• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goldenboy219 said:
I don't believe higher net worth individuals should receive S.S.

Medicare is necessary to remove high risk individuals off private risk pools and out of bankruptcy court.
Click to expand...

Our government made a contract with the American people and in funding that program, largely eliminated or severely hampered the ability of the people to make alternate arrangements. For nearly 70 plus years, we've been paying huge amounts into the system while failing to care for properly other forms of retirement planning, or simply being unable to invest as much as is needed because of social security and medicare taxes.

Do you agree with this?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I don't believe higher net worth individuals should receive S.S.

Medicare is necessary to remove high risk individuals off private risk pools and out of bankruptcy court.
Click to expand...

Therefore you believe then that you should pay someone else's retirement? Why not just get a name and send a monthly check?

have no problem being forced into "contributing" to SS for your entire work life and then not getting anything back when you retire? Explain that logic?

The real problem isn't SS, the real problem is when LBJ put SS on budget and used the surplus to fund other govt. spending programs. That has left Intergovt. holdings with trillions in IOU's as every Administration and Congress since has used that money for whatever they want leaving a shortfall now and in the future.
 
"Here’s the rundown.

Like Bush, Rick Perry is Brought to You by Big Oil

Just Like former President George W. Bush, Rick Perry is heavily funded by the oil and gas industry. In fact, it has been Rick Perry’s very top source of funding":



"Like Bush, Rick Perry Preaches Small Government While Growing Government

Despite his anti-government rhetoric, in Rick Perry’s Texas public sector employment grew twice as much as private sector employment. Want more proof? Here’s a chart showing government employment in Texas":



Progress Reports | ThinkProgress
 
Last edited:
That's not too surprising given the size of the oil business in Texas.
 

To whom would you suggest oil companies donate money?
 
LuckyDan said:
To whom would you suggest oil companies donate money?
Click to expand...

They generally donate to whoever will best represent their interest (low regulations and taxes)! And Perry is their man!
 
I'd say their decision is based on two things: 1) who will represent their interests, and 2) who they think has the best chance of winning.
 
Catawba said:
They generally donate to whoever will best represent their interest (low regulations and taxes)! And Perry is their man!
Click to expand...

Exactamundo!

Any energy company that gives so much as a vending machine slug to a Dem ought to fire it's officers.
 
AdamT said:
I'd say their decision is based on two things: 1) who will represent their interests, and 2) who they think has the best chance of winning.
Click to expand...

It has a domino effect....Donors will be falling in line to fill his big campaign chest. Money ain't gonna be a problem
 
LuckyDan said:
Exactamundo!

Any energy company that gives so much as a vending machine slug to a Dem ought to fire it's officers.
Click to expand...

And a voter that would give so much as thought of voting for a president who wanted to sacrifice public health to increase oil company profits should have his head examined.
 
Catawba said:
And a voter that would give so much as thought of voting for a president who wanted to sacrifice public health to increase oil company profits should have his head examined.
Click to expand...

This should be fun.

Public health and oil profits are related how?
 
LuckyDan said:
To whom would you suggest oil companies donate money?
Click to expand...

They could use it to make more jobs instead, since that is what this is all about. Maybe if companies and groups were donating less money to candidates and campaigns and parties, and rather using that money to hire more American workers and/or pay them better, perhaps the entire country could actually be doing better.
 

If they are the big, evil capitalists those who fear them claim, why wouldn't they be doing just that? Hiring more workers to exploit and draw wealth from?
 
LuckyDan said:
This should be fun.

Public health and oil profits are related how?
Click to expand...

They are not, that is my point. Believe it or not, more people are interested in their health than they are with oil companies getting more profits.
 

The point of providing social insurance is so that those who reach retirement age without adequate savings will not have to live out the remainder of their life in utter poverty. However, if you are not in poverty and have a liquid net worth of over $500,000.00, not being able to draw from S.S.

I understand you are not a fan of real economic analysis, but you never know:


snip


Source
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
They are not, that is my point. Believe it or not, more people are interested in their health than they are with oil companies getting more profits.
Click to expand...

And more people are interested in getting laid than they are in their health plan. There too, one has nothing whatever to do with the other.

You said,

And a voter that would give so much as thought of voting for a president who wanted to sacrifice public health to increase oil company profits should have his head examined.
Click to expand...

I ask again, what does the health of the oil industry have to do with the health of the public? In what ways would a president friendly to oil threaten the health of the public? In what ways would public health be sacrificed?
 
SlackMaster said:
Just curious. You keep pasting this into your posts as if we haven't responded to it already. It hasn't convinced us thus far. Do you think posting it a tenth time will convince us?
Click to expand...
Are you kidding, without exaggeration, he has posted that at least 100 times.
 
LuckyDan said:
If they are the big, evil capitalists those who fear them claim, why wouldn't they be doing just that? Hiring more workers to exploit and draw wealth from?
Click to expand...

And if trickle down economics actually worked the way some feel it does, then we would see much less donating of money to candidates and parties, and a lot more jobs being created.

Big companies and people who run them aren't inherently evil, but that doesn't mean that all or even most of them do what's best for this country rather than what's better for themselves, including doing things like donating to political candidates just to get their own way. That money could probably be used to make more jobs and/or raise a salary or two or maybe offer affordable health insurance to some of their employees.
 

The obligation of a company is to it's customers, employees and shareholders, not the country, though in serving those three, it serves the country in which it operates.

But I have to ask, if you want to see more employees of oil companies, would you agree to more domestic drilling?
 

Are you serious? Cutting public health regulations adversely affects public health.

And let's review Perry's record:

"His record as Texas governor matches the rhetoric. He filed a lawsuit against the EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations on behalf of the state, a suit widely expected to fail. Perry has said that he prays daily for the EPA rules to be reversed. He has consistently defended oil and coal interests in Texas, notably dubbing the BP oil well blowout an “act of God” and opposing the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate offshore drilling in the wake of the disaster. He also fast-tracked environmental permits for a number of coal plants in 2005, cutting in half the normal review period. His transportation agenda similarly does not reflect any concern about emissions, as he did not compete for federal high speed rail funding and has kept state funds focused on roads rather than mass transit."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/rick-perrys-environmental-record/2011/08/15/gIQApJbzGJ_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein


Americans dislike Perry for the same reasons big oil like him!
 
LuckyDan said:
The obligation of a company is to it's customers, employees and shareholders, not the country, though in serving those three, it serves the country in which it operates.
Click to expand...

Correct, and the obligation of a public representative is to protect public health from industry that does not have that obligation, as you just pointed out.

That is why they are called public representatives, and not oil representatives.
 

They do have an obligation to Americans. If they are getting government money and backing by screwing over the rest of us Americans with policies that heavily favor them just because they have the money to do so, they should be giving a good deal back, even if just to help themselves.

To a point, I do, although I would rather see alternative fuel made bigger than oil. I don't have a problem with domestic drilling, but considering I had distant relatives who were being paid by the government (at least before 2000, not sure about now) to keep their oil wells closed, I think it may be more prudent to check those out first. And I do insist that they meet certain safety and environmental standards to avoid causing more pollution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…