Lindsay Graham is a noxious piece of shit, a latter day heir to progressive warmongering statist of the Wilson era. I'm sure a lot of South Carolinians watch this channel - PLEASE mobilize to get this guy out in 2014.
Poor Little Lindsey. Thinks everyone is out to get him. The People of South Carolina will vote his sorry ass back in. He doesn't need to worry. They knew what he was like the last go around.
I love having people in there that are capable/willing to make proposals which help expose or "weed out" the weak spineless frauds around them. The question is, did the six who voted for this do so knowing it wouldnt come to fruition? All the while, still getting credit for voting for it? Its a proccess, and it needs to happen to root them out.
Graham's goose is cooked. He will not make it through another primary. The only question left, is who will he be lobbying for after the 2014 election.
@voiceofreason467 I believe we have the same understanding of efficiency. For instance, when SS/MC were created the efficiency component to justify the programs was not really addressed. Even If they remained as they were originally created, they still had long term flaws (efficiency issues) that doomed them to eventually fail. Now add the bureaucracy issue and the fact that no money left in the hands of Government (lock box or not) is safe -- they will always find a way to spend it.
@voiceofreason467 Agree with the price efficiency point --- but, this is a speparte from the fact that they were using the surplus of these programs to fund other programs. When government establishes a program the quality of service is nearly always poor and the efficiency grows worse over time as the buracracy created to administer the program grows to consume more and more of the resources, and expands its charter to justify its growth. This is fundemental to all government programs
The social programs are not affordable anyway. I know for damn sure I won't see a cent of medicare when I reach retirement age. Of course by then a loaf of bread will cost $1000 if inflation keeps at this rate.
Why does Rand Paul insist on wearing GAY ties?--even Communist Bill Maher realizes that Barry Goldwater era ties are the current style--oh well, two centuries more before we get a non-somnolent political leader--hey you Paulians, wake up!--
Lol. Your argument against Rand Paul is that his ties are gay. I don't even need to be a Rand Paul supporter to call your argument completely meaningless. Picture your favorite politician in a "gay tie". Is he a worse politician for it?
@BanditoWalrusGames Ha ha. I would say that Lindsey Graham's ties are significantly more gay than anyone else. His special partner probably help him coordinate his clothing colors.
So you dismiss all Dems in one statement and then parse the 'conservative' party that gave us two long wars and massive debt. Sorry I'm not buying it. Today's Republican party seems to only fight to protect historically low tax rates while going after women health clinics and workers rights. I only wish we had a 'conservative' party today instead of an extreme Right one.
@337noname Maybe you should pay a bit closer attention before criticizing. Jack Hunter spends more time lambasting the neocon 'right wing' that has usurped the Republican party than he does addressing the Democrats. If you truly want a traditionally conservative party (a la Barry Goldwater), then you would be staunchly behind Jack Hunter, not criticizing him for having mentioned Democrats briefly.
@Panpiper A brief misstatement is still a lie. 1:08 - 1:23. I wish we'd all pay closer attention. I'm not sure Goldwater would pass the litmus test of the tea partiers, the neocons, or the religious Right. But that's just the brief opinion of one who isn't staunchly behind any one group.
@xtremejohnny69 No disrespect intended, thank you very much for your service. I am truly pleased that you believe that you are in defense of America and the US citizens. That is not my issue. You hit it spot on with your disagreement with interventionism. But if not for that, you could be home, not fighting in a remote country. I feel strongly that if this country needed to be defended from foreign agressors, people like you are willing and able. The current mission doesn't rise to that level.
Jack, I love your posts, but you have to get away from calling this spending "defense spending". It is military spending plain and simple. I don't feel any safer, nor can it be argued I am any safer because of the middle east wars. My country nor it's citizens are being defended by these actions. Some serious money is being spent to those corporations selling weapons, dried foods etc. with lucrative government "defense contracts" though.
@mrtomsr Eh idk, I'm in the army and I like to think that I'm defending US citizens. I disagree with interventionism (I'll still do my job whether I like it or not) but I still feel as though I do defend US citizens and our freedom.
The republicans never met a war they did not like. The main issue facing the USA is it's addiction to war. Getting Americans to buy into a war is like shooting fish in a barrel.
@voiceofreason467The problem is that everybody counts the money that we pay into SS and MC as part of the general revenue when defining its percentage of the budget. What the polititions don't like is the fact that the money that is collected for these programs is now needed for these programs and not available to be spent on other things. They have been treating these programs funds as a slush fund to be spent --- and hid the actual growth in spending as compared to revenue. Its a shell game.
