KRC

After the second time he asked the question, she should have responded with, "How many deaths are you hoping for?"

I-L-L

Agreed that interventionist policies do justify a larger budget. So do things like updating the equipment used by our military, raising the pay for military (even if it is just cost of living increases), increased costs for supplies, etc. That is why I usually separate them as the latter can have nothing to do with interventionist policies and are strictly related to the costs of having a military. I believe that each are separate arguments and should be debated on their own merits. Reducing the amount of troops abroad (which I support) will reduce costs to have a military, but we also need to ensure that our military has what they need and are paid for the job they are doing. I am guessing we have common ground on the last statement, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. That is just my impression based on your previous postings, but I could be wrong. Another separate debate is on the amount of money that the DoD pays their contractors for work and supplies, but we can save that for another time. There is definite bloat that could be trimmed. You are correct that we want the current regime to go away. I believe that sanctions are working. Yes, the regime is blaming the US, but the Iranian people are seeing through that façade as you mentioned. I could go on for a while about North Korea (a particular interest of mine for a while), but I will save that for another time. I disagree that the rebellion would happen if we lifted sanctions. I think that the sanctions would prove to be a better environment to foster a rebellion. You can look at Maslow two ways. The first would be the way you are looking at it, meaning that if you satisfy the lower needs on the pyramid, a person will be able to focus on the rebellion as their basic needs have been met. However, you are still moving up the pyramid with more needs to be satisfied. I look at it this way. As long as the regime is taking away the basic needs of the people (whether sanctions are in place or not) the people are still not having their basic needs met. As you move up Maslow's pyramid, there is less motivation to meet needs until you get to the self-actualization stage (the final stage). At that point, motivation increases again. Therefore, I believe that there will be more motivation the lower the people are on the pyramid. I do believe that tax cuts will help those without jobs. They were still working at the beginning of the year and they have to pay Pelosi for the right to give their money to her political pals. Cut taxes so that the people can keep more of their money. As far as corporations and small businesses, they need an influx in cash flow in order to open back up. That is especially true of small businesses who do not have the cash reserves to sustain activities with reduced or no revenue. Once the country opens back up, these businesses will need cash on hand in order to hire people back and pay them while they wait for revenue to start to flow again. I do not think we are too far off on what is needed, just how to accomplish it. Giving more money to the government is not going to get it into the hands of the American people who need it. Let them keep their money and have the government cut their spending on pork so they have the money where it is truly needed (not in the pockets of political donors). Amazon is a large customer of ours, do don't say nasty things about them. ? You had me up to the end. I am more on the libertarian side where I want to reduce Keynesian solutions to economic problems. I look forward to the discussion. I will make sure I am in my safe space first. Will do!!

FIFY

Nancy Pelosi can help recommend some nice ice cream.

Another white liberal telling black people how to think and act.

There is a lot to digest here, but I thought I would dig into a couple items... You make a valid point of not pulling back troops. I think that he truly wants to get out of situations abroad, but is struggling to accomplish it. But, actions are more important than words. I would not specifically equate an expansive budget with interventionalist policies. That would be a separate issue. The budget is a problem that no politician has been willing to address outside of a few like Rand Paul. I do not like intervening in other countries, especially when it comes to elections. Hell, we can't keep fraud out of our own elections. How are we going to police elections in other countries? We could get into a war of words over whether we are sanctioning Iranian people or the regime (who is pushing the sanctions to the people while keeping themselves fat) and I doubt we would change each other's minds. Whether it is right or not is a different story. We are not going to agree on this, but you may convince me that some government intervention is necessary. To me, that does not mean massive social programs, giving money to the Kennedy Center, or giving free stuff to illegal immigrants. I think the government intervention necessary would be to responsibly deregulate to allow the private sector to flourish. People complain about evil corporations, but they are the ones that have the biggest impact on employment. You can help them at the same time you are helping small businesses. Combine that with tax cuts and tax incentives and you will see the economy get back to normal without expanding the debt of the American taxpayer. You mentioned the debt previously. That will continue to expand until Congress realizes that the problem is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem. They are unwilling to make the tough decisions. Therefore, we need to stop feeding their problem with new programs and expansive government. Stop continually raising the debt ceiling so that they can continue to spend more money. Everyone has to live within a budget. They are no different. Based on your posts in the GW thread, we are definitely not going to agree, but I respect your POV.

While I may disagree with your points to some extent (you may even have moved me toward your POV in some aspects), it is refreshing to see a well-reasoned response from someone on the left. Outside of one or two posters here that are left-leaning, it is usually just garbage which prevents any actual discussion. Thank you.

The information I hear is that he broke some rules during the selection process for the lander.

As I have mentioned on this board before, both of my in-laws are in a nursing home in the Philly 'burbs. There is no way we could take care of them with their increased medical needs, so pulling them was not an option. Current numbers: 124 residents (was 172, so some were pulled, others passed away) 69 are positive for COVID-19 55 are negative 21 are pending retests 28 deaths 5 staff tested positive They have separated the positive patients from the negative ones.

He doesn't leave his basement. How can he be tired already? How the hell is he going to do the job (rhetorical question)?

Commentators are allowed to have differing opinions and not just blindly repeat the company line? Holy *****. When did this happen?

I am sorry for your loss.

Sorry for your loss. Positive vibes sent to you and your family.

She also showed her willingness to be bought by foreign governments.

Isn't that what makes us a family?

Latest numbers from my in-laws' facility: Patients: 124 Positive: 68 Negative: 56 No pending Tests 3 in the hospital 27 deaths Thank you for asking.