my kind of "hope and change"

[GoDrex]

The millitary should just bomb the octo-mom's house. You know, before she sprouts those metal arms and goes on a rampage. :laughing7:

The woman is nuts for sure - though she certainly never could have expected to have 8 babies. But she should never have gone for one more in the first place. The doctors who allowed her to continue really ought to be disciplined in some way. Not sure what the procedure rules or ethics are in this case.  Regardless, she's going to get help from people. She's just another thing for angry guys to have something to moan about when they're on their period (see what I did there hehehe).  :laughing7:

 

[stubhead]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html

I think "octo-mom" (great name! :icon_smile should be sterilized, and her children sold to the highest bidder. There are way too many people in the world, and unlike liberals, I'm not a fan of feeding them - famine and plague are good things. But again, it's an issue of perspective - the TV networks want you to focus on a single, disgusting example of irresponsibility, while all around you you're being robbed blind by corporations allied with the giant corporations that own the TV networks.

Did you know that GE is the second-largest defense contractor in America, and hence makes tens of billions of dollars a year for every year the Iraq occupation continues? Did you know that GE owns NBC, CSNBC.... Jack Welch was their CEO in 2000, and in his book "Winning", he specifically described calling NBC's senior political reporters into his office and telling them that as GE employees, it was their job to push for George Bush's election. After Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" ran a couple of shows featuring Republicans extremely critical of the post-campaign debacle, the Supreme Court handed Bush the election... and Russert signed a 40 million dollar contract. And, NBC is the liberalest network....

Here's fun for you calculator-handy types - figure out how much it will cost *someone* to cloth, feed and raise all of octo-mom's squirmies till they're 18 and can write books and go on talk shows. Figure out how many minutes/hours that amount of money will run one aircraft carrier, with all the scores of jet fighters burning OIL, practice bombing - pensions for the generals - etc. What has that aircraft carrier done for YOU lately? Caught Osama bin Laden?

 

[dbw]

A million dollars will raise all 8 of the octo-kids until they're 18 and then some.

Or we could launch ONE missile.

Defense is obscenely expensive, probably because of all the shady no-bid contracts...

 

[Lucky #7]

Or perhaps it's obscenely expensive because technology is obscenely expensive.  We have a vested interest in staying way the hell out in front of the rest of the world in terms of defense.  Especially in this day and age with terrorist organizations actively plotting against the US and the issue of Russia's return to its nationalistic roots cannot be understated.  They aren't an issue yet, but if they keep going on the path their on, they could become a rather large problem in the next ten years.

stub,

Here's the problem with you're reasoning.  You assume that no one with half a brain knows that news is motivated by ratings and ad dollars.  I don't watch it much and laugh at it a good portion of the time when I do.  Some of the things they say and ideas they push are so idiotic it's nearly indescribable.

As for welfare, again, no one said kill it or even spend less.  What we said was spend smarter and run it smarter and if that takes some more money then so be it.  I think, as I said before, that running that organization more efficiently and putting up more dollars now would ultimately make it cost less in the long run.  Stating that defense spending is higher is just a Captain Obvious moment.

 

[GoDrex]

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[tfarny]

Lucky, then we're in total agreement! The only difference is in what makes us mad - octomom and spending on volcano monitoring, or squandering of billions by Halliburton et al., or massive massive white collar crime (straight up fraud) perpetrated by the heads of banking / finance, almost totally unpoliced (i.e., regulated), the result of which is that our major banks are insolvent and unable to lend money to keep the rest of the economy going. Or the fact that we spend more on NASA experiments about whether spiders can spin webs in zero G than we do on protecting the environment or the safety of our food supply?
Octomom doesn't really make me mad at all.

 

[Lucky #7]

octomom, as stupid as she is, actually needs the welfare.  The 22 year old who just doesn't have any desire to do anything but play playstation and eat doritos are the folks I'm talking about.

 

[Superlizard]

The reason I included the possibility of that other stuff is that you could call it 'welfare' and then you'd have a bigger number with which to argue the conservative side.

Pointless... and ridiculous.

I was answering your request for a source, chill out!