Leg. Branch 23%, Jud. Branch 32%, Agriculture, 30%, Commerce 54%, Military 6.5%, Education 83%, Energy 100%, Health & Human Services 26% (incl. huge cuts in the FDA & NIH), Homeland Security 43%, Housing & Urban Development 100%, Interior 78%, Justice 28%, Labor 2%, State Department 71%, Transportation 49%, Corps of Engineers 27%, EPA 29%, General Services Administration 85%, International Aid 100%, NASA 25%, National Science Foundation 62%, Office of Personnel Management 12.3%, FCC 22%
@shamusername Notice something? Military budget only gets a measly 6.5% cut while abolishing foreign aid and severely crippling diplomatic means and also taking the axe to important and vital domestic programs. Sounds like an eternal warfare rightwing hellhole of ignorance to me that Paul is proposing.
There's about 50 years of literature on the failure of foreign aid(hell, even the NYT admitted it as a failure in the 90s), so thank god it would be abolished.
Severely crippling diplomatic means? Cutting the budget eliminates politicians' ability to talk to others?
Important and vital domestic programs... You're joking, right?
@shamusername You have been taught that they are "vital" programs. If you decide to look at their cost effectiveness, you will learn that they are "harmful" programs. Both parties are war parties now and Paul is the only one brave enough to propose a real solution.
I believe he combined Medicare + Medicaid and simply called it Medicare, as those combined account for about 21% of the budget.
Another excellent video SA. Going to check out votesmart to find out which of our senators are willing to address the problem and which ones are cowardly kicking the can down the road.
1:10 I'm sorry for commenting in a place that is clear not my own but I need an explanation:
Would you mind to tell where this picture is drawn? I mean, my "sources" say that in the last meeting the bill that was proposed by the democrats and that the GOP walked out was 17% Revenue and 83% cuts (fairly close to 15% revenue + 85% cuts proposed by republicans some time before).
They could pay off the national debt if they charged people $1000 to punch Graham in his simpering baby face. There would be no shortage of takers. I might make several passes through that sizable line.
@voiceofreason467 The cutting of social programs will occur regardless of ideology. Only two items, Medicare and Social Security, comprise 42% of the entire budget. Foreign policy currently comprises 19%. The top 6 government expenditures alone comprise 85.6% of the budget. The annual deficit is $1.4 trillion. One can either be willing to cut across the board to avoid the hidden tax of inflation or suffer the consequences of an eventual catastrophic collapse. Either way they will eventually end.
@voiceofreason467 That's not true, he want's to cut military spending first and has said he does not want to attack social programs right away. Eventually they need to be overhauled too but a lot of that can be done by redicing wasteful buraeucratic spending.
The Progressive Caucus put out a budget proposal that ended the wars, keeps Medicare and Social Security solvent, and balances the budget 15 years before Ryan's, and 12 years before Obama's weak-ass compromise. And yet it's gotten about as much coverage as Paul's. Corporate Washington wants that military-industrial complex cash, and kickbacks from douchebags like Erik Prince.
I am a a former Liberal turned Libertarian that supports Ron and Rand. I now like Demint too. (And Gary Johnson)
warmnfuzzzy 7 months ago
Lindsay Graham is a noxious piece of shit, a latter day heir to progressive warmongering statist of the Wilson era. I'm sure a lot of South Carolinians watch this channel - PLEASE mobilize to get this guy out in 2014.
PEinHK 7 months ago 2
@PEinHK I must agree... Lindsey is terrible
jb4rp2012 7 months ago
Poor Little Lindsey. Thinks everyone is out to get him. The People of South Carolina will vote his sorry ass back in. He doesn't need to worry. They knew what he was like the last go around.
GrayGhost8 7 months ago
I love having people in there that are capable/willing to make proposals which help expose or "weed out" the weak spineless frauds around them. The question is, did the six who voted for this do so knowing it wouldnt come to fruition? All the while, still getting credit for voting for it? Its a proccess, and it needs to happen to root them out.
pensword5 7 months ago
Defense? Or war profiteering while pretending to be surprised when other peoples take offense at being blockaded and invaded.
n66178 7 months ago 2
Graham's goose is cooked. He will not make it through another primary. The only question left, is who will he be lobbying for after the 2014 election.
jasondsnow 7 months ago 2
were missinf the elephant in the room.If you want to stop defence spending registar AIPAC as a foreign lobby.
TheJoelef 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467 I believe we have the same understanding of efficiency. For instance, when SS/MC were created the efficiency component to justify the programs was not really addressed. Even If they remained as they were originally created, they still had long term flaws (efficiency issues) that doomed them to eventually fail. Now add the bureaucracy issue and the fact that no money left in the hands of Government (lock box or not) is safe -- they will always find a way to spend it.
49Falcon 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Agree with the price efficiency point --- but, this is a speparte from the fact that they were using the surplus of these programs to fund other programs. When government establishes a program the quality of service is nearly always poor and the efficiency grows worse over time as the buracracy created to administer the program grows to consume more and more of the resources, and expands its charter to justify its growth. This is fundemental to all government programs
49Falcon 7 months ago
dammit how much longer do we have to put up with Lindsey Graham? When's the next election? vote for ANYONE other than Graham!
JudgeNapolitanoFTW 7 months ago
Independent Voters will control the primary
Independent Voters will control the election
goodbye status quo establishment criminals
ryanshaunkelly 7 months ago
We could cut Defense by $500 billion per year, and still spend twice as much as China.
downsizedc 7 months ago
@voiceofreason467
The social programs are not affordable anyway. I know for damn sure I won't see a cent of medicare when I reach retirement age. Of course by then a loaf of bread will cost $1000 if inflation keeps at this rate.
ryanisfootdrums 7 months ago
Jack,
you need to start posting your TV appearances on you tube. I've come across 4 already and had no idea you are continuously being invited.
shiftstart 7 months ago
Why does Rand Paul insist on wearing GAY ties?--even Communist Bill Maher realizes that Barry Goldwater era ties are the current style--oh well, two centuries more before we get a non-somnolent political leader--hey you Paulians, wake up!--
lockpet77 7 months ago
@lockpet77
Lol. Your argument against Rand Paul is that his ties are gay. I don't even need to be a Rand Paul supporter to call your argument completely meaningless. Picture your favorite politician in a "gay tie". Is he a worse politician for it?
BanditoWalrusGames 7 months ago
@BanditoWalrusGames Ha ha. I would say that Lindsey Graham's ties are significantly more gay than anyone else. His special partner probably help him coordinate his clothing colors.
cushmandavis 7 months ago
So you dismiss all Dems in one statement and then parse the 'conservative' party that gave us two long wars and massive debt. Sorry I'm not buying it. Today's Republican party seems to only fight to protect historically low tax rates while going after women health clinics and workers rights. I only wish we had a 'conservative' party today instead of an extreme Right one.
337noname 8 months ago
@337noname Maybe you should pay a bit closer attention before criticizing. Jack Hunter spends more time lambasting the neocon 'right wing' that has usurped the Republican party than he does addressing the Democrats. If you truly want a traditionally conservative party (a la Barry Goldwater), then you would be staunchly behind Jack Hunter, not criticizing him for having mentioned Democrats briefly.
Panpiper 8 months ago 2
Comment removed
337noname 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panpiper A brief misstatement is still a lie. 1:08 - 1:23. I wish we'd all pay closer attention. I'm not sure Goldwater would pass the litmus test of the tea partiers, the neocons, or the religious Right. But that's just the brief opinion of one who isn't staunchly behind any one group.
337noname 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 No disrespect intended, thank you very much for your service. I am truly pleased that you believe that you are in defense of America and the US citizens. That is not my issue. You hit it spot on with your disagreement with interventionism. But if not for that, you could be home, not fighting in a remote country. I feel strongly that if this country needed to be defended from foreign agressors, people like you are willing and able. The current mission doesn't rise to that level.
mrtomsr 8 months ago
Jack, I love your posts, but you have to get away from calling this spending "defense spending". It is military spending plain and simple. I don't feel any safer, nor can it be argued I am any safer because of the middle east wars. My country nor it's citizens are being defended by these actions. Some serious money is being spent to those corporations selling weapons, dried foods etc. with lucrative government "defense contracts" though.
mrtomsr 8 months ago 2
@mrtomsr Eh idk, I'm in the army and I like to think that I'm defending US citizens. I disagree with interventionism (I'll still do my job whether I like it or not) but I still feel as though I do defend US citizens and our freedom.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
The republicans never met a war they did not like. The main issue facing the USA is it's addiction to war. Getting Americans to buy into a war is like shooting fish in a barrel.
logibear64 8 months ago 3
@voiceofreason467The problem is that everybody counts the money that we pay into SS and MC as part of the general revenue when defining its percentage of the budget. What the polititions don't like is the fact that the money that is collected for these programs is now needed for these programs and not available to be spent on other things. They have been treating these programs funds as a slush fund to be spent --- and hid the actual growth in spending as compared to revenue. Its a shell game.
49Falcon 8 months ago
Leg. Branch 23%, Jud. Branch 32%, Agriculture, 30%, Commerce 54%, Military 6.5%, Education 83%, Energy 100%, Health & Human Services 26% (incl. huge cuts in the FDA & NIH), Homeland Security 43%, Housing & Urban Development 100%, Interior 78%, Justice 28%, Labor 2%, State Department 71%, Transportation 49%, Corps of Engineers 27%, EPA 29%, General Services Administration 85%, International Aid 100%, NASA 25%, National Science Foundation 62%, Office of Personnel Management 12.3%, FCC 22%
shamusername 8 months ago
@shamusername Notice something? Military budget only gets a measly 6.5% cut while abolishing foreign aid and severely crippling diplomatic means and also taking the axe to important and vital domestic programs. Sounds like an eternal warfare rightwing hellhole of ignorance to me that Paul is proposing.
shamusername 8 months ago
@shamusername Source, btw: randpaul2010. com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf
shamusername 8 months ago
@shamusername
There's about 50 years of literature on the failure of foreign aid(hell, even the NYT admitted it as a failure in the 90s), so thank god it would be abolished.
Severely crippling diplomatic means? Cutting the budget eliminates politicians' ability to talk to others?
Important and vital domestic programs... You're joking, right?
Xasew 8 months ago
@shamusername You have been taught that they are "vital" programs. If you decide to look at their cost effectiveness, you will learn that they are "harmful" programs. Both parties are war parties now and Paul is the only one brave enough to propose a real solution.
judoskeleton 8 months ago
Graham is up there among my least favorite politicans in modern history.
Visfen 8 months ago 25
@Visfen I second that.
SirTenenbaum 7 months ago
More often than not, You know you are in the right if the majority are against you.
bdmenne 8 months ago
I believe he combined Medicare + Medicaid and simply called it Medicare, as those combined account for about 21% of the budget.
Another excellent video SA. Going to check out votesmart to find out which of our senators are willing to address the problem and which ones are cowardly kicking the can down the road.
RonDukeSilverSwanson 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 No, it's mostly because you people just annoy the fuck out of me.
Apptendo 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Your Worshiping of the Welfare State (combined with Neo-cons worship of the Warfare State) is why were in this mess right now.
Apptendo 8 months ago 2
Jim DeMint looks better all thwe time.
The republicans and democrats answer to everything, invade the world
invite the world
go in hock to the world
mrhulot101 8 months ago
1:10 I'm sorry for commenting in a place that is clear not my own but I need an explanation:
Would you mind to tell where this picture is drawn? I mean, my "sources" say that in the last meeting the bill that was proposed by the democrats and that the GOP walked out was 17% Revenue and 83% cuts (fairly close to 15% revenue + 85% cuts proposed by republicans some time before).
TemporalOnline 8 months ago 2
I've said it before and I'll say it again. FUCK LINDSEY GRAHAM and the horse he rode in on.
geezerbut 8 months ago 3
@geezerbut
They could pay off the national debt if they charged people $1000 to punch Graham in his simpering baby face. There would be no shortage of takers. I might make several passes through that sizable line.
ghost0441 8 months ago 6
Another good piece Jack. Terrific insight !
mrblujet 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 The cutting of social programs will occur regardless of ideology. Only two items, Medicare and Social Security, comprise 42% of the entire budget. Foreign policy currently comprises 19%. The top 6 government expenditures alone comprise 85.6% of the budget. The annual deficit is $1.4 trillion. One can either be willing to cut across the board to avoid the hidden tax of inflation or suffer the consequences of an eventual catastrophic collapse. Either way they will eventually end.
Mechanized0 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 That's not true, he want's to cut military spending first and has said he does not want to attack social programs right away. Eventually they need to be overhauled too but a lot of that can be done by redicing wasteful buraeucratic spending.
FarFromEquilibrium 8 months ago
The Progressive Caucus put out a budget proposal that ended the wars, keeps Medicare and Social Security solvent, and balances the budget 15 years before Ryan's, and 12 years before Obama's weak-ass compromise. And yet it's gotten about as much coverage as Paul's. Corporate Washington wants that military-industrial complex cash, and kickbacks from douchebags like Erik Prince.
mexcurmudgeon 8 months ago
$14 trillion in debt and no significant spending cuts. aaahhh shit, your screwed. aren't ya?
fabes0011 8 months ago
you're on the money dude this is exactly what i think.
PlanetEarthAwakens01 8 months ago
Look up Alex Jones and Joel Skousen on youtube and on google.
o13starsnstripes 8 months ago
@o13starsnstripes Alex Jones is a ham-fisted assclown.
MagnusIan 8 months ago 4
@MagnusIan Well you have a right to your opinion but may I ask why you don't like him?
o13starsnstripes 8 months ago
@MagnusIan The mighty oz has spoken.
avyanez 8 months ago
@MagnusIan why?
altops 8 months ago
@HouserGraves Who wrote it? I want to read it. I heard that "The high priests of war." is good too, Im going to read that book too!
waterhead001 8 months ago
Dem's are worse!
BeantownJim 8 months ago
@BeantownJim They're both screwing the country.
bittergunowner12 8 months ago
@bittergunowner12 Rogue govt'
BeantownJim 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOP has no spine!
BeantownJim 8 months ago
Ron Paul 2012! John Boehner blah blah blah blah. Shut the fuck up John.
LeifEiriksson 8 months ago 44
@Perseiden2 Why exactly?
Worldslargestipod 8 months ago