Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Just because you refuse to accept the definition of a term and prefer your own, doesn't mean that you've changed the definition of the term.
And the term "entitlement spending" is a loaded one, used mostly by those espousing the desire to cut spending on people like the "entitled," the "lazy" and the "welfare queens."
If it walks like a duck, and uses terms like "entitlement spending" like a duck...
Are you seriously going to use that old Glenn Beck tactic? You know Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, don't you? Do you know why we know this? He never denied doing it! |
More diversionary tactics....
So instead of dealing with the fact that our government spends 1/3 more than it takes in (on many things that need cutting), despite the fact that I am for cuts in lots of areas and not just "entitlements", as well as the reality that you could "fair" the rich away - just take every dime and thing they own and it still wouldn't solve the problem - much less this 11 hr pay "fairness" idea - you'd rather continue to obfuscate and ignore the real problems facing this nation.
This is why we are in the shape we are in - because some people - and you in this case mookie - are more about the partisan crap than you are about solutions that must occur if we are to fix the problems.
Why not answer the questions outright as they have been asked of you already? With the rich already paying the lion's share of taxes - how much is enough? August or Aramike asked that - you ignored it. I asked why are we spending days and days on something that pays for 11 hours of government when we are spending 1/3 more than we make as a country - you won't touch that one either.
When someone points out a position or facts you don't like - its all because they have a "side". If someone says "lets pretend" to remove all the entitlements for the sake of proving a point regarding how much we overspend - that immediately makes them be using rhetorical tools to push an agenda.... Cmon - your better than this.
I get your left and your not happy that your side is catching flak. But your not responsible for that - and you can't seriously argue that those in control of your chosen party are acting responsibly while governing. I mean - no budget from the senate in 3 years? A presidential budget he tells the party to vote against? You sure do like to make fun of the people who swallow "truth" from Glen Beck, but your not using your own brain to break ranks with those who are doing absolutely nothing useful in governing this nation. Your throwing out the fairness talking points and getting defensive instead of just looking at the facts and (likely) coming to the conclusion that most people in this nation are moving to - that those in government (regardless of "side") are more of the problem than the solution.
Seriously, stop defending the indefensible, and lets start talking solutions. And sorry, an tax increase that pays for 11 hrs of government (with untold economic consequences to boot) isn't any kind of a solution.