Military spending is not more progressive now ("their point" but being used by you) and the composition of congress (your point) has changed nothing on military waste spending, which has gone up dramatically. Case in point, Ukraine waste (my question). See the connection.
It was a direct answer to the question. It still can be applied. You just don't like that someone used a real example to prove your "progressive / composition" points wrong. I used two examples, healthcare / military waste, to call out your bland attempt at progressive and composition progress. You set me up for a home run an I hit it.
You amended your answer later to reflect the question more directly later, realizing your mistake. Good for you. But you already wrote what you wrote and in the CONTEXT of my question.
You are still lying. That answer was not specifically related to whether military spending was more or less progressive now. It was related to whether Americans have the power to change the composition of their elected representatives. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. It had nothing to do with arguing that aid to Ukraine helps average Americans. The 'their term, not mine' phrase simply and explicitly referred to how the more liberal Democrats referred to themselves, not to any specific position on military or healthcare spending. And the phrase you quoted was never amended or edited. Even if you provided examples challenging my position, that doesn't mean my phrase was specifically related to either of your examples. Since those two areas aren't the only areas in which one could determine progressive vrs conservative lean, your exercise seems illogical. However, I have no interest in a substantive debate with someone who repeatedly mischaracterizes my position.
Perhaps the best approach would be to truncate some of your verbiage and repeatedly say that it is ceccione's statement in support of pedophilia.
The composition of congress has not been more progressive on healthcare or military spending the past two decades. Obamacare is a republican healthcare plan that has done has not reduced costs. And congress being more progressive on military spending more progressive the past two decades?
2002 military spending $320B 2020 military spending $778B
You should have answered by agreeing with me FIRST (best answer). Instead, you first strayed into bi-partisan bs and got called out on it but now you want a take back on what you yourself wrote and the context which you were addressing (my point).
Stop funding fake / endless / proxy wars. Period. The end. We need to take care of americans first. Ukraine funding does nothing for Americans except take and make weaker in the end.
You are still lying. That answer was not specifically related to whether military spending was more or less progressive now. It was related to whether Americans have the power to change the composition of their elected representatives. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. It had nothing to do with arguing that aid to Ukraine helps average Americans. The 'their term, not mine' phrase simply and explicitly referred to how the more liberal Democrats referred to themselves, not to any specific position on military or healthcare spending. And the phrase you quoted was never amended or edited. Even if you provided examples challenging my position, that doesn't mean my phrase was specifically related to either of your examples. Since those two areas aren't the only areas in which one could determine progressive vrs conservative lean, your exercise seems illogical. However, I have no interest in a substantive debate with someone who repeatedly mischaracterizes my position.
Perhaps the best approach would be to truncate some of your verbiage and repeatedly say that it is ceccione's statement in support of pedophilia.
The composition of congress has not been more progressive on healthcare or military spending the past two decades. Obamacare is a republican healthcare plan that has done has not reduced costs. And congress being more progressive on military spending more progressive the past two decades?
2002 military spending $320B 2020 military spending $778B
You should have answered by agreeing with me FIRST (best answer). Instead, you first strayed into bi-partisan bs and got called out on it but now you want a take back on what you yourself wrote and the context which you were addressing (my point).
Stop funding fake / endless / proxy wars. Period. The end. We need to take care of americans first. Ukraine funding does nothing for Americans except take and make weaker in the end.
Revisionist history. You don't get to decide for everyone else that the only measurements for progressive versus conservative are military spending and healthcare. In any case, your repeated suggestion that my quoted comment was intended to answer the question regarding whether aid to Ukraine benefits average Americans is completely illogical. The quote is a non-sequitur with respect to that question. If such aid is good for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. If such aid is bad for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. So my comment had nothing to do with the worth of the aid with respect to average Americans.
