14 Feb 08
The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm
Using the logic of those who murder babies, should we abort some seniors so they don't "inconvenience" the rest of us? After all, they've become parasitic consumers of precious funding and health care, plus their worth to society has declined to nil. I suggest that since Roe vs. Wade happened on the Baby Boomers' watch, we euthanize those seniors who had an abortion, performed an abortion, counseled others to get an abortion, or campaigned/legislated for the expansion of abortion rights. And if there are any Supreme Court Justices still alive who ruled in favor of Roe vs. Wade, then they should be first in line. Also, would it be hypocritical for any of the above mentioned to decline "their duty to the rest of us?"
14 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDid your mother have any children that lived?
The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm
Using the logic of those who murder babies, should we abort some seniors so they don't "inconvenience" the rest of us? After all, they've become parasitic ...[text shortened]... be hypocritical for any of the above mentioned to decline "their duty to the rest of us?"
14 Feb 08
Originally posted by shavixmirBut don't you think it would be ironic if we applied the same fate to the members of the "most selfish generation" as they applied to all their unborn children that they murdered? More importantly, from a fiscal standpoint, shouldn't these same seniors be "helped along" since they are such an enormous financial burden on the rest of us -- equal to $10,673 for every non-senior household?
Well, there's the problem with your argument already.
Who murders babies?
"Abortionists".
No they don't. End of story.
14 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI feel it my duty to point out to you that you are 3 brain cells from being brain dead😛
Why are you so obsessed with me? You're like those nutty women who read the supermarket tabloids and live vicariously through celebrity gossip columns instead of fixing up their trailers.
14 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterLook, dude, which part of abortion don't you understand?
Since you know so much about the horrible crime of infanticide, I have to ask: How many babies have you murdered?
It's not a crime.
It's not infanticide.
And there are no babies being murdered.
Besides this, I think if you really wanted to save money, you could probably cut back a lot more on the bombing of third world countries.
14 Feb 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThat's interesting that you think that the U.S. military budget puts a strain on the economy. Actually, it's remained quite steady over the years averaging between 4 and 7 percent of the federal budget -- even during times of war; meanwhile, expenditures for senior entitlements have ballooned to almost 35 percent of federal spending. Seems to me we need buy more bullets and shoot a few more seniors to "balance the books."
Look, dude, which part of abortion don't you understand?
It's not a crime.
It's not infanticide.
And there are no babies being murdered.
Besides this, I think if you really wanted to save money, you could probably cut back a lot more on the bombing of third world countries.
14 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo... this 1.000.000.000.000 for Iraq was budgetted then, was it?
That's interesting that you think that the U.S. military budget puts a strain on the economy. Actually, it's remained quite steady over the years averaging between 4 and 7 percent of the federal budget -- even during times of war; meanwhile, expenditures for senior entitlements have ballooned to almost 35 percent of federal spending. Seems to me we need buy more bullets and shoot a few more seniors to "balance the books."
14 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI love this logic. Basically you are saying that on the one hand abortion is "OK". However, we both know deep down its not "OK". Therefore, you then feel the need to justify an act you say is "OK" by saying that the US bombs third world countries so why not kill the unborn? Priceless.
Look, dude, which part of abortion don't you understand?
It's not a crime.
It's not infanticide.
And there are no babies being murdered.
Besides this, I think if you really wanted to save money, you could probably cut back a lot more on the bombing of third world countries.
14 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusSo at what point is the unborn a non-intelligent cell mass and when is the transition to an intelligent cell mass? Is it at the magical hour of birth when the doctor says "Abbra-cadabrra"?
Comparing a non-intelligent cell mass to a person is just silly.
14 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'm not sure where your getting your numers. But, according to our friends at the "Heritage Foundation," for the last fifty years federal defense spending has fluctuated between roughly 3% and 10% percent of the GDP. Given that the GDP is currently about five times the size of the federal budget, I don't see how your numbers could possibly be accurate.
That's interesting that you think that the U.S. military budget puts a strain on the economy. Actually, it's remained quite steady over the years averaging between 4 and 7 percent of the federal budget -- even during times of war; meanwhile, expenditures for senior entitlements have ballooned to almost 35 percent of federal spending. Seems to me we need buy more bullets and shoot a few more seniors to "balance the books."
Are you sure you're not confusing federal budget with GDP, or "percent of federal budget" with percent that the defense budget increased each year? From '05-'06 defense spending increased 4.8%.
Also, when you factor in estimated supplementary spending for the War on Terror, this years total military spending will be the highest it has been since WWII, adjusted for inflation.
Finally, if only to irrate those of you who like to vote Republican, the link at the bottom seems to discredit the conventional wisom that the Democrats are the tax & spend party. It almost looks like Clinton was closer to Reagan than either Bush. 😉
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s7.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s6.cfm
http://m.kut.npr.org/news.jsp?key=376433&rc=ne
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s4.cfm