@lastminuteregret Funny how everybody blamed Bush nout Congress for the economic downturn of 07. I'm not saying Bush was a good president. Far from it, his liberalism produced one problem after another. Like subsidizing corn fuel, allowing the Dems to run wild with fannie mae and bailing out mega-corps. That being said, the govt would do better to involve itself as little as possible in the economy which always has good times and bad no matter which party is in the oval office.
Things got much much much worse under Barack. Umemployment? Worse. Deficit? Unbelievably worse.
The rest of his work is way worse. He passed obama care which made the public realize that most Democrats are not only shortsighted but don't care about what the public is demanding.
As for the war, Obama promised we'd be out of Iraq withing 18 months of taking office. How is that promise coming along?
@joekhyser To just put correction into one of your statements, the Health Care bill we see now is not in any resemblance to what Obama offered to Congress. Congressional butchery destroyed his idea for health care reform, which in itself was far more applicable to the needs of the people. There is a reason that Congress always has a lower approval rating than the President, whoever he/she may be. Congress is the root of most issues in this country, not the President.
oh and the worst of all, not the wars and murderings, not the huge damage made to education and health care, not the huge deficit, not the collaboration with dictatorships like china and saudi arabia, not the history of taking down elected goverments and financing wars, not the huge probability that 9/11 was an inside job, the worst thing: this fucking polarization based on crap. Do something for your country and stop talking crap
It is astonishing how the President of the United States, no matter who he is, is always responsible for all the ills of this country. It is as if we no longer have free will or self determination. You have way more influence over your life than the president has. You will decide if you will live in poverty or will rise above and do something with your life.
the proportion of those without healthcare has risen by 9%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. But where the poor are most numerous, it seems the Democrats are weakest. The 10 states with the lowest household median income, where people are least likely to have healthcare and most likely to live in poverty, all voted Republican in 2004. Not only are they poor, but they're getting poorer. The five states with the steepest falls in income backed Bush.
Leave it to the most ignorant of society to by persuaded by the same conservative politicians who will ultimately do them the most harm. What a sad irony.
A few quotes from Thomas Jefferson. " The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." "... If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
The poor and the ignorant are that way today because they choose to be. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide for them like they are children. Kennedy-" Ask not what your country..."
In premise, I agree with you. However, there are hungry children in America. I believe that it is our duty to feed them. There are only benefits:
-higher concentration levels in school
-lower likelihood to commit crime
-kids with enough to eat are physically, mentally & emotionally healthier (lowering health care costs)
-that hungry, poor kid might hold the key to our future, if he's able to learn because he starts getting enough food, he could be the next Einstein, Whitney or Jefferson
@esigus because all the little bastards on food stamps in the ghetto NEVER rape rob and murder...
All it does is create a sense of entitlement and prevent people from having the hunger to improve, reach higher, and make something of themself, at the cost of tax payer money.
So, you believe a better answer is to eliminate all assistance?
Okay, let's think that through to all the potential outcomes, good & bad, that might come of that.. in the short & long term.
Might I suggest that if we're going to stop giving living assistance to Americans, we also stop giving financial aid to all foreign nations & cease charitable assistance to children in general.
I'm shocked every time I hear of another American who is so unwilling to give help to an American child.
@esigus Hate to jump in when not welcome, but a few things need to be cleared up.
For example; ceasing charitable assistance would be wrong, as it would be telling free individuals what they can and can't do with their money. If it is charity, it is not from the government, check the definition.
Yes, ending all financial aid to foreign nations (excluding disaster relief) during a time of record deficit, beyond that of any sum any nation ever acquired may be a wise decision.
You're right. You shouldn't have jumped in. You didn't understand what I said.
If we're going to end government sponsored charity, was the point... i.e. welfare, foodstamps, etc. Then we should also end tax breaks & [govn't] loans & grants & subsidies, etc.
Stop rewarding bad behavior by whom? Only poor people? We've witnessed bad behavior by so many super-wealthy, it's been sickening & we continue to reward them with bailouts, tax cuts, etc etc etc etc.
@esigus I perfectly understood what you've said. What you don't seem to understand is that if it is from the government, it is no longer charity. It's a basic flaw in your wording, and it's confusing your perception on the role of government. If you've read any of Paul's work, especially his book Revolution you would understand how these conclusions are a problem, and understand how the few powerful are using it to cripple us as a nation, leaving all of us in the hands of a despotic state.
What do you call welfare, foodstamps, public housing, etc.? Charity from the government. If we end that, then we should also end tax breaks & [govn't] loans & grants & subsidies, etc.
Stop rewarding bad behavior by whom? Only poor people? We've witnessed extremely bad behavior by so many super-wealthy, it's absolutely sickening & we continue to reward them with bailouts, tax cuts, etc etc etc etc.
