I am a catholic conservative and a registered republican (I think). I believe in small government, a balanced budget, and personal responsibility. I am studying austrian economics on my own ( as opposed to the Keynesian model). I reject moral relativism and collectivism. I am an individualist which means I don’t believe in the concept of lgbt/women’s/black/Indian/some minority/poverty rights and unions. I am pro-life. I am Catholic. I believe in the constitution and the America and American values instilled by our founding fathers. I am against all government entitlement systems and the welfare state.
It was one wrong thing. One wrong text post and it was over. God dammit. That exactly what I said, too. That’s why I didn’t say anything because I make one wrong move, one slip up, and feverything is ruined.
I think I lost her. I think she’s gone for real this time. What am I going to do? She left so she didn’t hold me back not knowing she was my drive.
God damn it all. Why?
Damn you legend-ofkatie
Rules: You can tell a lot about someone by the type of music they listen to. Hit shuffle on your iPhone, iPod, iTunes, Media Player, etc…and write down the first 10 songs. Pass this on to 10 people. One rule: no skipping.
Dave, I understand that it’s the income of those over 65, but it’s completely unfunded. The promise that the government made to these retirees are not being completely met. They should be getting what they put into SS plus interest. But that’s not what’s happening. Getting less than what they put…
First of all, it’s not “unfunded.” Today’s retirees are “funded” by today’s workers. Like I said, due to the baby boomer retiree situation and longer life expectancy it’s on a path to becoming “underfunded” where things like the payroll tax rate, the benefit rate, the retirement age might need to be slightly adjusted, at least until the baby boomers die off, but the sort of libertarian think tank pieces you’ve probably read that are always trying to throw up combinations of out of context data to make it seem like we need to privatize SS or it will collapse in a death spiral in the next decade or whatever are just scare tactic propaganda pieces done by people who hate the existence of successful redistributive retirement programs like SS and Medicare that people of all political leanings love if they aren’t rich.
Most retirees get far more out than what they put in plus interest. If they don’t it’s because they were either rich and put way more in than most or because they died before 65 or shortly after and never recollected that much. The rich and die-young crowd are what keep it afloat for everyone else. It’s just how it works.
The idea of individualized accounts defeats the whole purpose of SS. SS is designed to help the average person who doesn’t have retirement savings be able to survive in retirement. Working class, middle class, and poor people aren’t going to have paid in a whole lot, so to tell them at 65 that their retirement will be funded by 6.2% of their lifetime earnings plus interest is basically telling them, you better hope you die before 70 or this is going to get real ugly.
Retirees aren’t being “cheated” out of money. They are getting what they need to survive and if they are alive long enough they will “get their money back.” If they die sooner you can consider it them getting “cheated” if you want, but that’s a really bizarre way to look at things. And just so you know rich people can collect SS. Some of them simply choose not to because they realize that would just be selfish, but some of them really are just driven so much by greed that they collect it even though they are wealthy without it (which unnecessarily drains the system of more money that could have been used on others that really needed it). If you take this ruthless rich person ideology to every topic a lot of things probably look like “schemes” from public education, to Social Security, to Medicare, to public roads, etc, etc. I can promise you this though…self interest always wins, so while you are young now and have the hope of being rich you can take the Scrooge mentality and say “grrr, schemes that are stealing money from good rich folks to pay for working class retirees suck,” but when you are like 60 someday if you’ve been middle class all your life you aren’t going to be thinking, oh I don’t deserve Social Security, I’m going to reject it once I receive what I put in plus interest, and I’m going to go around supporting proposals to turn it into individual account systems. You just won’t. That’s why no matter how conservative people are they love SS and Medicare. Only so many people can be rich in a free world, and for everyone else redistribution in retirement seems like a wonderful idea. Even Republicans get this which is why when waste was cut out of Medicare they tried to frame it as “Obama stealing from Medicare to fund Obamacare,” and there were all those Tea Party signs saying “keep your government hands off my Medicare” the ignorance of which brought tears of joy to me. In any other instance of wasteful duplicate spending cuts to any other government program they would have loved it. They know how much people love their retirement socialism, they know how much people love their education socialism, they know how much people who don’t have the time and money to build their own roads love infrastructure socialism, and as long as they don’t call it “socialism” it’s all good. It’s also why they fear things like single payer so much, because it is literally Medicare for all ages instead of just retirees and the rich know once it comes to America it will be as untouchable as Medicare. Unless you become rich you’re going to wake up at some point in about a decade and realize, damn, I love that my retirement income and healthcare is guaranteed, I love that my food, energy, healthcare, etc is subsidized by rich people’s taxes, I love that my kids can go to public school even if I don’t own my own property, I love that my road gets plowed and maintained, I love that my food and water aren’t loaded with mercury poisoning, etc, etc. Because unless you think, “I couldda paid for that stuff on my own and not had to pay for everyone else to get the same thing on top of it,” it’ll seem like a good idea….and only the rich get to think that.
No, Dave, it’s unfunded. An unfunded system, be it pensions, SS, or what have you, is when benefits are paid directly from taxes/workers contributions. It’s also called Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO or PAYG). Most European social security is unfunded while the US is system is funded by investment in U.S. Treasury bonds, so it’s partially funded, but still considered unfunded.
The US unfunded liabilities (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc) has exceeded $119 trillion.
So, i’m probably going to write another article titled Talking the Talk, but not Walking the Walk: Why everyone wants Big Government
Then go on about how both liberals and conservatives as well as other smaller groups like big government and use it to their benefits
I wouldn’t say that Israel has stolen anything. I would, however, say that all throughout the Middle East western powers like the US, UK, and France have a history of drawing borders for Middle Eastern countries, instead of letting them do their own thing. Western powers have done this for religious reasons and resource considerations. Iraq isn’t a real country, it’s three countries (the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis) that want nothing to do with each other. Syria is not a real country, with Christians, Shiites, and Sunnis mixed in together. Israel is not a natural Jewish state, and it only exists because the US gives it the military might to continue to exist where it is not wanted by its neighbors. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy upheld by US military backing in exchange for cheap oil. The whole Suez War in the 50’s was Israel (aka the US military), France, and the UK deciding to go beat the shit out of Egypt because they had nationalized the Suez canal. Etc, etc.
I want to get this out of the way real quick, and that’s this is more of a discussion of understanding than an argument. In any case, the reason my question was brought up was because I’ve seen a plurality of people wanting Israel to go back to the 1967 borders because all land gained from that war was “stolen.” I wouldn’t say stolen, but Israel definitely did expand from the war. On the other hand, I completely agree with you on the basis of these nations. Really, all these issues can be traced back to WWI with the fall of the Ottomans and the French and British acquiring and ruling these mandates, which covers the modern day states of Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. Completely ignoring the separate ethnic groups within the region, the Euro powers created this problem (same as they did in Africa). And yes, agreeably, the Sauds came to power because of US interest. As did the King of Jordan because of British interest and dealings for that matter. Basically, we agree.
The US has long taken the philosophy that might equals right when it comes to international affairs. In domestic life we would never say that someone could armor up and declare war on their neighbor and get to keep their land if they won. (even if that neighbor was claiming an
ancient book promised their family that land). We don’t believe in taking things by force, at least in theory. We also supposedly don’t believe in “picking winners and losers” when it comes to things like bailouts and subsidizes on a domestic business front, but when it’s international politics if we decide we have some religious motivation to single handedly keep a religious state in existence we are all about it.
This is true.
I don’t have a problem with Jews wanting their own Jewish state, and although I think it’s basically silly and suicidal to decide that this state has to exist in the heart of the Arab Muslim world, if they want it there, okay, try to have it there. However, the United States has zero interests in Israel existing where it wants to exist aside from the fact we are a nation filled with a lot of very fanatical Christians who think their holy texts say the Jews have to have that particular piece of land at the time when Jesus comes back to launch them up into heaven during the rapture or whatever.
I think this makes an interesting point. Jews could have (and I believe were) starting to aggressively buy up land in the mandate. Especially areas that were desolate and Arabs didn’t want (Tel Aviv). It would have been much better for these ethnic and religious groups to slowly declare their independence than to draw lines completely ignoring the local political interests. Iraq should be 3 nations, and I think a Kurdish state
is slowly becoming reality. I do think that the US should still trade with Israel, but I really also think that aid to the region in general should be halted. Lastly, I think there’s a technological interest the US has in Israel.
And see that’s the thing, I think it’s really, really wrong when we throw our military might around for “interests” like oil, upholding the particular dictators or whatever that we want within particular borders us or some other western power long ago drew, but at least in those cases there’s some kind of tangible real-world “interest” in play, like access to energy. Illegally invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam because we wanted western energy companies to have access to oil fields he had long nationalized was wrong, but at least based on some actual interest. This stuff with Israel is based 100% on religious superstition. I’ll give a million brownie points to the first US President, or even politician of any kind who has the balls to stop using all this stupid, vague rhetoric about “special friendships,” and “US interests” and “upholding US commitments,” and all that other bullshit, and says, “we like giving Israel tons of military backing and act like they are always 100% in the right because without us the Muslims would knock them off the map in a week, and far too many of my voters think a magical book says the Jews will own that land when their savior comes back to rocket ship them to eternal paradise.”
Israel has the capacity to protect itself. The US doesn’t have to do anything. The Arab neighbors have been to war with Israel and failed on multiple occasions to even win. Radical militant groups who’s purpose is to destroy Israel has failed miserably. The US doesn’t have to back Israel militarily or monetarily. There’s no need.
Talking more broadly about Israel and the Arab Muslims in places like Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, along with the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, etc, there’s no doubt about the fact Israel would love to co-exist in peace, and the Muslims will not be satisfied until Israel is wiped off the map. Muslims are the screwiest, most extreme religious group. Anyone who denies that is spewing liberal bullshit. Muslims in the Middle East are overwhelmingly fucked up thinking folks. They are going through the Crusader stage Christians went through a long time ago where they think the whole world must either worship like them or die. The Jihad culture should not be tolerated. However, what people tend to ignore is that the people we today call Israelis walked into the Jihad culture portion of the world willingly, deliberately, and knowingly. This isn’t a 9/11 style thing where the Muslim crazies are going into the western world to kill people that aren’t Muslim. Rather, they are like what the fuck, we were living here and then after that WWII thing all you western folks were fighting you decided to put a few million Jews down here in the middle of our third world Jihad shit and told us we had to tolerate them or face the wrath of western militarization.
I’m not sure why, but I found this kinda funny. Anyway, the idea of giving the Israeli’s a state of their own wasn’t that bad of an idea, but the execution was terrible. LIke I said, it should have been a natural independence movement, kinda like Jordan, except Jordan was filled with special interest between the now Jordanian royals and the British government. Also, it’d be more like the pre-Westphalia Europe during the protestant reformation than the Crusades IMO.
In a lot of ways there’s a parallel between the British Americans and Jewish Israelis. They were both running from religious persecution in their homelands, but what they ultimately did was find a land full of less advanced natives and used their superior military force to say, nope, now this is my land.
Eh. I agree with the premise. It was a little complicated for Israel because the land was controlled by Britain than what the colonists in the Americas found.
We didn’t have to enable post-Holocaust Jews to go into the Middle East after WWII. We could have just as easily given them refugee status in America or the UK or wherever. We didn’t need to set up a “Jewish
state,” following all this Zionism ideology and we most certainly didn’t have to make that Jewish state where we made it. The desire for a Jewish state and having it where it is, comes purely from religious dogma. When Christians are slaughtered in Syria we don’t have the UN set up a “Christian state” in northern Syria because there isn’t holy book talk of such needing to exist.
We cold have, but both the UK and US turned away the Jews when they were fleeing Germany and central Europe. I feel like part of it was to make up for that. But the desire for a Jewish state does come from Judaic text and Jews are free to declare independence to create such a state where they want, even if it’s in the midst of people who want them to die. But it didn’t need to be forged and created by a third party.
Most Israeli Jews are highly educated, financially well-off enough people that could very easily emigrate to Europe or the US, but they don’t out of religious stubbornness.
at this point, i think it’s more nationalist pride. Many Israeli Jews are going back to Israel right now.
If Mexico was still pissed about the Spanish American War and was constantly firing rockets at Arizona and New Mexico the people there would just get up and move to Utah or something; it’s common sense…unless you believe that some deity had especially designated the US SW as the place where you and “your people” had to live. It’s not the US’s job to militarily defend that kind of dogmatic irrationality.
Some people are stubborn for non-religious reasons. Some will stay because it’s their property and land. Most people tend to move out of war-like zones though. They stay because 1)they can’t leave, 2) they are the ones fighting, or 3) they don’t want to leave because it’s their land. However, we have had a similar situation where this happened in the US. During the Civil War in the south, when the fighting got closer, people moved out and left. So yeah, basically you’re right. But it would be the US military’s job to stop the attack on US soil.
When we look specifically at what is going on in this latest round of conflict it all goes back to those three Israeli teens. Supposedly the people that did it were not actually from Hamas, but obviously they were the kind of folks that were influenced by Hamas’ ideology, or at least an identical sort of Jihad thinking.
Oh this definitely goes back to the teens. It wasn’t Hamas though. Other militant groups in Gaza were responsible, which, there are a few.
That was wrong, no way around it. From there, Israel had this big crackdown on Hamas, going in and raiding homes, arresting all kinds of people, etc. It was certainly an overreaction and not the kind of thing we’d do in the US (like if three teens were killed by some sort of sleeper cell people we thought belonged to Al Queda we wouldn’t start having the CIA go and arrest and beat up a bunch of random Muslim citizens), but the climate is different over there and on some level you can understand the overreaction. The unfortunate thing that seems to have really set it all off was when during one of these incorrect raids Israeli security forces killed a 15 year old Palestinian who obviously had nothing to do with those three Jewish teens getting kidnapped and killed. Hamas basically used this as an excuse to begin an effort to start a war with Israel. Again, Israel is different and superior in the sense that when their three teens were killed they didn’t start shooting rockets at Gaza, but Hamas did start shooting rockets at Israel when their teen was killed.
The problem was that Israel erroneously blamed Hamas and Israel has to be level headed because they should know everything they do is under a magnifying glass by the UN and the rest of the world.
Everything up to this point is sort of whatever, but it’s how Israel has countered this rocket barrage that has people upset. Israel has every right to defend itself, which it does very effectively with the Iron Dome. What a lot of people feel they don’t have the right to do is send rockets of their own over, knowing that Hamas is trying to use their own people as human shields. Yes, Israel drops leaflet warnings, and yes their intent is to get the terrorists and destroy their technology (and the tunnels), but the Israelis know that Gaza is a low income, densely populated area where people have very little ability to “run away,” and even if they somehow did, they are living under Hamas which would kill them if they tried to do anything but be used as the human shields Hamas wants them to be.
People seem to be more upset that Israel is killing civilians and targeting civilian places. There have been a few incidents where Israeli rockets landed in civilian areas where no Hamas were found. This includes a beach incident, where 3 kids were killed from an Israeli rocket.
Hamas is sick, they are trying to force their own people into martyrdom to make Israel look bad, but Israel knows that what they are doing will inevitably kill lots of civilians. In fact, dropping the leaflets ahead of time and stuff basically allows the bad guys to run away and then they force the civilians to be there and get killed, so Israel literally ends up doing the complete opposite of what they were intending. This doesn’t take a genius to figure out. Israel can sit there and say they don’t want to kill civilians all they want, but they aren’t dummies. They realize that their rocket attacks are killing far more civilians than terrorists, due to the sick tactics Hamas uses, and yet they keep on firing away. There’s no point to this, and a lot of people who aren’t blinded by the “Israel can do no wrong,” mentality that has enveloped a lot of Christian American can see that this is basically just a huge violation of human rights.
Israel is in a tight bind and they need better solutions. Obviously Israel has done acts that deserve condemnation. However, they do need to figure out a way of disabling Hamas’ ability to shoot rockets and limit the civilian casualties. Hamas’ tactics make it difficult, like you said. Obviously rocket attacks into Gaza is questionable. The dummy rockets, texts, leaflets, calling, etc. still leaves casualties. Hamas tells people to ignore the warnings as well, which drives up the total. A ground invasion will leave several casualties on both sides and that will be condemned by the UN (except the US). Peace with Hamas isn’t totally out of the question, as Hamas hadn’t fired a rocket at Israel since 2012 per a ceasefire agreement.
But you’re right. The US needs to get off this “Israel can’t do wrong” thing and see the real world and conflict. The US should start condemning Israel for certain actions (after they know what’s going on off course). I’m not sure why the UK and the US did not want a human rights violation investigation in Israel. I guess it will screw with the narrative?
Sorry dave, I wanted to publish the submission, but Tumblr wouldn’t let me