taxpayer's money!
Greenspan didn't realize how corrupting politics had become.
 
Back
Top