9/11 documentary

[Hawk]

I remember when I lived in Maryland long ago , Reagan proposed a plan that would have less fortunate people on assistance work for their money. He stated in his plan that people would do certain jobs such as beautification and clean up of D.C. for instance.

I have to keep reading this. Communism . Socialism . I glad Congress was smart enough to stop communism in the USA.

I suspected Reagen was a socialist (tonge in cheek) when he photo opped with Leck Walensa (remember him ?). He led his labor party to STRIKE against their own government, who was their employer. Reagan praised him for striking against his Polish Government (who he worked for). That's right. Welensa worked for Poland and was paid by Poland.

Now picture Ronald Reagan standing with and praising Welensa for striking against the government AT THE SAME TIME he, Ronald Reagen, FIRED the air traffic controllers for going on strike ! His point ? It is against the law to strike against the government if you work for the government .

[RobTheDrummer]

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

[Hawk]

Habeas Corpus. Shot down again today ! More of OUR rights taken away.

G.W. and friends can claim you are a suspected terrorist (actually he doesn't even have to say that) and arrest you and imprison you. And YOU have NO right to a trial or a lawyer or anything. You just disappear.

That is against our constitution. The right to a fair trial is in the constitution.

Now you might say Bush should do that because of terrorism. But what, if say Hillary is the next president, will you still say she has the same power as Bush ? You can't pick and choose ! No one in the USA should ever have that power unless there is a war being fought on our land.

In Russia or China or any Communist country, No trial is the norm. Do we want that here ? I think that is too close to a Dictatorial Government .

[RobTheDrummer]

Habeas Corpus. Shot down again today ! More of OUR rights taken away.

G.W. and friends can claim you are a suspected terrorist (actually he doesn't even have to say that) and arrest you and imprison you. And YOU have NO right to a trial or a lawyer or anything. You just disappear.

That is against our constitution. The right to a fair trial is in the constitution.

Now you might say Bush should do that because of terrorism. But what, if say Hillary is the next president, will you still say she has the same power as Bush ? You can't pick and choose ! No one in the USA should ever have that power unless there is a war being fought on our land.

In Russia or China or any Communist country, No trial is the norm. Do we want that here ? I think that is too close to a Dictatorial Government .

Well, if you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Times like these, we gotta do some things to protect our welfare.

[Hawk]

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

What's your point ?

Work and pay taxes for protection. It's give and take.


And still you haven't suggested what the government should stop doing for us .

EARMARKS, that's what should be outlawed.

[Hawk]

Habeas Corpus. Shot down again today ! More of OUR rights taken away.

G.W. and friends can claim you are a suspected terrorist (actually he doesn't even have to say that) and arrest you and imprison you. And YOU have NO right to a trial or a lawyer or anything. You just disappear.

That is against our constitution. The right to a fair trial is in the constitution.

Now you might say Bush should do that because of terrorism. But what, if say Hillary is the next president, will you still say she has the same power as Bush ? You can't pick and choose ! No one in the USA should ever have that power unless there is a war being fought on our land.

In Russia or China or any Communist country, No trial is the norm. Do we want that here ? I think that is too close to a Dictatorial Government .

Well, if you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Times like these, we gotta do some things to protect our welfare.

That might be true if that power is in the right hands. But look at the possibility of what the USA might be like twenty years from now. Some idiot president could imprison anyone he/she wants. Perhaps for political reasons. Doesn't matter, The president doesn't have to explain to anyone why he jailed that person ! It is a power that is too easily misused !

And it is the Russian way of life !

[Hawk]

Habeas Corpus. Shot down again today ! More of OUR rights taken away.

G.W. and friends can claim you are a suspected terrorist (actually he doesn't even have to say that) and arrest you and imprison you. And YOU have NO right to a trial or a lawyer or anything. You just disappear.

That is against our constitution. The right to a fair trial is in the constitution.

Now you might say Bush should do that because of terrorism. But what, if say Hillary is the next president, will you still say she has the same power as Bush ? You can't pick and choose ! No one in the USA should ever have that power unless there is a war being fought on our land.

In Russia or China or any Communist country, No trial is the norm. Do we want that here ? I think that is too close to a Dictatorial Government .

Well, if you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Times like these, we gotta do some things to protect our welfare.

Why are YOU AGAINST a fair trial ? The USA court system , while not perfect, is the best. Why are you being so UNAmerican ? To say Bush is right, that on his say so, you no longer have a right to a fair trial ?

That's Communism !

[RobTheDrummer]

No, not against fair trial at all. If you are an enemy of this country and not a citizen, you shouldn't have the same rights as you and I. If you are a citizen and an enemy of the state, you should have due process but your rights should be limited.

[lonewolf]

BTW as I have stated many times. The amount spent on welfare is minuscule compared to the rest of the budget.

I was going to stay out of this thread because we went over this 4 years ago and George Bush still spends like a drunken sailor and in 200 days, the new "100 hour congress" has done little more than name a few pieces of real estate and raise the federal minimum wage to just below the Pennsylvania minimum wage. They are all a BF joke. What else? The situation in Iraq is about the same, but we are much closer to this little nugget from almost exactly 3 years ago:

http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.ph ... iran#16846

Anyhoo, until now, everything was pretty much opinion; however the above quote is factually challenged (heh, heh, heh) and must be corrected. In reality, the department of Health and Human Resources sucks up the biggest slice of the pie at just under $700 Billion. Coming in a distant 2nd is the DOD at under $600 billion.

Sadly, the 3rd largest expense on the budget is INTEREST on the DEBT at under $500 Billion per year! Without this expense, we would have a $300 Billion budget surplus this year!

http://www.federalbudget.com/

[RobTheDrummer]

According to that site, we've spent more money on health and human services than we have on national defense, and it's still not good enough for anyone.

[Hawk]

Jeff it's always a pleasure to have you involved, as I know I'll learn something. But yes, much of this has been hashed over years ago on RP.

But I'm confused. How much (what percentage) was spent on Welfare ? Actually paid to Americans who are out of work. Lumping all that Heath and Human resources might include many things, right down to health care to Illegal aliens.

I'm not specifically suggesting the Federal Government cover heath care. But to get involved in some way, to get affordable health care to everyone. We are being ripped of by the health care system.

OH NO ! I'm listening to TV and I just heard George W. Bush say "I am fiscally responsible". Sorry , I had to say that.

[YankeeRose]

To say Bush is right, that on his say so, you no longer have a right to a fair trial ?

That's Communism !

I could be wrong, but I believe what we're experiencing, i.e. the TERROR , gutting of our Constitution and freedoms with so-called Executive Orders, etc., is waaaaay more akin to Fascism.

[lonewolf]

But I'm confused. How much (what percentage) was spent on Welfare ? Actually paid to Americans who are out of work. Lumping all that Heath and Human resources might include many things, right down to health care to Illegal aliens.

How did I know you were going to ask that Bill?

Personally, I don't care what % goes to welfare or to illegal aliens or to the little sisters of the poor--thats just nitpicking at a mountain. The huge majority of that department is engaged in the redistribution of capital and the department must be held accountable for this and their own bloated overhead as well.

More importantly, people need to start looking at the budget from the departmental point of view (like business does) and not the spoon fed governmentally spun pie charts that we are used to seeing.

We are all dizzy from all the spinning.

[Hawk]

But I'm confused. How much (what percentage) was spent on Welfare ? Actually paid to Americans who are out of work. Lumping all that Heath and Human resources might include many things, right down to health care to Illegal aliens.

How did I know you were going to ask that Bill?

Personally, I don't care what % goes to welfare or to illegal aliens or to the little sisters of the poor--thats just nitpicking at a mountain. The huge majority of that department is engaged in the redistribution of capital and the department must be held accountable for this and their own bloated overhead as well.

More importantly, people need to start looking at the budget from the departmental point of view (like business does) and not the spoon fed governmentally spun pie charts that we are used to seeing.

We are all dizzy from all the spinning.

I think we all have to agree with you !

I'm surprised at how many departments come under Heath and Human Services. http://www.hhs.gov/about/ OR better http://www.hhs.gov/about/#agencies

But I have to hash back to my point, that you seem to agree with. Welfare is minuscule. 'Knit picking at a mountain'.

[MatchstikDrummer]

Welfare as miniscule as it may seem in some cases, is still a problem...Here's an opinion....Every Mother and Father in this country have a duty to their children to raise them to be the best that they can be...to strive to be morally and financially better off than they were as young Americans.....99% of Americans on welfare have been raised by parents who have been on welfare...I believe welfare is the problem it is today because of the failures of Parents to properly raise their Children....their is nothing wrong with accepting assistance in a time of need but their should be a limit to how long and how much these people can collect at the taxpayers expense...just as their is a limit on how long you can receive Unemployment Compensation...A Helping hand, not a Way to Live.

[lonewolf]

But I have to hash back to my point, that you seem to agree with. Welfare is minuscule. 'Knit picking at a mountain'.