You are still lying. That answer was not specifically related to whether military spending was more or less progressive now. It was related to whether Americans have the power to change the composition of their elected representatives. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. It had nothing to do with arguing that aid to Ukraine helps average Americans. The 'their term, not mine' phrase simply and explicitly referred to how the more liberal Democrats referred to themselves, not to any specific position on military or healthcare spending. And the phrase you quoted was never amended or edited. Even if you provided examples challenging my position, that doesn't mean my phrase was specifically related to either of your examples. Since those two areas aren't the only areas in which one could determine progressive vrs conservative lean, your exercise seems illogical. However, I have no interest in a substantive debate with someone who repeatedly mischaracterizes my position.
Perhaps the best approach would be to truncate some of your verbiage and repeatedly say that it is ceccione's statement in support of pedophilia.
We need to take care of americans first. Ukraine funding does nothing for Americans except take and make weaker in the end.
It's a lost cause, Lolly. You are never going to convince the large majority of Americans that foreign aid is a bad idea. Americans have embraced the idea of foreign aid for hundreds of years, and have given away trillions of dollars ($$$$).
And it's by no means an American thing. As I pointed out to your dodgy mind, Norwegians have just recently decided to give $7.3 billion to Ukraine (it's a country of only 5.5 million people). I'm sure you can find a list of similar aid provided to Ukraine by the British, Australians, Canadians, and many more. You will never be able to convince all those people that foreign aid is a bad idea with no benefits. You should just reconcile yourself to the fact that you are (fortunately) in the very small minority of people who think differently about foreign aid and its benefits.
Right, Ukrainians over Americans. Are you Ukrainian?
If you want america to be the worst at caring for its own people, because you would rather it be the best at killing other people, you have lost the plot entirely.
Of all developed nations, america is the worst at protecting and caring for its own people, which makes america the weakest developed nation on the planet.
Japan doesn't even have marriage equality. Clearly, Japan is not caring for or protecting it's own people, which makes Japan the weakest (semi) developed nation on the planet.
Japan v. America in the real world:
The average after-tax salary is enough to cover living expenses for 2.1 months in Japan compared to 1.2 months in america when including healthcare costs:
Japan = $4,752 per capita US = $12,318 per capita
You think 1.2 months of expenses covered in america is better than 2.1 months of expenses covered in Japan because gays can marry? Ask gays if they want 1) marriage equality while being broke or 2) the ability to pay food / rent / healthcare.
See: Maslow's hierarchy of needs to learn more
Yes, Japan is weaker on marriage equality itself. And yes, america is MUCH weaker on marriage equality proponents surviving financially.
america doesn't take care of its people financially: POC, LGBTQ, women, abortion, guns, religion.... all of these people are screwed in american. It doesn't matter what side of these issues you take.
That's why america is the weakest developed country on earth. Can't care for your own people.
Stop wasting money on Ukraine and endless / fake / proxy wars and care for ALL americans first. Then go play war games with the money left over..
We need to take care of americans first. Ukraine funding does nothing for Americans except take and make weaker in the end.
It's a lost cause, Lolly. You are never going to convince the large majority of Americans that foreign aid is a bad idea. Americans have embraced the idea of foreign aid for hundreds of years, and have given away trillions of dollars ($).
And it's by no means an American thing. As I pointed out to your dodgy mind, Norwegians have just recently decided to give $7.3 billion to Ukraine (it's a country of only 5.5 million people). I'm sure you can find a list of similar aid provided to Ukraine by the British, Australians, Canadians, and many more. You will never be able to convince all those people that foreign aid is a bad idea with no benefits. You should just reconcile yourself to the fact that you are (fortunately) in the very small minority of people who think differently about foreign aid and its benefits.
You are correct on the lost cause (currently). Can only push / try to support americans first by showing how ridiculous it is to waste money on non-americans. Do this by sharing the current conditions in america itself, which is very easy, because we have been so bad, for so long, in so many ways. The developed world does laps around our feebleness.
People supporting ukrainians before americans is the overwhelming theme in this thread.
The composition of congress has not been more progressive on healthcare or military spending the past two decades. Obamacare is a republican healthcare plan that has done has not reduced costs. And congress being more progressive on military spending more progressive the past two decades?