First of all, I wasn't asking you for a source - I'm sure Stub can provide his own on his own time.  Second, speaking of "chill", you need to stop being intellectually dishonest in these discussions if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Superlizard]

Oh, the octo-mom. That is a horrendous story. What do I think about her? Well, I don't think the government should let her kids be homeless or starve to death, it's not their fault.

True, but again - I didn't ask your opinion about her kids, I asked your opinion about her.  Should we the people support people like that?

I also wonder how much of your dollar goes to supporting that one, ridiculous, terrible example, versus how much of your dollar was wasted by Blackwater and Halliburton in the earlier phases of the Iraq war. You could look that up, though the real numbers will never be known.

Explain to me how:

- If the real numbers will never be known

then

- how do you even know what percentage of our dollars are wasted on Blackwater and Haliburton vs. towards the octo-mom and her kind?

- how can you even insinuate anything if the real numbers aren't known?

It's "logic" like that which makes me question the authenticity of your (and others who share your opinion) statements.

And said "logic" just reeks of "tinfoil hat syndrome".  There's always some conspiracy around every corner with some of you guys...   :dontknow:

 

[Superlizard]

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

I'm not sure what your point is with this quote - are you insisting that our nation is not meshing the industrial and military machinery of defense with peaceful methods and goals (so that security and liberty may prosper together)?

 

[Superlizard]

Here's fun for you calculator-handy types - figure out how much it will cost *someone* to cloth, feed and raise all of octo-mom's squirmies till they're 18 and can write books and go on talk shows. Figure out how many minutes/hours that amount of money will run one aircraft carrier, with all the scores of jet fighters burning OIL, practice bombing - pensions for the generals - etc. What has that aircraft carrier done for YOU lately? Caught Osama bin Laden?

Speaking of fun, I suggest you march up to the nearest military base and ask them that same question.  :icon_biggrin:

Please don't tell me you are of the opinion that we have no need for a military...

 

[tfarny]

Uh, how do you support the kids without supporting the mom, except by breaking up the family, and on what legal grounds would you support doing that? So, octomom gets a free ride, and that's too bad. Big deal, since the whole program is 1/20th the annual defense budget. Priorities, that was the point.

You suggest that people who think there was fraud in the Iraqi reconstruction 'process' are tinfoil hatters? Since we may not be able to put an exact figure on the cost of the fraud, that it didn't occur? Read something once in a while, I keep giving you respectable mainstream sources of information:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/01/iraq/main4767378.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html
If you don't want to bother to read the links I posted: According to the Pentagon's own watchdog office, there may be more fraud involved in Iraqi reconstruction than the entire cost of AFDC. So, who cares about octo-mom?  The outrage is misplaced.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a little kid - you say "source?", I provide one, then you ignore my evidence and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. I think I'll check out of this one for a while, it's becoming a drag again.

 

[Lucky #7]

Why is the defense budget so relevant that it makes the welfare budget not?  Using your argument I should go out and buy a new tv because it's only a very small fraction of our housing budget.  Let's see if it's no big deal.  The defense budget is not germane to whether or not the welfare budget is being mishandled.  Hell, it's a completely different discussion.

 

[GoDrex]

watch out tfarny - he's getting ready to call you a hormonal woman! :laughing7:

wait... does that come after crack pipe or tin foil hat? :laughing8:

"tinfoil hat syndrome"

I guess it's next! hahahaha :laughing7:

 

[Superlizard]

watch out tfarny - he's getting ready to call you a hormonal woman! :laughing7:

wait... does that come after crack pipe or tin foil hat? :laughing8:

"tinfoil hat syndrome"

I guess it's next! hahahaha :laughing7:

Well, that's certainly more than you can say.  What have you brought to this discussion other than snarky comments and a quote?  :icon_thumright:

 

[Superlizard]

Why is the defense budget so relevant that it makes the welfare budget not?  Using your argument I should go out and buy a new tv because it's only a very small fraction of our housing budget.  Let's see if it's no big deal.  The defense budget is not germane to whether or not the welfare budget is being mishandled.  Hell, it's a completely different discussion.

