(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

Same place the Republicans will find it to pay for their increases in the military.

(04-06-2016 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

Same place the Republicans will find it to pay for their increases in the military.

Of course military spending is Constitutionally mandated.......can you tell me which Amendment makes it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a college education?

(04-06-2016 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

Same place the Republicans will find it to pay for their increases in the military.

Of course military spending is Constitutionally mandated.......can you tell me which Amendment makes it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a college education?

That has nothing to do with it. We have a military and no one is suggesting scrapping it.

(04-06-2016 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

Same place the Republicans will find it to pay for their increases in the military.

Of course military spending is Constitutionally mandated.......can you tell me which Amendment makes it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a college education?

That has nothing to do with it. We have a military and no one is suggesting scrapping it.

It's not a valid comparison. One is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the other is a leftist fantasy.

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

From the same people who donated $45million to his campaign in March. They just dont realize it yet.

(04-06-2016 04:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

From the same people who donated $45million to his campaign in March. They just dont realize it yet.

You don't realize it yet, but all those $25 donations by all those young people will turn in to free college and the absolving of college debt. It's like buying a lottery ticket that you just know is a winner. OR, they think Bernie can deliver by absconding with Other People's Money and give to those poor young folks. Easy Peasy!!

(04-06-2016 04:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

Same place the Republicans will find it to pay for their increases in the military.

Of course military spending is Constitutionally mandated.......can you tell me which Amendment makes it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a college education?

That has nothing to do with it. We have a military and no one is suggesting scrapping it.

It's not a valid comparison. One is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the other is a leftist fantasy.

Yes it is a valid comparison. The constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times bigger than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined. If it does, please point that out. With that logic, we should spend ALL our money on the military.

(04-06-2016 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Same place the Republicans will find it to pay for their increases in the military.

Of course military spending is Constitutionally mandated.......can you tell me which Amendment makes it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a college education?

That has nothing to do with it. We have a military and no one is suggesting scrapping it.

It's not a valid comparison. One is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the other is a leftist fantasy.

Yes it is a valid comparison. The constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times bigger than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined. If it does, please point that out. With that logic, we should spend ALL our money on the military.

We don't. China is about 1 million larger and India is only 25-30k smaller. North Korea is is a little less than 200k smaller.

When you can get your facts straight get back to me.

(04-06-2016 04:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

Same place the Republicans will find it to pay for their increases in the military.

Of course military spending is Constitutionally mandated.......can you tell me which Amendment makes it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a college education?

That has nothing to do with it. We have a military and no one is suggesting scrapping it.

It's not a valid comparison. One is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the other is a leftist fantasy.

Those crazy leftists that run the state of Tennessee have already started down that path:
http://republic3-0.com/tennessee-promise...-students/

(04-06-2016 04:50 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

From the same people who donated $45million to his campaign in March. They just dont realize it yet.

You don't realize it yet, but all those $25 donations by all those young people will turn in to free college and the absolving of college debt. It's like buying a lottery ticket that you just know is a winner. OR, they think Bernie can deliver by absconding with Other People's Money and give to those poor young folks. Easy Peasy!!

Those folks are going to be pissed when reality bites them in the a$$.

(04-07-2016 08:20 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:50 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course Sanders doesn't have any details......the unicorns and wood fairies haven't told him how to do it yet.

I wonder if he's figured out where to get that money tree?

From the same people who donated $45million to his campaign in March. They just dont realize it yet.

You don't realize it yet, but all those $25 donations by all those young people will turn in to free college and the absolving of college debt. It's like buying a lottery ticket that you just know is a winner. OR, they think Bernie can deliver by absconding with Other People's Money and give to those poor young folks. Easy Peasy!!

Those folks are going to be pissed when reality bites them in the a$$.

They could have bought a used video game at Gamestop with that $25 instead.

(04-06-2016 11:51 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I saw that. You'd think he would've come up with a plan for one of the central themes of his campaign.

I gotta side with Bern here.... How did Obama's AFA look compared to what he campaigned on in 2008? Totally different..

How many times has Hillary explained, in detail, how she would get something done?

A president simply cant "break up the banks" without the help of congress.

There's a Dodd Frank provision for breaking up the banks, there's antitrust legislation, and if all else fails he can press Congress to pass a new Glass Steagall. Bernie said he was unsure whether the Fed governors have to sign off with the Dodd Frank provision. It looks like they do but it's not something that has been challenged in court yet. Even if he's not sure exactly the path he'll take, at least he's going to try, and he'll have plenty of counsel to help him do it.