2002 military spending $320B 2020 military spending $778B
You should have answered by agreeing with me FIRST (best answer). Instead, you first strayed into bi-partisan bs and got called out on it but now you want a take back on what you yourself wrote and the context which you were addressing (my point).
Stop funding fake / endless / proxy wars. Period. The end. We need to take care of americans first. Ukraine funding does nothing for Americans except take and make weaker in the end.
Revisionist history. You don't get to decide for everyone else that the only measurements for progressive versus conservative are military spending and healthcare. In any case, your repeated suggestion that my quoted comment was intended to answer the question regarding whether aid to Ukraine benefits average Americans is completely illogical. The quote is a non-sequitur with respect to that question. If such aid is good for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. If such aid is bad for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. So my comment had nothing to do with the worth of the aid with respect to average Americans.
Then give examples of how the new and improved "progressive congress composition" has helped americans FINANCIALLY. Revise your own history, Malcom, otherwise your answer remains:
How does billions sent to Ukraine help average americans in america?
~ “There have been significant changes in the makeup of Congress over the past two decades. The results are more progressive (their term, not mine)…” (from SeattleSilver)
Past two decades:
Healthcare: Since the end of 2007, healthcare prices have grown 21.6%, while prices in the general economy (measured by the GDP deflator) have grown 17.3%.
Military spending:
2002 military spending $320B 2020 military spending $778B
Revisionist history. You don't get to decide for everyone else that the only measurements for progressive versus conservative are military spending and healthcare. In any case, your repeated suggestion that my quoted comment was intended to answer the question regarding whether aid to Ukraine benefits average Americans is completely illogical. The quote is a non-sequitur with respect to that question. If such aid is good for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. If such aid is bad for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. So my comment had nothing to do with the worth of the aid with respect to average Americans.
How does billions sent to Ukraine help average americans in america?
You are basically saying that US foreign aid, or any country's foreign aid (like Norway) for that matter, is a worthless expenditure and/or investment for the provider of that foreign aid. Yeah, maybe in some cheap cynical sense, it's a waste of money. But, unfortunately for you most people are capable of thinking more abstractly than you would like them to. Most people can see benefits to providing aid to others in need that, while not capable of strict quantitative analysis on an ROI spreadsheet, are still present in abundance. You could think of them as qualitative or intangible benefits.
For example, Norwegians have decided that providing $7.3 billion in aid to Ukraine benefits average Norwegians tremendously in a large variety of ways. Average Norwegians won't see more money in their personal bank accounts, but they will all receive enormous intangible benefits from the billions sent to Ukraine. Same things with Americans. Again, most people understand that. You would have to be some dark, obsessed, confused weirdo not to.
Revisionist history. You don't get to decide for everyone else that the only measurements for progressive versus conservative are military spending and healthcare. In any case, your repeated suggestion that my quoted comment was intended to answer the question regarding whether aid to Ukraine benefits average Americans is completely illogical. The quote is a non-sequitur with respect to that question. If such aid is good for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. If such aid is bad for average Americans, it would be true whether Congress is controlled by a more progressive or a more conservative party. So my comment had nothing to do with the worth of the aid with respect to average Americans.
Then give examples of how the new and improved "progressive congress composition" has helped americans FINANCIALLY. Revise your own history, Malcom, otherwise your answer remains:
How does billions sent to Ukraine help average americans in america?
~ “There have been significant changes in the makeup of Congress over the past two decades. The results are more progressive (their term, not mine)…” (from SeattleSilver)
Past two decades:
Healthcare: Since the end of 2007, healthcare prices have grown 21.6%, while prices in the general economy (measured by the GDP deflator) have grown 17.3%.
Military spending:
2002 military spending $320B 2020 military spending $778B
The only relevant point is that the quoted comment was not in response to the question you pretend it was in response to. And that is true whether the comment is correct or false. It is true whether or not I provide examples to support my point. If I were to give an example showing an act of the Democrat controlled congress that was more progressive than past Congresses (such as the Respect for Marriage Act), would that mean anything with respect to whether aid to Ukraine helps average Americans? No, of course not.
I just went back and read the post where I wrote that comment (#13048). It was in response to your post in which you quoted an earlier post by me in which I stated my opinion regarding Ukraine aid that --"When enough taxpayers convince their congressional representatives to adjust that portion of the budget, or specifically to curtail aid to Ukraine, then it is likely to happen."
You disagreed, writing: "In theory, that would be a democracy. america is not a democracy. 1) representative democracies (what america is) are plutocracies. bought and paid for. 2) americans don;t care and, as we all know, they won't pull a France and hit the streets. they are too busy struggling to get time off to march. indentured servants. It would take millions marching non-stop and workers to stop the economy dead in its tracks to force decreases in military spending to match other developed nations. So get started. put on your cow horns and beaver pelt vest and hit the streets."
I then replied with the quote you have frequently repeated, and additional comments about Americans having the leisure time to affect Congressional make up and policies if they really cared. Now, whether you agree with me or not is immaterial. What is material is that the post to which I responded did not ask the question whether the aid was good for average Americans, and my response did not attempt to answer that unasked question. It was just what it seems, an opinion regarding the make up of Congress.
There are some interesting points to discuss in the topics touched on in that post and our related posts. But I'm not interested in discussing the substance with you because, as I have shown, I don't believe you deal honestly.
I think you have stolen enough of my time pretending the quote was an answer to a question that wasn't in the post to which I replied.
How does billions sent to Ukraine help average americans in america?
You are basically saying that US foreign aid, or any country's foreign aid (like Norway) for that matter, is a worthless expenditure and/or investment for the provider of that foreign aid. Yeah, maybe in some cheap cynical sense, it's a waste of money. But, unfortunately for you most people are capable of thinking more abstractly than you would like them to. Most people can see benefits to providing aid to others in need that, while not capable of strict quantitative analysis on an ROI spreadsheet, are still present in abundance. You could think of them as qualitative or intangible benefits.
For example, Norwegians have decided that providing $7.3 billion in aid to Ukraine benefits average Norwegians tremendously in a large variety of ways. Average Norwegians won't see more money in their personal bank accounts, but they will all receive enormous intangible benefits from the billions sent to Ukraine. Same things with Americans. Again, most people understand that. You would have to be some dark, obsessed, confused weirdo not to.
Right! Take care of your own people first, like Norway. Then, if you have money left over to give, give.
"americans will all receive enormous intangible benefits from the billions sent to Ukraine."
Ah yes, those invisible benefits that can't be measured seen or experienced!
You just made my idiot's list of failed answers with is flop. Thanks for supporting ukrainians before americans, yuh patriot!
You are basically saying that US foreign aid, or any country's foreign aid (like Norway) for that matter, is a worthless expenditure and/or investment for the provider of that foreign aid. Yeah, maybe in some cheap cynical sense, it's a waste of money. But, unfortunately for you most people are capable of thinking more abstractly than you would like them to. Most people can see benefits to providing aid to others in need that, while not capable of strict quantitative analysis on an ROI spreadsheet, are still present in abundance. You could think of them as qualitative or intangible benefits.
For example, Norwegians have decided that providing $7.3 billion in aid to Ukraine benefits average Norwegians tremendously in a large variety of ways. Average Norwegians won't see more money in their personal bank accounts, but they will all receive enormous intangible benefits from the billions sent to Ukraine. Same things with Americans. Again, most people understand that. You would have to be some dark, obsessed, confused weirdo not to.
Right! Take care of your own people first, like Norway. Then, if you have money left over to give, give.
"americans will all receive enormous intangible benefits from the billions sent to Ukraine."
Ah yes, those invisible benefits that can't be measured seen or experienced!
You just made my idiot's list of failed answers with is flop. Thanks for supporting ukrainians before americans, yuh patriot!
You contradicted yourself in the space of a few sentences there, Lollie. You agreed there are intangible benefits to average Norwegians from their $7.3 billion aid package to Ukraine, then emphatically stated that there is no such thing as intangible benefits.
You're wrong about the benefits of foreign aid. Life is full of intangible benefits, even if your apparent spectrum problem prevents you from experiencing them. Like I informed you, the US has been providing foreign aid for hundreds of years, amounting to trillions of dollars. We see and experience enormous benefits from that. At least the large majority of people do. You are one of the weirdo exceptions. Like some kind of aphasia you have. Spectrum issues.
Then give examples of how the new and improved "progressive congress composition" has helped americans FINANCIALLY. Revise your own history, Malcom, otherwise your answer remains:
How does billions sent to Ukraine help average americans in america?
~ “There have been significant changes in the makeup of Congress over the past two decades. The results are more progressive (their term, not mine)…” (from SeattleSilver)
Past two decades:
Healthcare: Since the end of 2007, healthcare prices have grown 21.6%, while prices in the general economy (measured by the GDP deflator) have grown 17.3%.
Military spending:
2002 military spending $320B 2020 military spending $778B
The only relevant point is that the quoted comment was not in response to the question you pretend it was in response to. And that is true whether the comment is correct or false. It is true whether or not I provide examples to support my point. If I were to give an example showing an act of the Democrat controlled congress that was more progressive than past Congresses (such as the Respect for Marriage Act), would that mean anything with respect to whether aid to Ukraine helps average Americans? No, of course not.
I just went back and read the post where I wrote that comment (#13048). It was in response to your post in which you quoted an earlier post by me in which I stated my opinion regarding Ukraine aid that --"When enough taxpayers convince their congressional representatives to adjust that portion of the budget, or specifically to curtail aid to Ukraine, then it is likely to happen."
You disagreed, writing: "In theory, that would be a democracy. america is not a democracy. 1) representative democracies (what america is) are plutocracies. bought and paid for. 2) americans don;t care and, as we all know, they won't pull a France and hit the streets. they are too busy struggling to get time off to march. indentured servants. It would take millions marching non-stop and workers to stop the economy dead in its tracks to force decreases in military spending to match other developed nations. So get started. put on your cow horns and beaver pelt vest and hit the streets."
I then replied with the quote you have frequently repeated, and additional comments about Americans having the leisure time to affect Congressional make up and policies if they really cared. Now, whether you agree with me or not is immaterial. What is material is that the post to which I responded did not ask the question whether the aid was good for average Americans, and my response did not attempt to answer that unasked question. It was just what it seems, an opinion regarding the make up of Congress.
There are some interesting points to discuss in the topics touched on in that post and our related posts. But I'm not interested in discussing the substance with you because, as I have shown, I don't believe you deal honestly.
I think you have stolen enough of my time pretending the quote was an answer to a question that wasn't in the post to which I replied.
The entire conversation was in the context of the Ukraine waste funding question. It's rhetorical. It just draws out unpatriotic idiots that support Ukrainians before Americans. If you had an answer to prove your point, you would have said it already. You are welcome to attempt an answer anytime. We know it doesn't exist so no need.
Healthcare / military spending getting more progressive FINANCIALLY because of congress' composition changing the past two decades didn't happen.
Some identity politics may have changed the past two decades (both progressive and regressive depending on which conservative right-wing party you support, the blue one or red one) but nothing financially has improved the past two decades for americans. Identity politics do not change based on military spending. Military spending just hurts americans financially.
Income inequality has gotten worse the past two decades. Interestingly, military spending has also gotten much bigger during that time. What a coincidence!!
2002 military spending $320B 2020 military spending $778B
The gap between the richest and the poorest U.S. households is now the largest it's been in the past 50 years
"The 290 million or so unlucky souls who make up the so-called bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, saw just 13 percent of the nation’s wealth gains between 2006 and 2018, not much over half of what went to the top .01 percent. Our bottom 50 percent actually lost wealth over that 2006-2018 period. The end-result of all this number crunching: Of that $13.871-trillion increase in inflation- and population-adjusted household wealth, $12.078 trillion went to the nation’s wealthiest 10 percent, leaving just $1.793 trillion to the bottom 90 percent."