Sorry Bill, the term "welfare" no longer covers the entire umbrella that the professional freeloader lives from. They have learned to get benefits from various agencies aside from welfare and I don't think anybody has tried to make a composite, since they are sub-sections of different departments.

The last I looked, welfare alone was in the vicinity of $300 billion. Then you have other agencies providing more benefits, like Medicaid, HUD (free rent), WIC and Social Security disability.

This is why you have to look beyond the term Welfare and look at what each department is giving away.

[Banned]

Can anyone tell me where the line in the Constitution says that the government shall take money from earners and give it to generations of non workers? The redistribution of wealth, created mostly by Franklin Roosevelt, is socialism, not free market liberty which is outlined in the Constitution. For all practical purposes, we actually live in the Socialist States of Amerika.

Now if you think I am an evil person because I want to end the entitlement state that exists now, I am all for helping folks that need help. I would rather do it on my own. Now if I was able to keep 90-95% of my paycheck (which is what the average American kept before we truned socialist), it would surely make it easier to help unfortunate folks in my neighborhood.

[lonewolf]

Can anyone tell me where the line in the Constitution says that the government shall take money from earners and give it to generations of non workers? The redistribution of wealth, created mostly by Franklin Roosevelt, is socialism, not free market liberty which is outlined in the Constitution. For all practical purposes, we actually live in the Socialist States of Amerika.

Now if you think I am an evil person because I want to end the entitlement state that exists now, I am all for helping folks that need help. I would rather do it on my own. Now if I was able to keep 90-95% of my paycheck (which is what the average American kept before we truned socialist), it would surely make it easier to help unfortunate folks in my neighborhood.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has a very ambiguous phrase in it:

"To promote the general welfare."

Liberal interpretation of this phrase enabled socialists like Roosevelt and Johnson to set the welfare state in motion. When the silent majority said "enough", the entrenched politicians and bureaucrats in DC cut welfare per se and created other programs to fill the gap. The vicious cycle continues, unabated.

Before Roosevelt, the poor and homeless were taken care of by religious organizations and at the state and local level, usually by the county government. Thats where the phrase "poorhouse" came from. Many counties maintained temporary shelters (poorhouses) for the poor until they could get back on their feet. Although they were generally safe and clean, there was little privacy and nobody wanted to stay there for very long. They were overrun during the depression, which led to more permanent measures by FDR. His mother didn't even like these policies and called him a socialist.

By my estimation, about half of the federal government spending is unconstitutional. If you read the founders' intent and the Federalist Papers, you will see that welfare as we know it does not belong in the Federal government AT ALL:

http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3130

[nakedtwister]

I'm awake now Bill. If you provided a service to me, say you were a roofer, and the cost of the job was $10,000. You complete the job and it is a successful project. I decide not to pay you for your services. You take me to court to sue me for the money owed to you. Does that make you a Communist? I didn't force you to do the job. (This of course is hypothetical people, Bill is not a roofer , and I hope I don't owe him the money ). The assistance programs are a needed system but come on, but comparing it to Communism is a stretch. The total abuse of the system is the problem. As others have stated here, to many people use it not to fall back on but as a way of life. Instead of buying birth control to prevent, in many cases unwanted children, they choose to use the funding for other more needed items such as beer, new cars, etc. Hey the more kids the more money right. I have seen and heard it first hand. You can like it if you want but I don't and won't. This country and our Constitution was founded by lawyers, scientists, generals, brewers, and businessman who in todays terms would be considered middle of the road. They were patriots not politicians. Some were slave owners yet they are considered heros by the majority of us. I don't have the answers to supply you, only my opinions. At some point patriots became polititions fueled by businessman who provided funds to see that " their men " were leaders of a country that could gain majority favoritism of the people. This in turn means more money for the businessmen. Therefore I conclude that big business runs this country. Oh and Bill the check is in the mail

[bassist_25]

Therefore I conclude that big business runs this country.

Damn, that's American politics in a nutshell. That would make a pretty easy political science class though. "Today's lecture is on who runs the country. America is run by Wal-Mart, Haliburton, and Big Oil. Any questions? Quiz on Tuesday. Exam on Thursday."

[Hawk]

I'm awake now Bill. If you provided a service to me, say you were a roofer, and the cost of the job was $10,000. You complete the job and it is a successful project. I decide not to pay you for your services. You take me to court to sue me for the money owed to you. Does that make you a Communist? I didn't force you to do the job. (This of course is hypothetical people, Bill is not a roofer , and I hope I don't owe him the money ). The assistance programs are a needed system but come on, but comparing it to Communism is a stretch. The total abuse of the system is the problem. As others have stated here, to many people use it not to fall back on but as a way of life. Instead of buying birth control to prevent, in many cases unwanted children, they choose to use the funding for other more needed items such as beer, new cars, etc. Hey the more kids the more money right. I have seen and heard it first hand. You can like it if you want but I don't and won't. This country and our Constitution was founded by lawyers, scientists, generals, brewers, and businessman who in todays terms would be considered middle of the road. They were patriots not politicians. Some were slave owners yet they are considered heros by the majority of us. I don't have the answers to supply you, only my opinions. At some point patriots became polititions fueled by businessman who provided funds to see that " their men " were leaders of a country that could gain majority favoritism of the people. This in turn means more money for the businessmen. Therefore I conclude that big business runs this country. Oh and Bill the check is in the mail

I'm sorry about the "Wake up please". I didn't really think you were asleep.

Your opening analogy has nothing to do with the proposal Reagen made, and what you thought was a good idea. So I don't get your point ?

Reagan proposed taking people without jobs and making them clean up D.C. or do other labor, for them to receive money. That's a hallmark of the Communist economic system ! The Union of Soviet Socilists had 100% employment. They gave everyone a job. But alas, it doesn't work.

There is a huge difference with us. We have a strong capatalist country. Rather then having "poor houses" and letting it up to neighborhoods take care of their own poor. The Feds use your taxes as a way to attempt to use it where it is needed.

Your example doesn't relate to Reagen's idea.

BTW Does your roof leak yet ?

[whitedevilone]

First off don't lump me in with the Bushies and if i remember correctly you had me pegged as a Rush man.Not quite.Do you ever turn off CNN.You have my respect for sure but everything you say is textbook liberal speak.I'm sure every abled body that doesn't work just can't find a job.And every downtrodden drug peddler is just waiting for that new day that big break and every muderer is remorseful and every baby raper can be cured ect....some people are beyond repair and aren't any good.Remember Workfare?Wonderful idea if they could have only gotten the work part of it right.Guess what nobody showed.Can't force people who can but won't work do it.Besides it degrading to force people to pick up trash or paint curbs.Wouldn't want to hurt that self-esteem oh no no no.

[Hawk]

First off don't lump me in with the Bushies and if i remember correctly you had me pegged as a Rush man.Not quite.Do you ever turn off CNN.You have my respect for sure but everything you say is textbook liberal speak.I'm sure every abled body that doesn't work just can't find a job.And every downtrodden drug peddler is just waiting for that new day that big break and every muderer is remorseful and every baby raper can be cured ect....some people are beyond repair and aren't any good.Remember Workfare?Wonderful idea if they could have only gotten the work part of it right.Guess what nobody showed.Can't force people who can but won't work do it.Besides it degrading to force people to pick up trash or paint curbs.Wouldn't want to hurt that self-esteem oh no no no.

Huh ?

[Hawk]

First off don't lump me in with the Bushies and if i remember correctly you had me pegged as a Rush man.Not quite.Do you ever turn off CNN.You have my respect for sure but everything you say is textbook liberal speak.I'm sure every abled body that doesn't work just can't find a job.And every downtrodden drug peddler is just waiting for that new day that big break and every muderer is remorseful and every baby raper can be cured ect....some people are beyond repair and aren't any good.Remember Workfare?Wonderful idea if they could have only gotten the work part of it right.Guess what nobody showed.Can't force people who can but won't work do it.Besides it degrading to force people to pick up trash or paint curbs.Wouldn't want to hurt that self-esteem oh no no no.

I'm for man taking care of his fellow man. If that is what a textbook liberal is then I am proud to hold the moniker. But you'd find me to be conservative on many other social issues. I'm for what I think is right. I don't fall in line with any political party.

Is the system abused ? Yes, by a small percentage. But it helps many !

Like I said. Communism is a purely social economic system where everyone is forced to work. Some of you "non liberals" seem to want to force every one to work menial jobs. Honestly that means you support Communism .

Try using paragraphs as you are hard to understand.

[whitedevilone]

Sorry about my unparagraphed ranting,didn't know i was being graded.I love how you overlook an entire statement untill you find one tidbit that you can take out of context.Workfare a form of communism?Picking up trash along the highway instead of sleeping untill 3:00pm communism?Sorry i'm hard to understand.Sometimes you're hard to take, but it's all good clean fun.Long live the debate!!!Gonna be a beautiful day enjoy.