On Sunday, 29 September 2013 14:16:26 UTC-3, Hank© wrote:
On 9/29/2013 12:24 PM, John H wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote:



On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank©

wrote:



On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote:



On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they

are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in

military spending.



I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program

in the US.

That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart

about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every

powerful congressman in the country.

You certainly have plenty in your district



I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment

compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure

rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more

inclined to look for a job.





Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare.

Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's

base.



That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not

really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food

stamps.



Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID

card.



Well, work IS a four letter word. No self respecting public assistance

groupie is going to be tricked into earning his keep.

Quit picking on your little buddy from CT.
If too many of us do it, he'll get his dander up and not be receptive to the message.