@esigus Other than that, we are in complete agreement. And to be honest, as the strict conservative/libertarian I am, i wouldn't mind taking care of our own. I just want to end the wars, the world policing, the militarism (worldwide at least), the banking cartels, the Federal Reserve, the corporatism, the destruction of American agriculture (by Monsanto mostly) and various other things are way higher on my list than welfare reform, free loading & etc...
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that the former would leave you an incentive to work by rewarding the wealthy while the latter would have us all sit around doing nothing until we are all equally poor.
@joekhyser "the latter would have us all sit around doing nothing until we are all equally poor'. nothing wrong with that is what we need . To much bashing of the unemployed going even though unemployment is not of fault of there own.
@joekhyser yea 9/11 under their watch let it happend, worst economic meltdown in history, let wall street steal at their will, patriot act which goes against 6 admentments and took habeas corpus away, torture, destroyed the country image making us targets, illegal war based on a lie, their 2nd vietnam, killed over 200 thousand iraki and afgans civilians not terrorists, corporations took over everything including press so now some ppl on sweden had to show us what's happening, more? fanatics
Indeed, poor people who vote Republican are shooting themselves in the foot. Their intelligence is low and they cling to religion - they would rather be poor than vote for a leader who isn't outwardly religious.
They might also be the next Hitler, Goebels, Stalin, Po Pot...
hank262 5 months ago
...yeah that's exactly what that quote meant. (???)
JobberBud 6 months ago
@lastminuteregret Funny how everybody blamed Bush nout Congress for the economic downturn of 07. I'm not saying Bush was a good president. Far from it, his liberalism produced one problem after another. Like subsidizing corn fuel, allowing the Dems to run wild with fannie mae and bailing out mega-corps. That being said, the govt would do better to involve itself as little as possible in the economy which always has good times and bad no matter which party is in the oval office.
joekhyser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry. Didn't notice your comment about 9/11 being "an inside job". I think your tin foil hat is bent our of shape.
joekhyser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry. Didn't notice your comment about 9/11 being "an inside job". I think your tin foil hat is bent our of shape.
joekhyser 1 year ago
"The worst economic meltdown in history"?
Things got much much much worse under Barack. Umemployment? Worse. Deficit? Unbelievably worse.
The rest of his work is way worse. He passed obama care which made the public realize that most Democrats are not only shortsighted but don't care about what the public is demanding.
As for the war, Obama promised we'd be out of Iraq withing 18 months of taking office. How is that promise coming along?
joekhyser 1 year ago
@joekhyser To just put correction into one of your statements, the Health Care bill we see now is not in any resemblance to what Obama offered to Congress. Congressional butchery destroyed his idea for health care reform, which in itself was far more applicable to the needs of the people. There is a reason that Congress always has a lower approval rating than the President, whoever he/she may be. Congress is the root of most issues in this country, not the President.
lastminuteregret 1 year ago
oh and the worst of all, not the wars and murderings, not the huge damage made to education and health care, not the huge deficit, not the collaboration with dictatorships like china and saudi arabia, not the history of taking down elected goverments and financing wars, not the huge probability that 9/11 was an inside job, the worst thing: this fucking polarization based on crap. Do something for your country and stop talking crap
crazy3d 1 year ago
It is astonishing how the President of the United States, no matter who he is, is always responsible for all the ills of this country. It is as if we no longer have free will or self determination. You have way more influence over your life than the president has. You will decide if you will live in poverty or will rise above and do something with your life.
todengine 2 years ago 8
@todengine Could'nt have said it better myself!
nmiller731 9 months ago
@todengine So your saying that somebody with a hefty inheritance and above average intellect is on EXACTLY the same par as a poor man?
DinkiDiDude 2 months ago
the proportion of those without healthcare has risen by 9%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. But where the poor are most numerous, it seems the Democrats are weakest. The 10 states with the lowest household median income, where people are least likely to have healthcare and most likely to live in poverty, all voted Republican in 2004. Not only are they poor, but they're getting poorer. The five states with the steepest falls in income backed Bush.
tls2156 3 years ago 4
Leave it to the most ignorant of society to by persuaded by the same conservative politicians who will ultimately do them the most harm. What a sad irony.
dshipe78 3 years ago
A few quotes from Thomas Jefferson. " The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." "... If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
The poor and the ignorant are that way today because they choose to be. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide for them like they are children. Kennedy-" Ask not what your country..."
hank262 2 years ago 6
@hank262
In premise, I agree with you. However, there are hungry children in America. I believe that it is our duty to feed them. There are only benefits:
-higher concentration levels in school
-lower likelihood to commit crime
-kids with enough to eat are physically, mentally & emotionally healthier (lowering health care costs)
-that hungry, poor kid might hold the key to our future, if he's able to learn because he starts getting enough food, he could be the next Einstein, Whitney or Jefferson
esigus 7 months ago
@esigus because all the little bastards on food stamps in the ghetto NEVER rape rob and murder...
