Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see.

 

I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

 

Problem is we are responsible for them now.

 

When you've raised a couple generations of people on welfare, the government becomes responsible for the results.

 

People like this, are damaged by the system and are stuck in the rut of their life called welfare dependence.

 

Sure they can break free of it, but the burden we've put on them is so much worse than most of us can relate too. Your whole family runs their lives around maximizing benefits, the system becomes a drug, one they are hooked on working.

 

Even if tomorrow we were able to elect a republican house and senate and president and enact pure reforms to turn welfare programs into viable programs that worked, there are millions of people who are corrupted and will never fit into main stream society ever as a result. And we are responsible for them as a country.

 

 

We have to take responsibility for the fact that we have harmed these people with our good intentions and poisoned help.

 

So I'm not for as much welfare reform as I am for finding ways to cut the fat from the programs. The government spends something like $.83 on the program implementation for every dollar spent on welfare. Only 17 cents goes to the recipient. That's where we 'fix' it.

 

We are generations away from fixing the results we've already created for millions of Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

Ok.

 

White vs Half white

Catholic vs religiously ambivalent. (fake Christian for political reasons)

Horny vs. star fcker

 

What else? I'm lost on the politcal stuff

 

The use of BHO still amazes me. Why is it nobody uses Mitt's entire name? Could it be because it doesn't have Hussein in it? I mean, Willard is pretty bad. Crispin Glover is creepy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a lot of these non tax payers may fall into the category of people that work at $35k a year jobs, yet have 2 or 3 kids and no other real deductions, then get almost every penny back in their tax return.

They still paid social security. 15% is a reasonable tax rate.

 

But yeah, deductions are unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if my favorite part is every conservative pundit deliberately ignoring the most damaging line: calling half of America lazy and irresponsible

 

Or

 

Every conservative pundit deliberately ignoring the fact that a huge chunk of that 47% aren't even likely Obama voters. Of the ten most welfare-y states, eight voted McCain in 2008.

 

It's a toss-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't know which is my favorite part: That you bought into the Krugman lie that welfare states being red means that welfare people are more likely to be republican even though that ( like most statements of fact from Krugman ) was refuted effectively over and over again.

 

Or that everyone else besides partisan democrats didn't get what you liberals got out of what Romney said.

 

 

Probably the first one, cause that's hilarious that you believed a liberal talking point which is so lacking in any logic ( like Krugman)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read Paul Krugman....but I didn't say all the welfare people are republican voters, did I?

 

It's mitt Romney who said all of them are in Obama's pocket....are you saying there are no rural white Romney supporters who don't pay federal income tax? Of those 47%, at least a quarter of them are right? At least? Hey, nbd, he only insulted like 20 million of his own base.

 

Btw, several republicans called Romney an idiot both pundits and candidates (Scott Brown and Linda McMahon are two examples). It's just Republican pundits who see this election slipping away that ignored Romney calling 47% of voters lazy and shiftless. Please explain away Romney's line about "not wanting to take care of themselves.". It's fun watching a balloon turn into a pretzel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So based on the BLS statistics

 

Men 20 Years and older: 71% are employed

 

Women 20 Years and older : 60% are employed

 

That's for the civilian noninstitutional population - not sure if that excludes students and stay-at-home parents, but Romney's 47% obviously includes working folks who happen to be poor.

 

This should be good for a week of entertainment

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read Paul Krugman....but I didn't say all the welfare people are republican voters, did I?

 

It's mitt Romney who said all of them are in Obama's pocket....are you saying there are no rural white Romney supporters who don't pay federal income tax? Of those 47%, at least a quarter of them are right? At least? Hey, nbd, he only insulted like 20 million of his own base.

 

Btw, several republicans called Romney an idiot both pundits and candidates (Scott Brown and Linda McMahon are two examples). It's just Republican pundits who see this election slipping away that ignored Romney calling 47% of voters lazy and shiftless. Please explain away Romney's line about "not wanting to take care of themselves.". It's fun watching a balloon turn into a pretzel.

 

are you saying those same voters are now going to vote for BHO?

Link to post
Share on other sites

May as well concede the election to BHO. nO sw. tHE REPUBS just need to implement a policy of containment for the next 4 yrsw. Make it a 4 yr lame duck, until a good canidate can be found. Rubio maybe. Force him to the center, filibuster anything left of Pat Buchannan. Just hope and pray theres anything left that resembles the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney blowing up could be bad news for some Democrats running for The Senate and House.

 

The Sheldon Adelson's of this World might shift some of the millions that they were going to spend on the Presidential Election into Senate and House races and we all know that money talks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney blowing up could be bad news for some Democrats running for The Senate and House.

 

The Sheldon Adelson's of this World might shift some of the millions that they were going to spend on the Presidential Election into Senate and House races and we all know that money talks.

 

so at least some good could be possible...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem that I have with Romney is his inability to elevate the tone of the conversation. Obama seems to have a strategy of only staying slightly above his opponent in terms of substance. So, because Romney has absolutely no substance to his campaign, he is allowing Obama to effectively give no information about his vision for the next 4 years. And the next 4 years for our country are crucial. This is the time when we should be having a rigorous debate about how to address the systemic economic issues that we're facing (from globalization, automization etc) and the medium-term issues that we're going to face with our entitlement programs.

 

Instead, neither candidate is addressing either issue, which are the real issues at hand. It's not even that there aren't big ideas, is that the problems aren't even being discussed. A lot of this has to do with the fact that Romney early on decided to run a referendum campaign where he would only talk about how bad Obama was over the last 4 years. But haven't we learned that doesn't work? Isn't that what Kerry did, and he lost pretty badly. You can't win by saying how bad you think the other guy is. Because the public's reaction will always be, "Yeah, okay, but if I don't know your plan, if you dont inspire me, then I don't trust you any more than he."

 

Anyway, this most recent, epic meltdown of the Romney campaign won't help any of those issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

are you saying those same voters are now going to vote for BHO?

 

No, I just find it amusing that it gets lost in the shuffle. Romney was not just insulting; much of what he said at that fundraiser was categorically false.

 

LLY, I've been calling this 2004 Part 2 for a while now.....it's eerie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, so now I see why we're talking about this.

 

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” Romney said of the dreaded 47 percent.

 

The problem is that Romney isn’t basing that figure on dependency on government programs. He’s using the rough percentage of people who pay no federal income tax.

 

 

You add this to Romney's statement about "$200,000 to $250,000 and less" statement and I get the feeling that he doesn't really know what all of these numbers mean that he's throwing out there.

 

 

Why does he have to fact-check is bs-ing people at a party? He wasn't in court. He wasn't giving a public speech. I know very few people that make sure what their saying at parties is 100% accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, I also wouldnt let kids starve because their parents are irresponsible idiots that should've popped on the boobs instead of inside.

 

Nobody would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't Brv, but it's not a point in his favor that he is so woefully mistaken. If you are running for President, you should probably be aware that a large chunk of that "lazy" 47% who don't pay taxes are poor, rural whites who vote GOP.

 

Of course, this is all a hill of beans compared to a Presidential candidate declaring in ANY setting that half the country "doesn't want to take responsibility for their lives." Nobody has even tried to defend that line because it is so indefensibly elitist and disgusting.....so most conservatives are just focusing on the rest of the clip and hoping no one notices or saying Romney was "just inarticulate."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem that I have with Romney is his inability to elevate the tone of the conversation. Obama seems to have a strategy of only staying slightly above his opponent in terms of substance. So, because Romney has absolutely no substance to his campaign, he is allowing Obama to effectively give no information about his vision for the next 4 years. And the next 4 years for our country are crucial. This is the time when we should be having a rigorous debate about how to address the systemic economic issues that we're facing (from globalization, automization etc) and the medium-term issues that we're going to face with our entitlement programs.

 

Instead, neither candidate is addressing either issue, which are the real issues at hand. It's not even that there aren't big ideas, is that the problems aren't even being discussed. A lot of this has to do with the fact that Romney early on decided to run a referendum campaign where he would only talk about how bad Obama was over the last 4 years. But haven't we learned that doesn't work? Isn't that what Kerry did, and he lost pretty badly. You can't win by saying how bad you think the other guy is. Because the public's reaction will always be, "Yeah, okay, but if I don't know your plan, if you dont inspire me, then I don't trust you any more than he."

 

Anyway, this most recent, epic meltdown of the Romney campaign won't help any of those issues.

 

Agreed 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mr. Romney implied that anyone receiving government benefits wouldn’t likely be one of his voters. But there’s no clear partisan split among beneficiaries, especially for broad-based federal retirement and health-care programs.

 

Thanks for linking an article that agrees with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he have to fact-check is bs-ing people at a party? He wasn't in court. He wasn't giving a public speech. I know very few people that make sure what their saying at parties is 100% accurate.

Classic Brv.

 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour in court, or in a public speech, but at a party, you gots you some wiggle-room, capeesh?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if my favorite part is every conservative pundit deliberately ignoring the most damaging line: calling half of America lazy and irresponsible

 

Yeah, that number is probably too low.

 

 

The real problem that I have with Romney is his inability to elevate the tone of the conversation. Obama seems to have a strategy of only staying slightly above his opponent in terms of substance. So, because Romney has absolutely no substance to his campaign, he is allowing Obama to effectively give no information about his vision for the next 4 years. And the next 4 years for our country are crucial. This is the time when we should be having a rigorous debate about how to address the systemic economic issues that we're facing (from globalization, automization etc) and the medium-term issues that we're going to face with our entitlement programs.

 

Instead, neither candidate is addressing either issue, which are the real issues at hand. It's not even that there aren't big ideas, is that the problems aren't even being discussed. A lot of this has to do with the fact that Romney early on decided to run a referendum campaign where he would only talk about how bad Obama was over the last 4 years. But haven't we learned that doesn't work? Isn't that what Kerry did, and he lost pretty badly. You can't win by saying how bad you think the other guy is. Because the public's reaction will always be, "Yeah, okay, but if I don't know your plan, if you dont inspire me, then I don't trust you any more than he."

 

Anyway, this most recent, epic meltdown of the Romney campaign won't help any of those issues.

 

This was well said.

 

I really dislike Romney a lot. I don't know why I should vote for him. I don't know why I should vote for Obama either, but that at least would make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Romney implied that anyone receiving government benefits wouldn’t likely be one of his voters. But there’s no clear partisan split among beneficiaries, especially for broad-based federal retirement and health-care programs.

 

Thanks for linking an article that agrees with me.

 

You're right, I definitely chose an unbiased article in which one sentence agreed with something you are claiming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...