Do Future Generations Deserve to Suffer?

For what it's worth, here's my opinion:

There will never be a World War III.

Iran might not have "officially" attacked anyone, but they sponsor those who attack others. You tell me how that distinction makes it a difference.

 

LOL! I predicted that exact answer while I was writing my post. Typical canned, simplistic RW talking point response, no critical thinking required. Further highlights your inability to think beyond your own pocketbook, as amply displayed from the beginning of this thread.

 

So what? Care to explain your point?

 

There is no confusion really. There is only confusion caused by the socialism apologists. Socialism is a basic concept: Government control.

 

The problem is not the Right, but the Left that hasn't got a clue on how to get this economy working so everyone benefits. You don't do it by having a war on the rich or on our businesses. It's a war you can't win. The rich will always be rich but they and our companies can sure make us poorer. They don't have to stay here and put up with your high taxes and record regulations. They can move abroad and take advantage of lower taxes, wages regulations and little to no benefits being paid out. When these companies leave and take their good jobs with them what is left is what we saw with Obama;s policies. Almost 100% of the 12 million jobs created under his policies were service and part time jobs. Many that wouldn't pay a living wage, much less support a family. In 2013 alone, 77% of all the jobs created were part time jobs. How do Americans live on jobs like that? I have posted several times the jobs coming back under Trump's policies. Good paying jobs that Obama and Pelosi said were gone and not coming back. But the Liberals have a hot campaign going on trying to get as many people as they can to vote Blue. Why should we? The Left still hasn't a clue how to make this economy work for most everyone. If Obama's and Pelosi's policies are any example of building a good economy we will soon be a third class nation.

 

You should not complain about wealth redistribution so much when you are such a big fan of it. You love big Military spending/big Gov't, big Gov't spending and Corporate welfare - both which are made possible by wealth redistribution --- "Socialism".

If you are concerned about the suffering of Future Generations then you sure as heck should not be a Trump supporter. He spending our future generations into a hole. While it is true that others did the same .. Trumps spending is particularly egregious. Increasing deficits in a rising interest rate environment when the economy is stable is the pinnacle of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

Anyone who supports socialism is not concerned with spending someone else's money so you can stop the charade.

 

"Exploit to the maximum..."

It's what the Hollybrood elites do when it comes to maids, servants, and gardeners.

 

I appreciate & respect all civil & on topic opinions and sincerely hope you are right in feeling that there will be no WW 3.

In noting that Iran sponsors those who attack others, I assume you are referring to Iran's success in thwarting U.S., Israeli & Saudi Arabian sponsored Regime change in Syria & Hezbollah's ousting of Israeli invasions of Lebanon.

In both instances the frequently reviled Hezbollah is only "guilty" of defending an existing leader (Assad) & a sovereign nation (Lebanon) from hostile, foreign intervention.

In Syria, it was the vicious, Israeli, US & Saudi sponsored ISIS & Syrian Rebels(1) who attempted to oust the generally popular Assad (2) against whom the Iranian supported Hezbollah fought.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is only guilty of ousting repeated ruthless & bloody Israeli invasions of Lebanon during which the Israeli invaders massacred thousands of civilians & deliberately destroyed vital Lebanese infrastructure.(3)

Hezbollah's widespread, local, popularity is due primarily to support from local Lebanese civilians who rely on Hezbollah for repair and construction of civilian homes, hospitals, schools and even trash collection.

Briefly put, Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, is primarily a defensive organization that is bitterly reviled for thwarting Israel's repeated attempts to invade & occupy the vital Litani River basin and successfully defending Syria's Assad against one of the many Israeli orchestrated regional Regime changes.

In other words, Iran has invaded no one & it's proxies have aided in rebuffing foreign invasions, expansionism & attempted regime changes, hence the "sour grapes" by foreign aggressors in calling Hezbollah a "Terrorist Organization".




(1) "ISIS is a US-Israeli creation"
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/top-10-proofs-isis-us-israeli-creation/

EXCERPT "…but this article is written for the large majority of people in the world who still have no idea who is really behind the rise of ISIS. No matter which name they go by – ISIS, ISIL, IS or Daesh – the group has been deliberately engineered by the US and Israel to achieve certain geopolitical goals. They are a religious, fundamentalist, Sunni terrorist organization created to terrorize and overthrow certain secular or Shiite Arab nations such as Syria and Iraq, but they are not just “Islamic”. They may be Muslims, and they may be advocating an Islamic State, but they are very much working towards the goals of Zionism."CONTINUED


(2) "Syrians support Assad, but BBC won't report it, British baroness tells RT after fact-finding trip"
https://www.rt.com/uk/424930-syrians-support-assad-bbc/

EXCERPT "According to Baroness Cox, despite claims from western governments and media outlets, the vast majority of Syrians are thankful to President Bashar Assad and the Syrian and Russian militaries for fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL) and jihadist groups.
The Syrian people "are very grateful to the Syrian Army, to Assad and, I may say, for Russian help in getting rid of the terrorists. They are the perpetrators of the most appalling atrocities and killings."

However, British media like the BBC have done a poor job of accurately conveying this public attitude, Baroness Cox told RT."CONTINUED


(3) "Hezbollah"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

EXCERPT "Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings – it also boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members."[126]

According to CNN, "Hezbollah did everything that a government should do, from collecting the garbage to running hospitals and repairing schools."[143] In July 2006, during the war with Israel, when there was no running water in Beirut, Hezbollah was arranging supplies around the city"CONTINUED

 

What charade .. I am not the one that is not concerned about spending someone else's money. I regularly rail against big Gov't spending as I am concerned that we are passing this debt monster down the road.

You on the other hand support this big Gov't spending Trump administration - you support spending "someone else's money" - yet put on this charade/act that you are against socialism.

 

Not sure what the Hollywood elites have to do with it, I have never endorsed them, even though you may feel that someone who disagrees with Trump must be in love with Hollywood.

I am also not sure how some other person's bad behavior excuses one's own. However, that's how Doombug seems to roll, because he thinks that if big corporations exploit workers, he has an excuse to do it too.

It also seems the way how Trump supporters roll, since they think that Hillary's bad behavior somehow legitimizes Trump's.

 

Well if you support socialism that is being quite hypocritical. The main reason we have such debt is government entitlement programs. They make up most of the budget. Are you saying you want to get rid of welfare?

 

First we should get our terminology correct -Socialism in its pure form is state ownership of most resources and means of production. Very few in this nation support "Socialism" in its pure form.

Wealth Redistribution - while this is a socialist policy - is a different story.

I am not the one running around crying "Wealth Redistribution/Socialism" - as if this is some black vs white paradigm. I recognize that some wealth redistribution can be beneficial - roads, infrastructure, police, water, military and yes welfare.

The question is not - do we get rid of the military or keep it - all or nothing. The question is what is justified.

If we are living in black vs white land .. all or nothing - we never get to that question. This is the problem with your diatribe and the kinds of conversations going on withing congress.

We can not just get rid of entitlements - it is not going to happen. The idea that we are going to get rid of Social Security tomorrow is fodder for the idiot. It is not going to happen.. not under Red and not under Blue.

The fact of the matter is that much of this money was paid into the program by the worker. The fact of the matter is that SS was in the black up until a few years ago. The program would be 100% self sustaining had the Gov't not started to take(STEAL) the interest and put it into general revenue. For many years the program was contributing 200 Billion dollars or more surplus due to the interest. This money was put into general revenue rather than reinvested into the program. When they reported "net" interest on our debt it would be the "Interest on our debt" - "interest income from SS".

So you can take SS off your list of entitlements. 1) it is not really an "entitlement" if it is something you have paid for 2) The Gov't was benefiting SS for decades.

Healthcare is a different issue - this is a bloated monster. So ugly is this monster is that it would be far less expensive to go to universal healthcare. "Socialism Socialism" cry the right. 1) its wealth redistribution 2) we already have a largely socialized medical system so it is not like this would be a huge change 3) its cheaper.

Oligopoly- Bureaucracy Fusion Monster is a better term for our current system but regardless of what one wants to label it from a political perspective. Universal Healthcare would be far less expensive and deliver more.

The option is not "get rid of healthcare" or "keep it" .. this again is fodder for the idiot - its not going to happen. The question is do you want our Gov't to spend more .. or spend less. Do you want "bigger Gov't spending" or "less Gov't spending".

How about we spend less on healthcare rather than more ? Those crazy Socialist Koch Brothers - you know .. those well known communists - did a big study and concluded that universal healthcare would cost far less than our current system.

READ - https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

Total Military Spending - the thing that you have been ignoring because this is a Socialist program that you like - 1 Trillion dollars per year.
Should we have no military ? Of course not but, this is way more than is needed to defend the homeland.

In 2000 the "TOTAL" military spend was 300 Billion/year. After 8 years of Bush it was over 900 Billion and surpassed 1 Trillion under Obama.

Had we maintained the 2000 level spend we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium. Instead we threw that money down the toilet - to feed the international financiers that run the Military Industrial Complex and control our Establishment bureaucratic and political elite.

We blew that money on what ? A 16 year war in Afghanistan that has accomplished what ? A war in Iraq that accomplished what ?
'Was it worth it ? Selling our children's future to get rid of some puppet dictator name Saddam Hussain ?

450 Billion/year that is our annual interest payment on our debt and it has been that for decades -x 16 years and you can add another
7 Trillion dollars to the total - again feeding the hungry international financiers who own the Banks and the Fed.

Now you tell me that you support Trump massively increasing our deficit - estimated to be over 1 Trillion per year (almost double what it had been in the last 3 Obama years) ? Now I get that in times of economic instability debt is perhaps a necessary evil but now ? Racking up huge debt in a stable economy - but worse - in a "rising interest rate environment " is the pinnacle of fiscal irresponsibility.

The title of your OP - Do future generations deserve to suffer ? You have been on this site long enough to know that the Establishment is not acting in your best interest.

So stop drinking that nasty koolaid - wake up - and smell the flatus.