All it does is create a sense of entitlement and prevent people from having the hunger to improve, reach higher, and make something of themself, at the cost of tax payer money.
labartic 6 months ago
@labartic
So, you believe a better answer is to eliminate all assistance?
Okay, let's think that through to all the potential outcomes, good & bad, that might come of that.. in the short & long term.
Might I suggest that if we're going to stop giving living assistance to Americans, we also stop giving financial aid to all foreign nations & cease charitable assistance to children in general.
I'm shocked every time I hear of another American who is so unwilling to give help to an American child.
esigus 6 months ago
@esigus Hate to jump in when not welcome, but a few things need to be cleared up.
For example; ceasing charitable assistance would be wrong, as it would be telling free individuals what they can and can't do with their money. If it is charity, it is not from the government, check the definition.
Yes, ending all financial aid to foreign nations (excluding disaster relief) during a time of record deficit, beyond that of any sum any nation ever acquired may be a wise decision.
joker52mlb 5 months ago
@joker52mlb
You're right. You shouldn't have jumped in. You didn't understand what I said.
If we're going to end government sponsored charity, was the point... i.e. welfare, foodstamps, etc. Then we should also end tax breaks & [govn't] loans & grants & subsidies, etc.
Stop rewarding bad behavior by whom? Only poor people? We've witnessed bad behavior by so many super-wealthy, it's been sickening & we continue to reward them with bailouts, tax cuts, etc etc etc etc.
Fair's fair.
Ron Paul 2012.
esigus 5 months ago
@esigus I perfectly understood what you've said. What you don't seem to understand is that if it is from the government, it is no longer charity. It's a basic flaw in your wording, and it's confusing your perception on the role of government. If you've read any of Paul's work, especially his book Revolution you would understand how these conclusions are a problem, and understand how the few powerful are using it to cripple us as a nation, leaving all of us in the hands of a despotic state.
joker52mlb 5 months ago
Comment removed
esigus 5 months ago
@joker52mlb
You're right. You shouldn't have jumped in.
What do you call welfare, foodstamps, public housing, etc.? Charity from the government. If we end that, then we should also end tax breaks & [govn't] loans & grants & subsidies, etc.
Stop rewarding bad behavior by whom? Only poor people? We've witnessed extremely bad behavior by so many super-wealthy, it's absolutely sickening & we continue to reward them with bailouts, tax cuts, etc etc etc etc.
Cut it ALL out.
Fair's fair.
Ron Paul 2012.
esigus 5 months ago
@esigus Other than that, we are in complete agreement. And to be honest, as the strict conservative/libertarian I am, i wouldn't mind taking care of our own. I just want to end the wars, the world policing, the militarism (worldwide at least), the banking cartels, the Federal Reserve, the corporatism, the destruction of American agriculture (by Monsanto mostly) and various other things are way higher on my list than welfare reform, free loading & etc...
Yea, agreed on Paul in 2012 as well.
joker52mlb 5 months ago
@esigus And he's correct, we do need to stop rewarding bad behavior, especially from a legislative level.
joker52mlb 5 months ago
@dshipe78
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that the former would leave you an incentive to work by rewarding the wealthy while the latter would have us all sit around doing nothing until we are all equally poor.
joekhyser 2 years ago 2
@joekhyser "the latter would have us all sit around doing nothing until we are all equally poor'. nothing wrong with that is what we need . To much bashing of the unemployed going even though unemployment is not of fault of there own.
carnypimp 1 year ago
@joekhyser yea 9/11 under their watch let it happend, worst economic meltdown in history, let wall street steal at their will, patriot act which goes against 6 admentments and took habeas corpus away, torture, destroyed the country image making us targets, illegal war based on a lie, their 2nd vietnam, killed over 200 thousand iraki and afgans civilians not terrorists, corporations took over everything including press so now some ppl on sweden had to show us what's happening, more? fanatics
crazy3d 1 year ago
@dshipe78
"Leave it to the most ignorant of society"
You mean democrats, right?
Wraith23 1 year ago
Indeed, poor people who vote Republican are shooting themselves in the foot. Their intelligence is low and they cling to religion - they would rather be poor than vote for a leader who isn't outwardly religious.
bulletproofcourier 3 years ago
@bulletproofcourier
It's rather simple to categorize others as being simple simply because they disagree with you.
joekhyser 2 years ago 5
According to recent US census figures, since President Bush assumed power in 2000 poverty has risen by 7%,
tls2156 3 years ago