I'm not getting the connection either, although my spidey-sense tells me it's yet another conspiracy of sorts.

 

[GoDrex]

I'm not getting the connection either, although my spidey-sense tells me it's yet another conspiracy of sorts.

damn! hormonal woman was supposed to be next! :laughing7:

 

[Superlizard]

Uh, how do you support the kids without supporting the mom, except by breaking up the family, and on what legal grounds would you support doing that? So, octomom gets a free ride, and that's too bad. Big deal, since the whole program is 1/20th the annual defense budget. Priorities, that was the point.

Technically speaking, since the taxpayers are actually financially supporting these kids, they should have a say in how "their" children are being raised.  Perhaps the best thing for said kids is to put them in another home; considering the mom doesn't work.  And at the very least, pictures of the kids (for the taxpayers), so they know who they're raising as a "surrogate parent".   :icon_biggrin:

You suggest that people who think there was fraud in the Iraqi reconstruction 'process' are tinfoil hatters? Since we may not be able to put an exact figure on the cost of the fraud, that it didn't occur? Read something once in a while, I keep giving you respectable mainstream sources of information:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/01/iraq/main4767378.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html
If you don't want to bother to read the links I posted: According to the Pentagon's own watchdog office, there may be more fraud involved in Iraqi reconstruction than the entire cost of AFDC. So, who cares about octo-mom?  The outrage is misplaced.

Remind me how we (actually, you) went from welfare and Octo-mom to Iraqi reconstruction fraud....? ? ?

(Is this another shell game?  Now it's here, and now it isn't!  It's over there!   :toothy12:  )

Seriously, what's the link between the two, and how does that discredit/disprove my (and others) opinions on the welfare system?

Arguing with you is like arguing with a little kid - you say "source?", I provide one, then you ignore my evidence and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. I think I'll check out of this one for a while, it's becoming a drag again.

 

I read your "links" (one most definitely an op-ed, but I digress)... what I'd like to know is how exactly your links provide proof for the following (quoted by Stub):

...for every two hundred dollars spent on the Defense budget, less than one dollar went to Families with Dependent Children, school lunches, food stamps... it's probably more like 400 to 1 now.

Where are the numbers in your links that prove Stubs' quote?  Oddly enough (well, not really), there's no mention whatsoever of "Families with Dependent Children, school lunches, food stamps", nor is there any mention of the numbers.  Just Iraqi reconstruction fraud.

This is what I mean when I say "intellectually dishonest"...

 

[tfarny]

Lucky007, I'm not suggesting that welfare fraud is ok, I'm suggesting that we spend so little on it relative to other items that it's not the best thing to get all worked up about. To borrow your analogy, if you’ve lost your job and your mortgage is 100k underwater, the price of your TV isn’t the thing you should be most worried about.  Welfare stuff is just not a major deal at this point in our history, whereas the ginormous costs of, say, the Iraq war, are.

It's like during the last presidential campaign, John McCain kept bringing up the cost of some study to catalog grizzly bear DNA and never once mentioned the cost of NASA, which probably provides less scientific benefit at this point than a few good DNA studies and costs more than the entire welfare state system. It's the old "forest for the trees" syndrome, is what I'm suggesting, and some highly placed people really want to prevent average citizens from seeing the forest.  If we could take the 8 billion $ we spent last year on missile defense, to no benefit whatsoever except increasing tensions with Russia, and instead get health insurance to all of the kids whose parents will be out of work when GM goes bankrupt, knowing that some of that money will be wasted on cuddly toys, I’d be pretty happy with the deal. There is a clear connection between how much we spend on one thing and what we can do with another. Half of the money spent on ‘defense’ worldwide was spent by the US, and you don't have to be a hippy pacifist to think that that's way too much, and wanting to convert say 20% of that money to social programs, education, or science doesn't make somebody a 'socialist'.

Oh, politics threads, Ah wish I could quit you…

 

[Superlizard]

damn! hormonal woman was supposed to be next! :laughing7:

Translation:

Maaaaatt Daaaamon!

:toothy10: