Let's see if the commenters want to debate issues or call me names.
The comment section is down but I got 53 replies to the ones I left yesterday. In the future I plan to try to post full exchanges but this will have to do for today.
(It was, admittedly an off day for me.)
4 hours ago ( 2:24 PM)
The trouble is they think they know the problem and the solution having never met, talked to, or known and actual poor, homeless, welfare recipient. Why aren't politicians who hold a national office required to spend 30 days (paid for by you and me) living in a homeless shelter, eating in the soup-line without benefit of a debit card/cash. They'd learn a lot about the citizens they enact laws that adversely affect them. I guess its easier to have lunch at the club.
What you are suggesting is that those of us who think that welfare is over used have never meet a poor person.
You are ignoring the possibility that those of us on the right think, accurately, that welfare, for more than the absolute necessary, is more harmful than helpful.
You are not giving your political opponents any credit, and are essentially, just calling them mean for disagreeing with you.
2 hours ago ( 4:11 PM)
I agree welfare is for absolute necessary....not an entitlement or way of life unless necessary. So (wrong again) I am NOT ignoring that possiblility.
I didn't call anyone mean - your faulty assumption, not surprisingly. I'm just sayin, if you're going to enact laws that affect the poor I think you should actually spend some time understanding that challenges and obstacles to being poor. MY sister has the means to work in a shelter or kitchen, but spends time weekly on the golf course grousing about "why the poor don't just go get a job". I never call her mean, I think she is insensitive and presumcous.
Me
But my point is that you are ignoring the time the right has spent to
understand what makes people poor and what makes people prosperous.
You are suggesting that the republicans have never spent time trying to understand the economy.
If that indeed is the case why do you think that republicans, in theory, support lower taxes and smaller government?
I will also point out that when the government takes over responsibility for helping the poor there is less incentive for individuals to do so and fewer people do. Before all of the welfare programs were created Americans were more giving and helpful to the poor. Now, many people think, "I'm paying taxes that help the poor, so I don't need to do it personally."
You are suggesting that the republicans have never spent time trying to understand the economy.
If that indeed is the case why do you think that republicans, in theory, support lower taxes and smaller government?
I will also point out that when the government takes over responsibility for helping the poor there is less incentive for individuals to do so and fewer people do. Before all of the welfare programs were created Americans were more giving and helpful to the poor. Now, many people think, "I'm paying taxes that help the poor, so I don't need to do it personally."
FBueller
August 14, 2012 at 10:14am
What I'm suggesting is I personally know republicans who've never spent a minute with a poor person and make all kinds of assumptions based on stereotypes.
I just finished a grat-funded project whereby I helped inner-city (mostly felons, not all) try to get employment be it part-time/fulltime, etc. To a person, they all did exactly what I asked of them to prepare and perform for interviews/application, etc. It is simply not as easy as "get a job" as my sister would naively suggest when your work record is spotty, unemployment in that community is 30+%, you live in your car with no address, you have limited access to the internet, etc. When someone says "get a job" i suggest that is just insentive without knowing that person circumstances. The country club set for the most part is clueless to the reality of the poor.
What I'm suggesting is I personally know republicans who've never spent a minute with a poor person and make all kinds of assumptions based on stereotypes.
I just finished a grat-funded project whereby I helped inner-city (mostly felons, not all) try to get employment be it part-time/fulltime, etc. To a person, they all did exactly what I asked of them to prepare and perform for interviews/application, etc. It is simply not as easy as "get a job" as my sister would naively suggest when your work record is spotty, unemployment in that community is 30+%, you live in your car with no address, you have limited access to the internet, etc. When someone says "get a job" i suggest that is just insentive without knowing that person circumstances. The country club set for the most part is clueless to the reality of the poor.
5 hours ago ( 1:43 PM)
This is horrible, and it is a sign of what will come from a Romney Presidency.
I can't help but notice that Romney doesn't have any daughters.
Are you really suggesting that a Romney presidency will cause the number of prostitutes to go up?
Do you think that Romney's lack of daughters was by choice or by accident?
Do you think that Romney's lack of daughters was by choice or by accident?
2 hours ago ( 4:25 PM)
I think that a Romney presidency will result in greater income inequality and more poverty. I associate prostitution, drug abuse, and general criminality with poverty. I don't believe conservative projection that criminal activity is the result of anything other than poverty. The kleptomaniac is an anomoly. Given a choice, the vast majority of people will avoid criminal activity because the cost of getting caught is too high. When someone is hungry, the cost analysis shifts in favor of criminal activity.
So, yes, I think a Romney presidency will push more people into a marginal life of crime. With Ryan at his side ending Medicare, we'll even see the elderly seeking new ways to make it in the 1% America.
"Do you think that Romney's lack of daughters was by choice or by accident?"
That's not relevant to my point, but I appreciate the question. Regardless accident or choice, and I presume accidental because his boys are too old to have been the result of sex-selecting techniques, the result is the same. Daughters have things to teach their fathers. If a man doesn't have daughters, he may never learn the lessons. This is the point I was trying to make. The extreme conservative policies regarding women paints a picture that women are objects to be managed, not people to be respected.
Me
Countries that have large income inequality are generally more
prosperous than the countries without income inequality (think: third
world countries).
What does it matter if one person makes more than you or I, so long as it was acquired without harming others?
Which policies of Romney's do you think are the ones that will increase poverty? If you say that his administration would be in favor of big subsidies, and similar, for big businesses, then I will point out that many of the wall street campaign donors for Romney were supporting Obama in 2008.
What does it matter if one person makes more than you or I, so long as it was acquired without harming others?
Which policies of Romney's do you think are the ones that will increase poverty? If you say that his administration would be in favor of big subsidies, and similar, for big businesses, then I will point out that many of the wall street campaign donors for Romney were supporting Obama in 2008.
5 hours ago ( 1:48 PM)
Me
How do policies of lower taxes and less government spending hurt the poor or middle class?
Why do you think that republicans support their own policies?
Is it not possible that they think that their policies will help, rather than hurt, the poor and middle class?
Why do you think that republicans support their own policies?
Is it not possible that they think that their policies will help, rather than hurt, the poor and middle class?
2 hours ago ( 4:14 PM)
Me
But, how do lower taxes hurt the economy?
The higher the taxes are the less incentive their is to work hard; you'll only be able to keep a small amount of your work.
All of the rules and regulations (ACA is 2,000 pages of rules and regulations) imposed by the government (300,000 pages worth, see the U.S. Code for the full listing) complicate matters and make everything more difficult. A person trying to work needs to spend many hours trying to figure out what is legal rather than doing his/her actual productive job.
It is the policies of the left that reduce incentives and make work harder.
The higher the taxes are the less incentive their is to work hard; you'll only be able to keep a small amount of your work.
All of the rules and regulations (ACA is 2,000 pages of rules and regulations) imposed by the government (300,000 pages worth, see the U.S. Code for the full listing) complicate matters and make everything more difficult. A person trying to work needs to spend many hours trying to figure out what is legal rather than doing his/her actual productive job.
It is the policies of the left that reduce incentives and make work harder.
Me
"Under George W. Bush, America experienced the slowest rate of job creation in the postwar period."...until Obama came along.
Josh Crawford
Bull pucky!!! The ONLY way that is true is if you blame Obama for
the over 4 million jobs that were lost BEFORE his first budget took
effect. Since Obama's first budget took effect on Oct 1, 2009, we have
created almost as many net jobs in just over 30 months as WBush created
in EIGHT YEARS!!!
Me
“At least we can agree that unemployment, falling incomes, and debt have all gotten worse since Obama was elected.”
maggiemosaic August 13, 2012 at 7:21pm
DUE TO TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS!!! THE GOP'S GOD MILT FREEMAN. it has nothing to do with anything obama did or didnt do!! the 'PEOPLE ' WHO VOTED IN THIS CONGRESS IS TO BLAME!!!!!
Remeber how democrats accuse the right of only using "talking points"?
This is the very next reply I received (I am notified of the chronologically through email).
Can you tell if this reply was to the same comment of mine as the last one?
swimbiker August 13, 2012 at 7:30pm
We have had 8 years of giving breaks to the wealthy and waiting for "trickle down" jobs. None of that worked. Americans do not want to go back to that. Our inequality is equal to Mexico's now.
(The answer is that this comment and the previous one are in response to different comments of mine.)
javagirl023 August 13, 2012 at 7:51pm
Because the biggest single driver of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known is the US government. United we stand still means something to Dems.
I suppose that she thinks it was the government that invented: electricity, tv, radio, the telephone, etc. before the government did as much interfering with the economy.
Me
Okay, "jerkface."
1 hour ago ( 5:16 PM)
Me
"Since Obama's first budget took effect on Oct 1, 2009, we have created
almost as many net jobs in just over 30 months as WBush created in EIGHT
YEARS!!! "
Where is your evidence of that?
Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama was elected?
Where is your evidence of that?
Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama was elected?
Me
“At least we can agree that unemployment, falling incomes, and debt have all gotten worse since Obama was elected.”
maggiemosaic August 13, 2012 at 7:21pm
DUE TO TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS!!! THE GOP'S GOD MILT FREEMAN. it has nothing to do with anything obama did or didnt do!! the 'PEOPLE ' WHO VOTED IN THIS CONGRESS IS TO BLAME!!!!!
Remeber how democrats accuse the right of only using "talking points"?
This is the very next reply I received (I am notified of the chronologically through email).
Can you tell if this reply was to the same comment of mine as the last one?
swimbiker August 13, 2012 at 7:30pm
We have had 8 years of giving breaks to the wealthy and waiting for "trickle down" jobs. None of that worked. Americans do not want to go back to that. Our inequality is equal to Mexico's now.
(The answer is that this comment and the previous one are in response to different comments of mine.)
javagirl023 August 13, 2012 at 7:51pm
Because the biggest single driver of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known is the US government. United we stand still means something to Dems.
I suppose that she thinks it was the government that invented: electricity, tv, radio, the telephone, etc. before the government did as much interfering with the economy.
Me
“Ha, ha, good one!
We could totally afford to pay for employee training and healthcare for all and save "ten trillion dollars a year.
I have a question though: If the federal government spends about $3.6 trillion a year how would eliminating defense spending ($700 billion) and spending more on other things "save" $10 trillion dollars a year?
BTW, the "rich" don't have enough in assets and income to this year's deficit (about $1.3 trillion), how will taxing them more give us anywhere near $10 trillion per year?”
We could totally afford to pay for employee training and healthcare for all and save "ten trillion dollars a year.
I have a question though: If the federal government spends about $3.6 trillion a year how would eliminating defense spending ($700 billion) and spending more on other things "save" $10 trillion dollars a year?
BTW, the "rich" don't have enough in assets and income to this year's deficit (about $1.3 trillion), how will taxing them more give us anywhere near $10 trillion per year?”
Me
"Since Obama's first budget took effect on Oct 1, 2009, we have created
almost as many net jobs in just over 30 months as WBush created in
EIGHT YEARS!!! "
Where is your evidence of that?
Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama was elected?
Where is your evidence of that?
Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama was elected?
javagirl023
August 13, 2012 at 7:59pm
Private sector employment is up, government sector jobs are down. Learn to use the google.
Private sector employment is up, government sector jobs are down. Learn to use the google.
Me
Whereas, Obama is "a radical, extreme, authoritarian", left-wing "demagogue" from Illinois.
They're hardly ever corrupt.
They're hardly ever corrupt.
swimbiker
August 13, 2012 at 7:35pm
No historian will agree with you that President Obama is a radical leftist., And, BTW: authoritarian usually goes with conservative, not liberal.
No historian will agree with you that President Obama is a radical leftist., And, BTW: authoritarian usually goes with conservative, not liberal.
Definition of authoritatian: "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom"
It sure seems to me that that word actually makes more sense when used with the left. "against individual freedom" economically would describe the democrats positions quite well. Unless, of course, large soda bans for example, are in favor of "individual freedom."
Me
Boy, those republicans sound terrible. They must hate everybody.
swimbiker
August 13, 2012 at 7:34pm
No, just women and Latinos and minorities and gays and police officers and teachers and college students and now, senior citizens.
No, just women and Latinos and minorities and gays and police officers and teachers and college students and now, senior citizens.
Me
Ha, ha, good one!
We could totally afford to pay for employee training and healthcare for all and save "ten trillion dollars a year.
I have a question though: If the federal government spends about $3.6 trillion a year how would eliminating defense spending ($700 billion) and spending more on other things "save" $10 trillion dollars a year?
BTW, the "rich" don't have enough in assets and income to this year's deficit (about $1.3 trillion), how will taxing them more give us anywhere near $10 trillion per year?
We could totally afford to pay for employee training and healthcare for all and save "ten trillion dollars a year.
I have a question though: If the federal government spends about $3.6 trillion a year how would eliminating defense spending ($700 billion) and spending more on other things "save" $10 trillion dollars a year?
BTW, the "rich" don't have enough in assets and income to this year's deficit (about $1.3 trillion), how will taxing them more give us anywhere near $10 trillion per year?
Before reading a reply to this comment. Ask yourself what was the point that I was trying to make here.
Then, after reading a reply to this comment, ask yourself is the reply even close.
swimbiker
August 13, 2012 at 7:32pm
No one can argue that the Defense arena is NOT bloated. Why do we have 6 Air Force bases in England, alone?
No one can argue that the Defense arena is NOT bloated. Why do we have 6 Air Force bases in England, alone?
Me
"Can such nasty over-simplification work? I don't think so, but I worry. "
Remember how bad it was in America before 1911 when the government did not "help" and more immigrants came to live here than any other country in the world?
Remember how bad it was in America before 1911 when the government did not "help" and more immigrants came to live here than any other country in the world?
[1911 was when the federal reserve and income tax was implemented, I think.]
swimbiker
August 13, 2012 at 7:29pm
So, is THAT where the tea party wants to take us back to? I thought it was 1860.
So, is THAT where the tea party wants to take us back to? I thought it was 1860.
I, apparently, don't understand this next reply at all. Is this person saying that the democrats are in favor of smaller government?
Me
"...Ryan believes faith is fact."
As opposed to democrats who believe in big government, and that's totally different from believing "faith is fact" for democrats. I can't imagine why I'd make such a comparison.
As opposed to democrats who believe in big government, and that's totally different from believing "faith is fact" for democrats. I can't imagine why I'd make such a comparison.
swimbiker
August 13, 2012 at 7:28pm
You have created a strawman. You do not know what Democrats believe. Ergo, you are projecting your fears on them. None of that is factual.
You have created a strawman. You do not know what Democrats believe. Ergo, you are projecting your fears on them. None of that is factual.
Me
"Under George W. Bush, America experienced the slowest rate of job creation in the postwar period."
...until Obama came along.
...until Obama came along.
Me
Whereas, Obama is "a radical, extreme, authoritarian, "left-wing "demagogue" from Illinois.
They're hardly ever corrupt.
They're hardly ever corrupt.
iridium53
August 13, 2012 at 6:07pm
Are we talking corruption?
Or are we talking rabid fascism?
Interesting, Obama's platform is not too dissimilar from this
http://www.presidency.ucsb.
But, the Republican platform, especially since the Reaganomics era, has moved to the right quite a bit.
Are we talking corruption?
Or are we talking rabid fascism?
Interesting, Obama's platform is not too dissimilar from this
http://www.presidency.ucsb.
But, the Republican platform, especially since the Reaganomics era, has moved to the right quite a bit.
[The link is to the republican party platform of 1956 and nothing but platitudes.]
[Someday, I'm going to make a list of the things that actual fascist countries did. Then we'll see if the democrats over use of the term is accurate when it is applied to the right. (Don't bet on it.)]
Me
Ha, Ha! A link to an article at the Daily Kos! Ha, Ha! An impartial and fair source if ever there was one. Ha, Ha! [it was admittedly not a good comment by me]
cowboyjerkface
August 13, 2012 at 7:33pm
Actually most conservative sites gives thumbs up to the Daily Kos for always providing balance and opposing views.
Just because you hate anything remotely liberal doesnt mean they are not fair. I always read red state sites just to keep up but when I post, I try to be civil and offer data to back up my beliefs.
Never take anything personally or try to insult, just have a good exchange of ideas. Give it a shot sometime.
Actually most conservative sites gives thumbs up to the Daily Kos for always providing balance and opposing views.
Just because you hate anything remotely liberal doesnt mean they are not fair. I always read red state sites just to keep up but when I post, I try to be civil and offer data to back up my beliefs.
Never take anything personally or try to insult, just have a good exchange of ideas. Give it a shot sometime.
Okay, "jerkface."
Me
"Since Obama's first budget took effect on Oct 1, 2009, we have created
almost as many net jobs in just over 30 months as WBush created in EIGHT
YEARS!!! "
Where is your evidence of that?
Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama was elected?
Where is your evidence of that?
Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama was elected?
AddressTheFacts
August 13, 2012 at 8:59pm
http://thinkprogress.org/
There is your evidence. This is what I am talking about. No one can show you anything. You can't pin the first year on Obama when the free fall was JUST STARTING when Bush was leaving. That's like saying if McCain had won magically the economy would have stopped losing the 800,000 jobs a month. There is no way anyone can honestly believe that. You are a partisan hack.
You ignore evidence when a simple google search "Obama Bush job growth" would have pulled that link. You are willfully ignorant
http://thinkprogress.org/
There is your evidence. This is what I am talking about. No one can show you anything. You can't pin the first year on Obama when the free fall was JUST STARTING when Bush was leaving. That's like saying if McCain had won magically the economy would have stopped losing the 800,000 jobs a month. There is no way anyone can honestly believe that. You are a partisan hack.
You ignore evidence when a simple google search "Obama Bush job growth" would have pulled that link. You are willfully ignorant
[When I show a source I try to use sources from, at least allegedly, neutral, or sources from the left to make my point.
If I used a link to the NRA to convince someone on the left of a point, would it convince them, or would they say: "NRA = biased"? How is this source of theirs different for my side?
After looking at the link I am "surprised" to find that it is actually Obama who is the conservative and Bush was a liberal. (insert eyeroll).]
Me
All recent presidents have spent way too much.
Isn't the quote I quoted incorrect, even if it was "false prosperity"?
Is it your belief that higher taxes and more rules and regulation encourage people to work harder and more productively?
Isn't the quote I quoted incorrect, even if it was "false prosperity"?
Is it your belief that higher taxes and more rules and regulation encourage people to work harder and more productively?
AddressTheFacts
August 13, 2012 at 8:57pm
I already owned you once and that's why I stopped replying. You ignored my posts and sent me on these ridiculous scavenger hunts. Bush turned a 200 billion surplus into a 1.2 trillion deficit. Tax cuts did not create jobs. End of story. As I said, I already thorough owned you.
http://www.alyudesign.com/
I already owned you once and that's why I stopped replying. You ignored my posts and sent me on these ridiculous scavenger hunts. Bush turned a 200 billion surplus into a 1.2 trillion deficit. Tax cuts did not create jobs. End of story. As I said, I already thorough owned you.
http://www.alyudesign.com/
[Well apparently I've lost, you see: "End of story."
He is apparently looking for a direct 1 to 1 correlation of tax cuts to job growth. He is ignoring such things as the U.S. Code, OSHA, the economy, wars, etc.
Once I am done here I am going to research our past encounters and see what is what, I do not recall ignoring this person.]
Me
"...Ryan believes faith is fact."
As opposed to democrats who believe in big government, and that's totally different from believing "faith is fact" for democrats. I can't imagine why I'd make such a comparison.
As opposed to democrats who believe in big government, and that's totally different from believing "faith is fact" for democrats. I can't imagine why I'd make such a comparison.
Jeff Wolverton
August 13, 2012 at 8:52pm
>> "As opposed to democrats who believe in big government"
Actually, the size of government shrinks under Democrat administrations, but grows under Republican administrations:
DURING LAST SIX PRESIDENCIES (3 Dem, 3 Rep, over 34 years): Change in size of government (in 1000s of Federal government nonmilitary employees)
D-Carter (4 yrs) 2883 -> 2876 ( -7 per year)
R-Reagan (8 yrs) 2876 -> 3113 ( 237 per year)
R-Bush I (4 yrs) 3113 -> 3083 ( -30 per year)
D-Clinton(8 yrs) 3083 -> 2702 (-381 per year)
R-Bush II(8 yrs) 2702 -> 2756 ( 54 per year)
D-Obama (2 yrs) 2756 -> 2840 ( 84 per year up through 2010, though may change by end of office)
Average change in size of gov't per year under Republican administrations: GROWS by 87,000
Average change in size of gov't per year under Democratic administrations: SHRINKS by 101,000
[Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, www.opm.gov/feddata/
>> "As opposed to democrats who believe in big government"
Actually, the size of government shrinks under Democrat administrations, but grows under Republican administrations:
DURING LAST SIX PRESIDENCIES (3 Dem, 3 Rep, over 34 years): Change in size of government (in 1000s of Federal government nonmilitary employees)
D-Carter (4 yrs) 2883 -> 2876 ( -7 per year)
R-Reagan (8 yrs) 2876 -> 3113 ( 237 per year)
R-Bush I (4 yrs) 3113 -> 3083 ( -30 per year)
D-Clinton(8 yrs) 3083 -> 2702 (-381 per year)
R-Bush II(8 yrs) 2702 -> 2756 ( 54 per year)
D-Obama (2 yrs) 2756 -> 2840 ( 84 per year up through 2010, though may change by end of office)
Average change in size of gov't per year under Republican administrations: GROWS by 87,000
Average change in size of gov't per year under Democratic administrations: SHRINKS by 101,000
[Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, www.opm.gov/feddata/
[Apparently it is not the democrats who are in favor of ACA (big government) but it is instead the republicans. In any case, I'm a libertarian.]
Me
At least we can agree that unemployment, falling incomes, and debt have all gotten worse since Obama was elected.
DFKinch
August 13, 2012 at 8:48pm
Actually, private sector emplyment is up. It's only due to Republicans at the state level laying off teachers, policemen, fire fighters, etc. from the "public sector" that the employment rate is staying so high. In every other depression/recession the government (even under Reagan) has played a large role in the recovery by hiring people. Those people spend their money, which gives merchants the incentive to hire more people (since they now have more customers). Those people spend their money, and so on. It's called the "virtuous cycle".
But this time, the Republicans intentionally sabotaged the economy to prevent the President's success.
Actually, private sector emplyment is up. It's only due to Republicans at the state level laying off teachers, policemen, fire fighters, etc. from the "public sector" that the employment rate is staying so high. In every other depression/recession the government (even under Reagan) has played a large role in the recovery by hiring people. Those people spend their money, which gives merchants the incentive to hire more people (since they now have more customers). Those people spend their money, and so on. It's called the "virtuous cycle".
But this time, the Republicans intentionally sabotaged the economy to prevent the President's success.
Me
At least we can agree that unemployment, falling incomes, and debt have all gotten worse since Obama was elected.
Harbinger08
August 13, 2012 at 6:16pm
If the Republicans in Congress had not enabled the cutting of over 1.2 million public sector jobs, where would unemployment be now? So while the private sector was recovering and adding jobs the GOP and the likes of Ryan were tossing public sector jobs out the back door, just so they could keep unemployment high and blame it on Obama. And those are the guys you want to defend. Whatever.
If the Republicans in Congress had not enabled the cutting of over 1.2 million public sector jobs, where would unemployment be now? So while the private sector was recovering and adding jobs the GOP and the likes of Ryan were tossing public sector jobs out the back door, just so they could keep unemployment high and blame it on Obama. And those are the guys you want to defend. Whatever.
Me
At least we can agree that unemployment, falling incomes, and debt have all gotten worse since Obama was elected.
cowboyjerkface
August 13, 2012 at 7:14pm
Except the facts do not support your claim so no, we cant agree when your opinion is just that and you avoid the facts...typical but facts are facts.
Except the facts do not support your claim so no, we cant agree when your opinion is just that and you avoid the facts...typical but facts are facts.
Me
Being a responsible congressman by attempting to balance the budget is
very extreme. I can't imagine why anyone would want the government to
only spend as much as it taxes.
We need more federal funding for art! Otherwise their won't be any! The States are completely incapable of taking care of the education of their citizens!
We were given a bad economy 4 years ago and since Obama was elected everything has gotten...uh...better?
We need more federal funding for art! Otherwise their won't be any! The States are completely incapable of taking care of the education of their citizens!
We were given a bad economy 4 years ago and since Obama was elected everything has gotten...uh...better?
cowboyjerkface
August 13, 2012 at 7:13pm
I have no problems with attempting to balance the budget.
But instead of paying off any debt with the savings they will get by destroying the safety net, Ryan and Romney think the wealthy deserve an even bigger tax break with the difference to be made up by the middle class and poor.
That's your idea of "responsibility"...really?
I have no problems with attempting to balance the budget.
But instead of paying off any debt with the savings they will get by destroying the safety net, Ryan and Romney think the wealthy deserve an even bigger tax break with the difference to be made up by the middle class and poor.
That's your idea of "responsibility"...really?
Me
At least we can agree that unemployment, falling incomes, and debt have all gotten worse since Obama was elected.
cowboyjerkface
August 13, 2012 at 7:35pm
hmmm....thats odd...the stats from OMB and other government sources seem to contradict what you say....oh well...
hmmm....thats odd...the stats from OMB and other government sources seem to contradict what you say....oh well...
Unemployment rate January 2009: 7.6%
Unemployment rate July 2012: 8.3%
Me
Being a responsible congressman by attempting to balance the budget is
very extreme. I can't imagine why anyone would want the government to
only spend as much as it taxes.
We need more federal funding for art! Otherwise their won't be any! The States are completely incapable of taking care of the education of their citizens!
We were given a bad economy 4 years ago and since Obama was elected everything has gotten...uh...better?
We need more federal funding for art! Otherwise their won't be any! The States are completely incapable of taking care of the education of their citizens!
We were given a bad economy 4 years ago and since Obama was elected everything has gotten...uh...better?
Tar Heel Bill 92
August 13, 2012 at 9:36pm
You're funny. And ignorant. You believe that Ryan's attempt to balance the budget is considered extreme by the rest of us...conveniently ignoring the MANNER with which he wants to balance the budget. Balancing the budget is wonderful. HOW one does it, however, can be reasoned and make sense or be extreme. In Ryan's case, he wants to gut every major social program to drop over $5 trillion over the next 10 years...while at the same time increasing the military budget in the same period. Just what the USA needs--a bigger military while its citizens can't afford healthcare, food, an education, or other staples of a decent American life. That's EXTREME.
You're funny. And ignorant. You believe that Ryan's attempt to balance the budget is considered extreme by the rest of us...conveniently ignoring the MANNER with which he wants to balance the budget. Balancing the budget is wonderful. HOW one does it, however, can be reasoned and make sense or be extreme. In Ryan's case, he wants to gut every major social program to drop over $5 trillion over the next 10 years...while at the same time increasing the military budget in the same period. Just what the USA needs--a bigger military while its citizens can't afford healthcare, food, an education, or other staples of a decent American life. That's EXTREME.
Me
You've had "enough" of what? Which programs were eliminated, that caused you to have "enough"?
Tar Heel Bill 92
August 13, 2012 at 9:46pm
I suspect the "enough" he mentions includes obstruction as well as the sheer pandering to the Tea Party. Cutting the deficit first seemed hypocritical, when the GOP and Tea Party never arose to worry about the massive deficit created UNDER BUSH but waited until Obama became President to finally see this as a problem. Now cutting the deficit is still a fine goal, but perhaps we should do it in a balanced approach. If you believe that half of this country is roughly conservative and sides with Romney/Ryan to some degree, and half of the country is more normal/progressive and sides with Obama/Biden to some degree, as the past 3 presidential elections would certainly suggest, then it would be reasonable to assume that BOTH parties need to budge to accommodate some of what the other party prefers. The Democrats have shown willingness to compromise, offering even reductions and consideration of further reductions to the entitlement programs that Democrats LOVE...while at the same time asking for MODEST tax increases on the wealthy. In a republic, you cannot get everything you want. The GOP blasted it because they are absolutists who do not want a republic but a dictatorship in which they set the entire agenda and do not compromise whatsoever with the opposition. That is not American. Compromise is necessary. The GOP and its base are too ignorant and selfish to recognize this. I am Republican, and I absolutely detest what my party has become. SHAMEFUL.
I suspect the "enough" he mentions includes obstruction as well as the sheer pandering to the Tea Party. Cutting the deficit first seemed hypocritical, when the GOP and Tea Party never arose to worry about the massive deficit created UNDER BUSH but waited until Obama became President to finally see this as a problem. Now cutting the deficit is still a fine goal, but perhaps we should do it in a balanced approach. If you believe that half of this country is roughly conservative and sides with Romney/Ryan to some degree, and half of the country is more normal/progressive and sides with Obama/Biden to some degree, as the past 3 presidential elections would certainly suggest, then it would be reasonable to assume that BOTH parties need to budge to accommodate some of what the other party prefers. The Democrats have shown willingness to compromise, offering even reductions and consideration of further reductions to the entitlement programs that Democrats LOVE...while at the same time asking for MODEST tax increases on the wealthy. In a republic, you cannot get everything you want. The GOP blasted it because they are absolutists who do not want a republic but a dictatorship in which they set the entire agenda and do not compromise whatsoever with the opposition. That is not American. Compromise is necessary. The GOP and its base are too ignorant and selfish to recognize this. I am Republican, and I absolutely detest what my party has become. SHAMEFUL.
Me
Countries that have large income inequality are generally more
prosperous than the countries without income inequality (think: third
world countries).
What does it matter if one person makes more than you or I, so long as it was acquired without harming others?
Which policies of Romney's do you think are the ones that will increase poverty? If you say that his administration would be in favor of big subsidies, and similar, for big businesses, then I will point out that many of the wall street campaign donors for Romney were supporting Obama in 2008.
What does it matter if one person makes more than you or I, so long as it was acquired without harming others?
Which policies of Romney's do you think are the ones that will increase poverty? If you say that his administration would be in favor of big subsidies, and similar, for big businesses, then I will point out that many of the wall street campaign donors for Romney were supporting Obama in 2008.
botazefa
August 14, 2012 at 9:12am
"Countries that have large income inequality are generally more prosperous than the countries without income inequality (think: third world countries)."
This is backward. Countries with large income inequality are less prosperous.
The policies of Romney's that will increase poverty are in his economic plan. Paul Ryan's budget plan, which Romney has endorsed, would take away Medicare and block grant medicaid. It would block grant CHIP. It would do away with many programs that support the poor and middle class.
"Countries that have large income inequality are generally more prosperous than the countries without income inequality (think: third world countries)."
This is backward. Countries with large income inequality are less prosperous.
The policies of Romney's that will increase poverty are in his economic plan. Paul Ryan's budget plan, which Romney has endorsed, would take away Medicare and block grant medicaid. It would block grant CHIP. It would do away with many programs that support the poor and middle class.
I got more but this is getting long and I've got things to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment