info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Interesting take on Trump's position
113 views
Skip to first unread message
xyzzy
Jun 7, 2017, 1:59:47 PM6/7/17
to
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/6/7/11591/28203
Some quotes:
I want to dwell for a moment on how Trump has performed in office and how that is going over with the national security establishment. Trump started out by going to the CIA and disrespecting their dead. He then ignored the Justice Department’s warnings that his National Security Advisor was compromised by the Russians. He tried to compromise the integrity of the FBI director and then fired him. He tried to compromise the integrity of the head of the National Security Agency and his Director of National Intelligence. He infuriated the Israelis by giving sensitive information to the Russians in the Oval Office. He refused to commit to coming to our NATO allies' defense if they are attacked. Most recently, he put our air base in Qatar at risk by siding against them in their dispute with other Arab nations. [...] I could talk about his horrible security as he continues to use an insecure Android phone and conducts sensitive foreign policy in public areas of Mar-A-Lago. Without any real effort to be thorough here, I just want to convey how unsatisfactory he’s been as president from the point of view of anyone who works on national security, defense or intelligence matters. Even if he hadn’t compared these folks to Nazis, they’d be scared and angry.
[...]
If we can set aside the merits just for a moment, the Trump administration is simply outgunned. To predict the future, why not look at the immediate past. So far, all Trump’s efforts to outflank the Intelligence Community have resulted in nothing but a deterioration of his position and a budding case for impeachment based on his conduct of the war.
[...]
But we should consider a few more things. Almost no members of Congress endorsed Trump in the primaries. The Speaker of the House effectively disowned Trump after the Access Hollywood tape came out in October. They tolerate him much more than they support him. And they tolerate him because they want things from him. They already got a Supreme Court Justice. They want tax cuts, too. They want to finish off the Affordable Care Act. Individual members have their own to-do lists. The problem here is that Trump is failing to deliver in rather spectacular fashion. Everything is piling up in Congress. There’s no budget, no appropriations, no tax reform plan, no infrastructure plan, no workable health care plan, and a looming debt ceiling fiasco. Congressional Republicans are publicly pessimistic about their chances of achieving anything this year and are vocal about the prospect of a looming fiscal and budgetary disaster in September. Things aren’t going to get better. They will assuredly get worse as looming catastrophes became actual real-time debacles. And that’s the context in which the #TrumpRussia investigation will unfold.
In truth, Republicans have very little use for Trump at this point. He’s given them everything he’s likely to give them.
Some quotes:
I want to dwell for a moment on how Trump has performed in office and how that is going over with the national security establishment. Trump started out by going to the CIA and disrespecting their dead. He then ignored the Justice Department’s warnings that his National Security Advisor was compromised by the Russians. He tried to compromise the integrity of the FBI director and then fired him. He tried to compromise the integrity of the head of the National Security Agency and his Director of National Intelligence. He infuriated the Israelis by giving sensitive information to the Russians in the Oval Office. He refused to commit to coming to our NATO allies' defense if they are attacked. Most recently, he put our air base in Qatar at risk by siding against them in their dispute with other Arab nations. [...] I could talk about his horrible security as he continues to use an insecure Android phone and conducts sensitive foreign policy in public areas of Mar-A-Lago. Without any real effort to be thorough here, I just want to convey how unsatisfactory he’s been as president from the point of view of anyone who works on national security, defense or intelligence matters. Even if he hadn’t compared these folks to Nazis, they’d be scared and angry.
[...]
If we can set aside the merits just for a moment, the Trump administration is simply outgunned. To predict the future, why not look at the immediate past. So far, all Trump’s efforts to outflank the Intelligence Community have resulted in nothing but a deterioration of his position and a budding case for impeachment based on his conduct of the war.
[...]
But we should consider a few more things. Almost no members of Congress endorsed Trump in the primaries. The Speaker of the House effectively disowned Trump after the Access Hollywood tape came out in October. They tolerate him much more than they support him. And they tolerate him because they want things from him. They already got a Supreme Court Justice. They want tax cuts, too. They want to finish off the Affordable Care Act. Individual members have their own to-do lists. The problem here is that Trump is failing to deliver in rather spectacular fashion. Everything is piling up in Congress. There’s no budget, no appropriations, no tax reform plan, no infrastructure plan, no workable health care plan, and a looming debt ceiling fiasco. Congressional Republicans are publicly pessimistic about their chances of achieving anything this year and are vocal about the prospect of a looming fiscal and budgetary disaster in September. Things aren’t going to get better. They will assuredly get worse as looming catastrophes became actual real-time debacles. And that’s the context in which the #TrumpRussia investigation will unfold.
In truth, Republicans have very little use for Trump at this point. He’s given them everything he’s likely to give them.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 7, 2017, 3:00:04 PM6/7/17
to
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In truth, Republicans have very little use for Trump at this point. He=E2=
>=80=99s given them everything he=E2=80=99s likely to give them.
After LBJ and 8 years of Obama only one thing matters - Trump is not a
socialist.
Nothing in the Constitution gave LBJ and BHO the right to use taxpayer
funds to support those who are able but make no effort to support
themselves. Equal opportunity and redistribution are not synonyms.
It takes a hard-nosed guy like Trump to derail the traitorous acts of
the aforementioned.
Hugh
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
wrote:
>In truth, Republicans have very little use for Trump at this point. He=E2=
>=80=99s given them everything he=E2=80=99s likely to give them.
After LBJ and 8 years of Obama only one thing matters - Trump is not a
socialist.
Nothing in the Constitution gave LBJ and BHO the right to use taxpayer
funds to support those who are able but make no effort to support
themselves. Equal opportunity and redistribution are not synonyms.
It takes a hard-nosed guy like Trump to derail the traitorous acts of
the aforementioned.
Hugh
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Eric Ramon
Jun 7, 2017, 3:43:41 PM6/7/17
to
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:00:04 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In truth, Republicans have very little use for Trump at this point. He=E2=
> >=80=99s given them everything he=E2=80=99s likely to give them.
>
> After LBJ and 8 years of Obama only one thing matters - Trump is not a
> socialist.
>
> Nothing in the Constitution gave LBJ and BHO the right to use taxpayer
> funds to support those who are able but make no effort to support
> themselves. Equal opportunity and redistribution are not synonyms.
>
> It takes a hard-nosed guy like Trump to derail the traitorous acts of
> the aforementioned.
>
> Hugh
neither of them were actually socialists. Some people will believe anything they're told, I guess.
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In truth, Republicans have very little use for Trump at this point. He=E2=
> >=80=99s given them everything he=E2=80=99s likely to give them.
>
> After LBJ and 8 years of Obama only one thing matters - Trump is not a
> socialist.
>
> Nothing in the Constitution gave LBJ and BHO the right to use taxpayer
> funds to support those who are able but make no effort to support
> themselves. Equal opportunity and redistribution are not synonyms.
>
> It takes a hard-nosed guy like Trump to derail the traitorous acts of
> the aforementioned.
>
> Hugh
Futbol Phan
Jun 7, 2017, 4:47:58 PM6/7/17
to
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 7, 2017, 5:36:41 PM6/7/17
to
Confiscation of wealth and redistribution is essentially control of
production. It has two effects - discouragement of producers and
encouragement not to produce. Socialism does not depend on degree.
Social Security is earned entitlement. Medicaid, the ACA subsidies and
freebies paid for by the money of others, when directed by government,
is socialism.
That's what people who are unable to compete in the marketplace
practice. You appear to be a prime example.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 7, 2017, 5:42:03 PM6/7/17
to
It really means people who believe in rape as long as it is other
people's money they screw them out of through government force, and
give to unentitled incompetent white trash like you.
wolfie
Jun 7, 2017, 8:37:27 PM6/7/17
to
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote
> It really means people who believe in rape as long as it is other
> people's money they screw them out of through government force, and
> give to unentitled incompetent white trash like you.
College on government money - check.
Decades of government payments - check.
Years of government-paid health care - check.
Years of government-paid retirement - check.
Years of government-paid meals - check.
Ken Olson
Jun 7, 2017, 10:14:02 PM6/7/17
to
Futbol Phan
Jun 8, 2017, 1:23:12 AM6/8/17
to
darkst...@gmail.com
Jun 8, 2017, 1:29:19 AM6/8/17
to
Fucker, you pay for peace.
You do understand this, do you not?
Or would you rather have seen this country's working population slashed by sending a third of able men to concentration camps in the 1930's after the Bonus Army unseated FDR?
Mike
You do understand this, do you not?
Or would you rather have seen this country's working population slashed by sending a third of able men to concentration camps in the 1930's after the Bonus Army unseated FDR?
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
Jun 8, 2017, 1:30:56 AM6/8/17
to
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:36:41 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> Social Security is earned entitlement.
*buzzer* Wrong.
> Social Security is earned entitlement.
Much of the money paid out by the Social Security Administration is the same freebies you scorn.
You pay for peace, fucker.
Mike
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 8, 2017, 7:51:05 AM6/8/17
to
because you were/are too stupid to avail yourself of the equal
opportunity.
Maybe you can get someone to explain the difference between earned and
unearned no matter how may times it takes for you to comprehend.
I'll bet you never had to dig a latrine - they were afraid you would
fall in and they couldn't tell the difference.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 8, 2017, 7:57:52 AM6/8/17
to
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:23:11 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Heh. You're the one living off the government's money, not me.
You ignoramus, it's taxpayer money confiscated by the government. You
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Heh. You're the one living off the government's money, not me.
must be one sorry teacher.
In every case it is return on my investment of money and time.
Are you a WWII vet? Did you give 33 years of your time to the
military. Or do you just sit on your butt and let others do your job
for you? That's really a statement, not a question.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 8, 2017, 8:01:21 AM6/8/17
to
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:30:54 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:36:41 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Social Security is earned entitlement.
>
>*buzzer* Wrong.
>
>Much of the money paid out by the Social Security Administration is the same freebies you scorn.
Yes it is. But liberals and other idiots expanded the original concept
>On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:36:41 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Social Security is earned entitlement.
>
>*buzzer* Wrong.
>
>Much of the money paid out by the Social Security Administration is the same freebies you scorn.
of SS to include such because worthless people are their peers.
>You pay for peace, fucker.
>
>Mike
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 8, 2017, 8:07:52 AM6/8/17
to
an excellent place for able men (and women) who don't work.
Hundreds of Germans were held in a concentration camp in Aliceville AL
in the 40s. Some of the living return periodically in appreciation of
the fair treatment they received. Some of those prisoners were real
artists and craftsmen and some of their works are in a local museum.
It works when people are smart enough. I guess that leaves you (and
liberals) out.
Futbol Phan
Jun 8, 2017, 11:06:24 AM6/8/17
to
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:07:52 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> With the proper rules in place I think a concentration camp would be
> an excellent place for able men (and women) who don't work.
Changed you meds recently, did you?
> With the proper rules in place I think a concentration camp would be
> an excellent place for able men (and women) who don't work.
dotsla...@gmail.com
Jun 8, 2017, 11:11:20 AM6/8/17
to
Phan, you're clearly a liberal - by definition, too dumn to get all the concentration camp upside!
Cheers.
Cheers.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 8, 2017, 11:18:37 AM6/8/17
to
Maybe you should try legal, prescribed drugs.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 8, 2017, 11:20:51 AM6/8/17
to
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:11:16 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Phan, you're clearly a liberal - by definition, too dumn to get all the concentration camp upside!
>
>Cheers.
What an amazing grasp of the obvious...
wrote:
>Phan, you're clearly a liberal - by definition, too dumn to get all the concentration camp upside!
>
>Cheers.
Michael Press
Jun 8, 2017, 3:29:50 PM6/8/17
to
In article <4195eca3-0435-483c...@googlegroups.com>,
LBJ spent a trillion dollars buying votes.
Whatever label you use some do not like it.
Do you believe me?
--
Michael Press
Whatever label you use some do not like it.
Do you believe me?
--
Michael Press
plai...@gmail.com
Jun 8, 2017, 8:29:16 PM6/8/17
to
>>In article <4195eca3-0435-483c...@googlegroups.com>,
From measuringworth.com:
Year Nominal GDP
(million of Dollars)
1963 638,600
1964 685,800
1965 743,700
1966 815,000
1967 861,700
1968 942,500
1969 1,019,900
I probably shouldn't even include 1963 and 1969 because LBJ was President for only a few weeks during those years.
>>
>>LBJ spent a trillion dollars buying votes.
>>Whatever label you use some do not like it.
>>Do you believe me?
That's a real whopper, Michael. The entire US yearly economy wasn't even a trillion dollars back in the 1960s.
>>LBJ spent a trillion dollars buying votes.
>>Whatever label you use some do not like it.
>>Do you believe me?
From measuringworth.com:
Year Nominal GDP
(million of Dollars)
1963 638,600
1964 685,800
1965 743,700
1966 815,000
1967 861,700
1968 942,500
1969 1,019,900
I probably shouldn't even include 1963 and 1969 because LBJ was President for only a few weeks during those years.
Michael Press
Jun 8, 2017, 8:43:59 PM6/8/17
to
In article <8355292f-376e-4e44...@googlegroups.com>,
<https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/>
All right. Only $0.8 trillion.
--
Michael Press
All right. Only $0.8 trillion.
--
Michael Press
Futbol Phan
Jun 9, 2017, 12:30:19 AM6/9/17
to
Michael Press
Jun 9, 2017, 2:51:30 PM6/9/17
to
Futbol Phan
Jun 9, 2017, 3:17:38 PM6/9/17
to
plai...@gmail.com
Jun 9, 2017, 8:27:59 PM6/9/17
to
Michael, I just checked out the budget.house.gov link you provided. That 0.8 trillion dollar figure was from 2012.
So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
Michael Press
Jun 9, 2017, 10:37:39 PM6/9/17
to
In article <d94f1075-83e5-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,
--
Michael Press
plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael, I just checked out the budget.house.gov link you provided. That 0.8 trillion dollar figure was from 2012.
>
> So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
Yes.
> Michael, I just checked out the budget.house.gov link you provided. That 0.8 trillion dollar figure was from 2012.
>
> So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
--
Michael Press
Some dued
Jun 9, 2017, 11:23:53 PM6/9/17
to
Did he at least win the election?
Futbol Phan
Jun 10, 2017, 1:47:02 AM6/10/17
to
Michael Press
Jun 10, 2017, 2:26:31 AM6/10/17
to
In article <dc69c12c-c21b-4ec7...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >
> > > So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> You're nothing if not consistent.
LBJ's war on poverty cost us most of a trillion dollars.
That is what you are avoiding.
--
Michael Press
Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <d94f1075-83e5-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,
> > plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Michael, I just checked out the budget.house.gov link you provided. That 0.8 trillion dollar figure was from 2012.
So it's gone up from there; closer to the trillion I announced.
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <d94f1075-83e5-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,
> > plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Michael, I just checked out the budget.house.gov link you provided. That 0.8 trillion dollar figure was from 2012.
> > >
> > > So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> You're nothing if not consistent.
That is what you are avoiding.
--
Michael Press
RoddyMcCorley
Jun 10, 2017, 12:52:31 PM6/10/17
to
always going to game the system, but we seemed to survive that (an the
current) social spending without too much trouble. What have we spent
fighting in Iraq since 9/11? And it is still a cluster.
--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.
Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.
michael anderson
Jun 10, 2017, 2:21:02 PM6/10/17
to
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:59:47 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> There’s no budget, no appropriations, no tax reform plan, no >infrastructure plan, no workable health care plan, and a looming debt >ceiling fiasco.
this(especially the tax thing) is what I'm most concerned about. As this writer points out, trump is LESS THAN USELESS to me if he can't save me some $ from absurdly high taxes.
If he can't even do that, then I'd rather not have an embarrassing clown like trump in there as president.
> There’s no budget, no appropriations, no tax reform plan, no >infrastructure plan, no workable health care plan, and a looming debt >ceiling fiasco.
this(especially the tax thing) is what I'm most concerned about. As this writer points out, trump is LESS THAN USELESS to me if he can't save me some $ from absurdly high taxes.
If he can't even do that, then I'd rather not have an embarrassing clown like trump in there as president.
Michael Press
Jun 10, 2017, 7:26:26 PM6/10/17
to
In article <45a4bfe9-d8f8-4473...@googlegroups.com>,
"We'll have them voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
--
Michael Press
"We'll have them voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Jun 10, 2017, 7:28:14 PM6/10/17
to
In article <ohh7tn$pvt$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
Michael Press
RoddyMcCorley <Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 6/10/2017 2:26 AM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <dc69c12c-c21b-4ec7...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <d94f1075-83e5-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael, I just checked out the budget.house.gov link you provided. That 0.8 trillion dollar figure was from 2012.
> >
> > So it's gone up from there; closer to the trillion I announced.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Michael Press
> >>
> >> You're nothing if not consistent.
> >
> > LBJ's war on poverty cost us most of a trillion dollars.
> > That is what you are avoiding.
> >
>
> So? It may not have all been spent effectively, and some folks are
> always going to game the system, but we seemed to survive that (an the
> current) social spending without too much trouble. What have we spent
> fighting in Iraq since 9/11? And it is still a cluster.
Survival is good enough for you. Sad.
> On 6/10/2017 2:26 AM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <dc69c12c-c21b-4ec7...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <d94f1075-83e5-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael, I just checked out the budget.house.gov link you provided. That 0.8 trillion dollar figure was from 2012.
> >
> > So it's gone up from there; closer to the trillion I announced.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> So, are we to believe that LBJ was buying votes 40 years after his death?
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Michael Press
> >>
> >> You're nothing if not consistent.
> >
> > LBJ's war on poverty cost us most of a trillion dollars.
> > That is what you are avoiding.
> >
>
> So? It may not have all been spent effectively, and some folks are
> always going to game the system, but we seemed to survive that (an the
> current) social spending without too much trouble. What have we spent
> fighting in Iraq since 9/11? And it is still a cluster.
--
Michael Press
plai...@gmail.com
Jun 10, 2017, 9:04:17 PM6/10/17
to
Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor? It sounds like you want to return to the days of Hoovervilles, hobo jungles and soup kitchens. Medical care? Hah, don't even think of that.
By the way, veterans benefit from the War On Poverty. Why are you against the veterans?
By the way, veterans benefit from the War On Poverty. Why are you against the veterans?
Michael Press
Jun 11, 2017, 1:13:12 AM6/11/17
to
In article <3f189075-6309-4f55...@googlegroups.com>,
--
Michael Press
plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor? It sounds like you want to return to the days of Hoovervilles, hobo jungles and soup kitchens. Medical care? Hah, don't even think of that.
>
> By the way, veterans benefit from the War On Poverty. Why are you against the veterans?
Poverty won.
> Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor? It sounds like you want to return to the days of Hoovervilles, hobo jungles and soup kitchens. Medical care? Hah, don't even think of that.
>
> By the way, veterans benefit from the War On Poverty. Why are you against the veterans?
--
Michael Press
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 11, 2017, 8:09:23 AM6/11/17
to
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:04:15 -0700 (PDT), plai...@gmail.com wrote:
>Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor?
There is the problem. There is no obligation in the Constitution to
>Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor?
"meet the survival needs of the poor". They are obligated to meet
their own needs or suffer.
michael anderson
Jun 11, 2017, 4:43:12 PM6/11/17
to
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:04:15 -0700 (PDT), plai...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor?
>
> There is the problem. There is no obligation in the Constitution to
> "meet the survival needs of the poor". They are obligated to meet
> their own needs or suffer.
there is also nothing in the constitution that says we can't try to help/provide for the poor.
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:04:15 -0700 (PDT), plai...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor?
>
> There is the problem. There is no obligation in the Constitution to
> "meet the survival needs of the poor". They are obligated to meet
> their own needs or suffer.
there is NO QUESTION that the government safety net has gotten far too large and out of control(and has been for some time), and interestingly enough a lot of it isn't even directed for the poor. But whatever.....
But still, there is clearly a role for the govt to provide something for those who have nothing.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 11, 2017, 5:05:20 PM6/11/17
to
you can no longer complain about the taxes you pay since they are
helping to accomplish your objective.
michael anderson
Jun 11, 2017, 5:52:51 PM6/11/17
to
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 4:05:20 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
> <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:04:15 -0700 (PDT), plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor?
> >>
> >> There is the problem. There is no obligation in the Constitution to
> >> "meet the survival needs of the poor". They are obligated to meet
> >> their own needs or suffer.
> >
> >there is also nothing in the constitution that says we can't try to help/provide for the poor.
> >
> >there is NO QUESTION that the government safety net has gotten far too large and out of control(and has been for some time), and interestingly enough a lot of it isn't even directed for the poor. But whatever.....
> >
> >But still, there is clearly a role for the govt to provide something for those who have nothing.
>
> You have a lot of company now that you have become a socialist.
??
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
> <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:04:15 -0700 (PDT), plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Michael, how would eliminating the War On Poverty meet even survival needs for the poor?
> >>
> >> There is the problem. There is no obligation in the Constitution to
> >> "meet the survival needs of the poor". They are obligated to meet
> >> their own needs or suffer.
> >
> >there is also nothing in the constitution that says we can't try to help/provide for the poor.
> >
> >there is NO QUESTION that the government safety net has gotten far too large and out of control(and has been for some time), and interestingly enough a lot of it isn't even directed for the poor. But whatever.....
> >
> >But still, there is clearly a role for the govt to provide something for those who have nothing.
>
> You have a lot of company now that you have become a socialist.
Im a socialist because I believe it's right for the govt to spend some amount of money on poor people? Really?
And
> you can no longer complain about the taxes you pay since they are
> helping to accomplish your objective.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Jun 12, 2017, 7:49:37 AM6/12/17
to
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:52:50 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
<miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You have a lot of company now that you have become a socialist.
>
>??
>
>Im a socialist because I believe it's right for the govt to spend some amount of money on poor people? Really?
Yep - government redistribution of assets is socialism.
<miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You have a lot of company now that you have become a socialist.
>
>??
>
>Im a socialist because I believe it's right for the govt to spend some amount of money on poor people? Really?
0 new messages