- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Romney got rich through business and creating things.
To a conservative, "shaping" the news means revealing any information not approved by rush, and/or the speeches at GOP private fundraisers.
true, but hen you cut taxes for the one percent you do not create the demand you do when you cut it for the middle or poor classes. Romney wants to cut it for the one percent while raising it on the 99 percent. It makes more economical sense if you are going to cut taxes to cut it for the middle and lower classes as the money will be spent and actually get to the rich.
First those are 2 different problems. The programs are good, but they need better accountability. I would most certainly vote for stricter oversight, more specific benefits, and harsher punishment for fraud. I am not willing to say just because someone screwed them up that we should just get rid of the things that right now are holding up our economy. I would also like to note that those changes are happening. With the advancements of technology there has been much more control placed on the welfare system and I am all for more happening to make sure the money is being spent on the right things.
Our government has to start clamping down medical costs. They are high because there are no restrictions and it is a necessity for survival. It does not need to be so costly. If you want to allow the free market to gouge money off an Iphone that people do not need to survive i am cool with that. When you allow the medical industry to hold people and through them the government hostage for overpriced medicine then the government needs to step in and cap costs, or at least negotiate a lesser cost for their bulk purchases. That isn't being done because it will cost them their lobby money.
That is the end result of what you are suggesting, unless you are encouraging crime. You take an old or disabled person's social security from them and if they do not have savings they will starve to death and die. They simply are at the point they cannot work. I am simply following your suggestion to it's logical conclusion since money does not fall from heaven. please do not blame me because you now feel guilty because you had to face the inevitable conclusion to cutting off social programs in an economy without the jobs to cover the people.
I am sure you think so because I make you feel guilty. I should not remind you of the end result of cutting off the only income many elderly or disabled have. I should not remind you of the effect of denying the sick medical care. It reminds you that there is a reason we do those things. It is not because we all hope to someday live on the government dime, but that we hope if our life ever comes to those points there is something there for us when we cannot make our own. No one wishes to be disabled or have to live on welfare, but when they are down they do wish there was something there to help them. If it is so damned great go live off of it. If it is so easy and free go do it. You don't do it because it is not easy.
No, I think because they try to deny the effects of cutting programs that help defenseless and sick people they are sociopaths. I think because they seem to take great joy from trying to do it that they are sociopaths. You are not taking responsibility for your actions. That is the problem. if you came out and said the hell with the elderly, sick, disabled, and poor I would know you understand that cutting them off is something you have at least thought through to the point of recognizing what happens to them. You have not done that. You cannot even accept that your own claims we cannot afford them are basically sentencing them to a painful death if we follow your guys ideas. I just chose to have the programs in place despite the abuses, and hope for them to be corrected to be as efficient as possible because I see the need for them, and have compassion for the people who receive them and need them. You don't get to come here and tell me how compassionate you are when you are telling people to screw off and die.
that has to be the silliest post ever in debatepolitics.
selling books due to one's marketability, even if the marketability has to do one's political status, is still free-enterprise, as opposed to getting bailout money from the feds.
Nevertheless, always fun to watch these conservative posters squirm in desperation. Looks like they need to consult their prophet for more guidance. . .
Obama is the most anti libertarian president in modern history
Incorrect. And silly too. And unimaginative. (Trotting out Rush Limbaugh is sad.) You are surely aware of how brazen the NY Times bias toward John Kerry was. And you are surely aware of Arthur Brisbane's comments on "overloved and undermanaged" causes championed by the old gray skank.
If you aren't, here's a fact that you should know: "Ninety-five percent of congressional staff members believe that political bias in the media influences or shapes decision-making in Congress."
Survey: 95% of Hill staffers see media bias - POLITICO.com
Largely on the "social" side, although immigration obviously, too.I am curious what part of the libertarian message does Obama cater to. Dems win by telling losers that they should remain losers
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?