(04-06-2016 04:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Of course military spending is Constitutionally mandated.......can you tell me which Amendment makes it the federal government's responsibility to pay for a college education?

That has nothing to do with it. We have a military and no one is suggesting scrapping it.

It's not a valid comparison. One is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the other is a leftist fantasy.

Yes it is a valid comparison. The constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times bigger than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined. If it does, please point that out. With that logic, we should spend ALL our money on the military.

We don't. China is about 1 million larger and India is only 25-30k smaller. North Korea is is a little less than 200k smaller.

When you can get your facts straight get back to me.

I was referring to dollar amounts spent, rather than manpower.

(04-07-2016 10:20 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  That has nothing to do with it. We have a military and no one is suggesting scrapping it.

It's not a valid comparison. One is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the other is a leftist fantasy.

Yes it is a valid comparison. The constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times bigger than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined. If it does, please point that out. With that logic, we should spend ALL our money on the military.

We don't. China is about 1 million larger and India is only 25-30k smaller. North Korea is is a little less than 200k smaller.

When you can get your facts straight get back to me.

I was referring to dollar amounts spent, rather than manpower.

Sure you were. Most logical people would have said the constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times more expensive than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined.

(04-07-2016 12:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:20 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It's not a valid comparison. One is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the other is a leftist fantasy.

Yes it is a valid comparison. The constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times bigger than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined. If it does, please point that out. With that logic, we should spend ALL our money on the military.

We don't. China is about 1 million larger and India is only 25-30k smaller. North Korea is is a little less than 200k smaller.

When you can get your facts straight get back to me.

I was referring to dollar amounts spent, rather than manpower.

Sure you were. Most logical people would have said the constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times more expensive than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined.

That's what I meant - and everyone knows that already. Most logical people wouldn't be arguing that the constitution requires spending more money on the military than we already do.

(04-07-2016 02:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 12:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:20 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yes it is a valid comparison. The constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times bigger than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined. If it does, please point that out. With that logic, we should spend ALL our money on the military.

We don't. China is about 1 million larger and India is only 25-30k smaller. North Korea is is a little less than 200k smaller.

When you can get your facts straight get back to me.

I was referring to dollar amounts spent, rather than manpower.

Sure you were. Most logical people would have said the constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times more expensive than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined.

That's what I meant - and everyone knows that already. Most logical people wouldn't be arguing that the constitution requires spending more money on the military than we already do.

The Constitution doesn't put any limits on the amount we spend, but unlike many of the programs you leftists love so much it is a Constitutionally mandated expense. When you can show me where the Constitution specifically makes it a requirement that we pay Laquanda to sit on her fat ass all day and collect a check I'll put it on an even footing with defense spending. Until then whenever you want to discuss spending cuts let's cut all we can from the stuff we spend money on that's not Constitutionally mandated before we even begin to think about cutting from what is.

(04-07-2016 02:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 02:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 12:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:20 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  We don't. China is about 1 million larger and India is only 25-30k smaller. North Korea is is a little less than 200k smaller.

When you can get your facts straight get back to me.

I was referring to dollar amounts spent, rather than manpower.

Sure you were. Most logical people would have said the constitution doesn't say that you have to have a military that's many times more expensive than the next several biggest militaries in the world combined.

That's what I meant - and everyone knows that already. Most logical people wouldn't be arguing that the constitution requires spending more money on the military than we already do.

The Constitution doesn't put any limits on the amount we spend, but unlike many of the programs you leftists love so much it is a Constitutionally mandated expense. When you can show me where the Constitution specifically makes it a requirement that we pay Laquanda to sit on her fat ass all day and collect a check I'll put it on an even footing with defense spending. Until then whenever you want to discuss spending cuts let's cut all we can from the stuff we spend money on that's not Constitutionally mandated before we even begin to think about cutting from what is.

There is no difference at all, constitutionally, between a military that's spending $200 billion vs. a military that's spending $500 billion. None. If you're talking about welfare, that's a different story. You can argue that we can cut there also. But the military is huge, and not only that, we keep getting into expensive wars. And if you think that somehow the Department of Defense is the only government agency that doesn't have excessive bureaucracy, I don't know what to say.

And the obvious point, I hadn't even mentioned about cutting the military, I just said we don't need to expand it.