• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How the Poor and Working Class Can Finally Break the Democratic Party.

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The Constitution of the US says that the Government was to provide for the Common Defense and promote the General Welfare. There is a difference between promote and provide. Provide implies giving resources, while promoting is more like cheerleading. I will provide you a home or I will promote you getting a home by talking to the banks, does not mean the same thing. Provide means give someone something for nothing, while promote means I will help you, but you need to participate in your own need.

The main problem is the Federal Government was never told to provide for the General Welfare. This has compounded all the social problems. They now pay people to stay home and drink. If you promote sobriety, that would require the person participate in their own liberation. You provide money for beer they stay home and drink. The underlying problem is the DNC has learedn how to use tax payer money to buy votes and leverage dependency at election time; fear mongering, to assure these votes. More people on the dole will vote Democrat than Republican. The exception are the Elderly who will vote Republican since SS was a way to promote people to save for retirement. Democrats now rip off that fund to provide for illegal immigrants with the hope of leveraging future voters.

Every tax dollar that is given to the Federal Government shrinks by -22.5 %, due to the interest on the huge natural debt, and now also due to the higher interest rates caused by government over spending and printing money causing persistent inflation. All interests rate went up. This has stalled the economy. Most of this over spending is connected to providing for the general welfare and not just promoting good ideas. Bad ideas assure dependency votes and the growth of Government.

If all that tax money had stayed in the private sector, where it can be spent and invested, it will result a large positive rate of return for each dollar and add to the GNP. This means innovation and jobs and less need for welfare programs. The Big Government Democrats by borrowing and overspending cause the economy to shrink, with more people out of the work force on the dole.

The inactive work force in America, defined as all people over 16 years old is 100 million with 50 million retired. We have 169 million people who work. Say we added the 50 million not working (minus the retired) to the unemployment rate, instead 4% using trick math, we will get 21% unemployment, which is coincidentally the waste percent of our tax dollars.

We need to move all the social services back to the states and get rid of the ability of the Fed to privide for the General Welfare. Let the states provide for their own citizens. The duty of the Fed would be to promote good ideas and help the states, but not lord over them with money. The tax payers will get to keep that extra money. They can vote how much they will give, and how much the effort the perpetual unemployed, need to give. We can meet half way. I am not their slave so they need to be willing to help themselves. The other half goes to saving and the economy to help it grow and make new jobs, so the snowball of prosperity can reach all.

Making the rich oil fields of Alaska available is a way to promote the general welfare and will cost nothing but paper and ink. With energy prices lower all other prices and cost come down. This will also promote the general welfare and costs the tax payer zip. We can even place a small levy on the oil extract to pay down the debt. With Government smaller we can have balance budget; promotes the general welfare.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Ah, good, another personal anecdote that has nothing to do with the topic at hand!

Uh, you do realize you just completely and directly contradicted yourself, right? "I didn't say anything about Russia's GDP. I said Russia's GDP."

Yes, they spend a higher percentage of their GDP. I pointed out that our GDP is 12 times higher than theirs. So, if we spend 4% of our GDP, they'd have to spend 48% of theirs to match our raw spending.

You mentioned Russia's spending, as if it was relevant, as if them spending a higher percentage of GDP means something. I was pointing out that "percentage of GDP" is useful to a point. Think of it like this. An ant can lift 10+ times its body weight. An average human can lift (let's say bench press) at best 1x their body weight (even that is stretching it). Yet, even though that ant can lift so much more relative to its size, the human can still crush it.

I guess that's easier than actually engaging when you've made a claim. Nothing I've said is disingenuous. You claimed that you want Europe to spend more on "defense", so the U.S. can stop spending so much to protect them. All I've done is ask for your reasoning for that, since the U.S. doesn't really protect Europe, and Europe's military spending doesn't affect America's. You did finally address it to a point in talking about American military members and bases stationed in Europe. But you failed to address the follow-up questions about it, instead focusing on the point about Russia's GDP, despite that being a tangent, rather than a really important point.
Alrighty then. I've answered your questions but I'm done with answering them.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Alrighty then. I've answered your questions but I'm done with answering them.
You haven't, but yes, I gathered you're done with trying to justify your earlier claim. To be clear, you made the point that we have bases and military stationed in Europe, and that if Europe would spend more, we wouldn't have to keep so many over there. The questions you haven't answered are:

1) Are those bases and military members stationed there because Europe doesn't spend enough? Would they actually come home, if Europe spent more? Or are they there regardless of how much Europe spends?

2) Even if Europe spent more and it resulted in us bringing home those troops, how much would that realistically save us?

Obviously, you don't have to try to answer those, but if you want to support your original claim, those answers would be necessary.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
You haven't, but yes, I gathered you're done with trying to justify your earlier claim. To be clear, you made the point that we have bases and military stationed in Europe, and that if Europe would spend more, we wouldn't have to keep so many over there. The questions you haven't answered are:

1) Are those bases and military members stationed there because Europe doesn't spend enough? Would they actually come home, if Europe spent more? Or are they there regardless of how much Europe spends?

2) Even if Europe spent more and it resulted in us bringing home those troops, how much would that realistically save us?

Obviously, you don't have to try to answer those, but if you want to support your original claim, those answers would be necessary

We are obliged by Treaty to defend other NATO countries. Hard to do when we are troops are in the US rather than in Europe.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
We are obliged by Treaty to defend other NATO countries. Hard to do when we are troops are in the US rather than in Europe.
Assuming we need troops stationed there for that.

But that would imply that it doesn't matter how much Europe spends on their militaries; we'll still need to keep our bases and troops there, which would negate Kathryn's point.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Assuming we need troops stationed there for that.
I was stationed in Europe during the 80's and was involved in two REFORGER exercises. Unless you are advocating for the Nuclear Trip Wire strategy, we need to have boots on the ground in Europe. The logistics of getting them there AFTER hostilities have broken out are extremely fragile. Tanks and other heavy equipment have to be moved by sea, putting them at risk on the high seas. Once there, they need to be supplied with replacement equipment and parts, food, clothing and fuel, nearly all of which would move by sea and take days to arrive on site.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The Democrat Party has moved so far left, its left America. Wokism, {identity politics) animate it, not working class issues.
Compared to the rest of the world, the Democrat Party is right-wing.
The leftist claim to be for the working people, yet hate the working people seeing the 'proletariat ' as being too dumb to manage themselves, needing the strong hand of government to direct them. They need more and more government statism to correct real and unreal enemies. today its not about quality but equity.
Sounds like you've just described Republicans, to me.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I was stationed in Europe during the 80's and was involved in two REFORGER exercises. Unless you are advocating for the Nuclear Trip Wire strategy, we need to have boots on the ground in Europe. The logistics of getting them there AFTER hostilities have broken out are extremely fragile. Tanks and other heavy equipment have to be moved by sea, putting them at risk on the high seas. Once there, they need to be supplied with replacement equipment and parts, food, clothing and fuel, nearly all of which would move by sea and take days to arrive on site.
My ex husband was also involved in several REFORGER exercises. We were there from 89 till 91. In fact, I was the last officer's wife to be head of the last Officer's Club in Aschaffenburg and our tour got cut short because the post was closing. I wonder if we have tried manning troops in Europe without their families. Seems like a good way to cut expenses. My gosh, as the post was closing, there was so much waste involved, it was ridiculous
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
My ex husband was also involved in several REFORGER exercises. We were there from 89 till 91. I wonder if we have tried manning troops in Europe without their families.

Now this is from menory.
Another version is to keep the supplies and material in Europa but only move the troops by plane, when needed.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I was stationed in Europe during the 80's and was involved in two REFORGER exercises. Unless you are advocating for the Nuclear Trip Wire strategy, we need to have boots on the ground in Europe. The logistics of getting them there AFTER hostilities have broken out are extremely fragile. Tanks and other heavy equipment have to be moved by sea, putting them at risk on the high seas. Once there, they need to be supplied with replacement equipment and parts, food, clothing and fuel, nearly all of which would move by sea and take days to arrive on site.
All that is fine, but it contradicts Kathryn's point. According to this, it doesn't matter how much Europe spends on their militaries; we'd still need to keep our bases and troops there.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
All that is fine, but it contradicts Kathryn's point. According to this, it doesn't matter how much Europe spends on their militaries; we'd still need to keep our bases and troops there.
It actually doesn't, if we could limit the amount of household goods and families we are paying for throughout Europe,
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Now this is from menory.
Another version is to keep the supplies and material in Europa but only move the troops by plane, when needed.
I know that in South Korea, you have to get special dispensation so to speak, for your family to accompany you generally speaking. Tours of Duty tend to be a lot less expensive and they are limited to one year often.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I know that in South Korea, you have to get special dispensation so to speak, for your family to accompany you generally speaking. Tours of Duty tend to be a lot less expensive and they are limited to one year often.

Whatever. Stay on the topic, please.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
it doesn't matter how much Europe spends on their militaries; we'd still need to keep our bases and troops there.
That is what I am saying. We need to be there.

During the Cold War, we prepositioned much of the equipment we needed to fight a conventional war in Europe. POMCUS sites. The troops could be brought over by air. The US Government could nationalize airliners to accomplish this.
 
Top