Question about disability payments

Page 2 of 4  


Then why is it that relatively unbridled capitalism, as compared to those socialist countries, lifted more people out of poverty, resulted in less unemployment, and made the USA the most powerful country in the world?

I have no problem with roads. I do have a problem with an administration running ads to promote getting more people to apply for food stamps. See the difference?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When you think of socialist countries you think of dictatorships such as the USSR, China, and Cuba.
When I think of socialist countries I think of democratic socialist societies such as Italy, France, Germany, the UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and many other countries. So, the argument isn't against socialism, it's against dictatorships.
I have many friends from other countries. They prefer to live in those countries and only visit the USA on occasion. My friend, Neil, has excellent health care in Canada. Werner has no worries in Germany about his health care, his employment, his home, anything. It goes on like that...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How would you know what I was thinking? For the record, I would not limit the list to the above.

No, the argument is very much against socialism. I don't want the USA to become like those socialist countries.

Good. Let them stay there and we will all be happy. If all those countries are so smart and successful with their socialism, why is it that the USA is the only super power and has to do all the heavy lifting each and every time the world has a crisis. Those piss ants could not even handle Libya without the USA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote:

Don't worry. Most people don't like to live in a country becoming a toilet like the USA is.

You did a real nice job with Iraq you idiot.
And you're getting your ass handed to you in Afghanistan.

Yes, because Libya was threatening the world with catastrophe and destruction, and only the USA could bring down Gaddafi and by so doing insure that Libya would descend into the same islamic chaos that you visited upon Iraq.
The USA is the 300 lb retarded kid on the playground of planet earth. All muscles and no brains.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank you. A dictator responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, including the use of chemical weapons against his own civilians is dead. Iraq has a functioning democratic govt, that despite all the hopes of guys like you, has not failed.

Perhaps. So what? If you look at our overall track record, the hundreds of millions we've freed around the world in the last century, the overall record is an exceptional one and unequalled in the world. But of course, America haters like you like to focus on the gnats ass instead of the big overall success.

Doesn't matter. The simple fact is that it was the Europeans with the big hard-on for action in Libya. But they needed the USA to do the heavy lifting. As usual. Now if those European socialist countries are so all damn smart, successful, etc, why is it they always need the good old USA?

And the rest of the world, for the most part, is the little pussy weakling that when they get into a fight, they go running to the 300lb kid to save their ass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The truth hurts, doesn't it...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Evidently it hurts too much to quote.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Yep. Consider Sadaam: We invaded his country, evicted him from his homes, exiled his family, jailed his friends, confiscated his fortune, and killed his children. Eventually we got his skanky ass hanged. This HAS to have an effect on others similarily inclined.

You may be looking at Afghanistan through the wrong lens. Our goal in Afghanistan is not to win, our goal is not to lose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In reply to what HeyBub wrote:
Yep. Consider Sadaam: We invaded his country, evicted him from his homes, exiled his family, jailed his friends, confiscated his fortune, and killed his children. Eventually we got his skanky ass hanged. This HAS to have an effect on others similarily inclined.
Yep sure did have an effect alright:
Made sure Iran got to develop nuclear bombs. Made sure that any other dictator that wants to stay in power damn well better develop nuclear bombs from now on. Made sure all the freeloading countries can continue to mooch off the US military and taxpayers to protect them.
and
You may be looking at Afghanistan through the wrong lens. Our goal in Afghanistan is not to win, our goal is not to lose.
I guess you dont consider 2123 American lives in Afghanistan and 4486 lives in Iraq so far a loss. I bet you would be looking at it through a whole different lens if your snot-nosed brat had to go to fight. Too bad we dont have the draft anymore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/25/12 12:47 am, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

And according to a report I saw today, 300,000 US military and ex-military personnel are suffering from PTSD.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

No, I do not consider the 6,500 deaths a loss.
Our soldiers are volunteers. They joined the military knowing the risks but considered the opportunity to kill people and blow things up worth it. In that risk/reward matrix they are no different from mountain climbers, race car drivers, sky-divers, Chicago residents, and any other potentially deadly endeavor.
These folks are our warrior class. They serve for honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.
Fully 85% of those that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan re-enlist at the earliest opportunity. The remaining fifteen percent retired, were invalided out, or married harridans.
One of the most interesting consequences of the Iraq and Afghanistan episodes is that we do not have a field commander, from sergeant to major general, that has not led men in combat. That experience will be invaluable in either our next forays or in discouraging presumptive adversaries.
To use our president's terminology, these wars were an "investment" in the future.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Regardless if you think the deaths of your own troops were in vain or not, you can't argue about the foolishness of squandering your fighting manpower and hundreds of billions (if not trillions of your tax dollars) on those foolhardy military campaigns.
Or do you insist that that too was no loss?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you even make an attempt to look at the other side of the coin BEFORE your claimed they were "foolhardy military campaigns" ?? Or does the other side of the coin not count in your definition ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oliver Wendell Douglas wrote:

A reasonable question and it deserves a reasonable answer.
I consider our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan: 1. An "investment" in any potential near or medium-term necessity of a similar nature. 2. I'd rather have our "warrior class" killing people over there than over here. 3. Common sense says that our adventures dissuaded rascally behavior on others inclined similarily to Sadaam. 4. "Foolhardy" is in the eye of the beholder. I consider the killing of crazed Mohammadens priceless. 5. We decidedly did not "squander" our fighters - we TRAINED them.
It may be said that our activities in the Middle East merely incited a batch of fanatics as much as it tempered the dreams of the rational. Good. Bring 'em out of the closet and into the street where they can be more easily killed.
I think that's called "natural selection" (or maybe "survival of the fittest").
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:21:21 AM UTC-7, HeyBub wrote:

Aha!.. is that the new slogan you Neocons are peddling these days: these wars were an investment in the future?. First you noeidiots tried Weapons of Mass Destruction which didnt work, then you tried Bringing Freedom and that didnt work, now youre trying , these wars were an "investment" in the future bull s. Give it up. The only people that you will convince are neoidiots just like you.
And Im sure you dont mean to accept Obama as your president, if so I would like a citation where Obama referred to the wars as an investment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

No, Obama never said war was an investment. He did say, however, that Solyndra et al were investments. If he can make such a claim with a straight face, you should grant me the same believability.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you get into law school via affirmative action?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Considering that socialism is a creeping cancer of increased government involvement and control of every day life The natural progression is toward dictatorship

And compared to the US, they are in far WORSE shape thanks to all that creeping socialism that has left them flat broke and I debt to their necks. So no it's NOT about dictatorships It's about socialism driving countries into the ground because less and less people produce to pay for all those who don't A very apt saying from Communist Russia was "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work" Think about why that was so true.

How nice And yet the US is still the TOP destination for immigrants (legal or not) who want to improve their lot Why do you think those MILLIONS trump your few alleged friends ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Funny how idiots like to come out with phrases like "unbridled capitalism" Too bad it's a TOTAL CROCK, and an OUTRIGHT LIE to even try to imply it.

Socialist structures are very different from rampant socialism It's one of the way that socialists try to camouflage what they are doing The bottom line is where does one STOP using public money for the ALLEGED "public good"
And I won't even mention how MANY of the alleged "social structures" are done much better when they are NOT done with "public money" under DIRECT government control Look at USPS vs UPS, Fedex et all Look at private railroads vs government-run railroads Look at Government run communications vs privately operated communications
The government does much better when it limits itself to regulation environments instead of getting in to run them
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd word that, "the population".... when government limits itself... "
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
The government does much better when it limits itself to regulation environments instead of getting in to run them
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.