|
|
|
|
|
| | The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a PartyPage 3 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) |
Now in your last post you have only repeated the same ideological stuff used by the U.S. Republicans to justify their legislative efforts to keep working people living in poverty.
Firstly I'm not repeating anything (maybe others are repeating me?). I'm just stating what occurs based on observances of my own and others' behavior. If I wake up one day and see others who were making less than me are now making the same, I'm going to demand a raise. If my employer wakes up and sees his payroll has increased by 25%, he's going to increase his prices to cover the additional costs.... this isn't rocket science.
How are you making a contribution to this discussion other than taking poorly aimed potshots? Maybe you could explain how artificially increasing wages isn't the very definition of inflation? Or.... seeing as how no one here has actually done anything other than make vague claims about "Republicans siding with the rich in so many ways", you could provide some specifics, along with some detailed analysis of your own. So far I haven't had much to refute....
It is proof they are siding with the rich, as it was proposed to only extend the tax cuts to those that really need the help and for the benefit of the economy.
????...... I just can't bend my brain enough to think this way. Extending tax cuts to EVERYONE (and the smallest cut of all to the rich) is proof?.... the government isn't giving money to the rich; they're just agreeing to steal just a slightly bit less than usual for a few years.
Trickle Down is nothing more than political rhetoric and the facts back that up.
....not from the view out my front door. Oil companies are making money over here, and everyone, from the roughnecks and truckdrivers and welders to hotel staff and waitresses and the kid working at Wal-Mart, is reaping benefits. When unemployment is practically nil, workers have a lot more leverage in wage negotiations, as well as almost limitless choices in careers.
You give a guy with 10million in the bank a 5% cut on his taxes and the chances of that money making it back into the economy is low compared to give a guy a 10% break that has a negative or zero net worth and he is going to be spending 100% of that tax break and thus helping the economy.
The rich are known for blowing their money too. And the money they don't use buying $1000 shoes or $50,000 vacations, is usually spent building industry. If the area they live has a government that is business friendly, these jobs are created at home.
Really though, I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the only solution to a recession is an increase in rampant consumerism. There's gotta be better ideas out there...... anybody??? | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 1/28/2011 6:55:51 AM |
There's gotta be better ideas out there...... anybody???
How about making sure that working people can earn a living wage that would help support his/her family? That for sure would require a large increase in the minimum wage.
What good is to have a minimum wage of $8.00 per hour if rent for a room in a rooming house is $650.00, a one room efficiency is $750.00, a one bedroom apartment is $900.00 per month? Add a few of the other necessary expenses, and with what is left a working person can barely afford to buy groceries to feed himself/herself to have energy enough to go back to work the next day.
The Republicans have not done anything for the working people who are laboring for slave wages. A tax-cut for the people who don't earn much above the poverty rate means very litlle for them.
Perhaps the Republicans can live with the reality that working people need to go the food pantries and second hand clothes stores run by charitable institutions ir order to make ends meet, but I get a visceral reaction to the notion that working people are not afforded the dignity of standing proud of being able to take care of themselves and their families with the fruit of their labor.
So far I haven't had much to refute....
Why don't you refute the charge that Republican's have not helped the poorest of the working people to earn a living wage? Yeah, that is tied to the Federal minimum wage. Check the history if you need to get some facts, and don't come back with empty rhetoric about inflation and artificial increases of wages.
With all the stuff that is thrown out by the stores and the supermarkets because people can't afford to buy the food because of the high prices, I am sure that if the working people had more money to buy those food items, the increased demand would not lead to much higher prices because the supply is not being met by the demand. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 1/28/2011 4:35:16 PM |
The rich are known for blowing their money too. And the money they don't use buying $1000 shoes or $50,000 vacations, is usually spent building industry. If the area they live has a government that is business friendly, these jobs are created at home.
Can you supply some examples to show us that the money they don't use buying $1000 shoes or $50,000 vacations is usually spent building industry? Is the business friendly government you reference in the United States or else where?
Really though, I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the only solution to a recession is an increase in rampant consumerism. There's gotta be better ideas out there...... anybody???
If the rampant consumerism is applied to buy foreign made goods and products then one of the things it does is feeds the economies of the countries manufacturing the products and one of the other things it does is to increase the value of the stock held by the companies share holders.
A better idea? Raise the import taxes on foreign made goods to a point that makes it possible for hard working Americans to be competitive, in other words take away the incentive for companies to pack up their bags and leave, don't make trade agreements with countries that have human rights violations or that don't have or enforce environmental laws.
Provide financial incentives " tax payer dollars" for companies involved in innovative research that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuel
There is a lot that can be done if we quit feeding the economies of foreign countries and the business interests of companies that choose to abandon America for the big perks they get by relocating | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 1/28/2011 6:55:35 PM | I get that people can disagree and make arguments; ad hominem attacks like calling something one disagrees with "weasel words" is trashy name-calling that achieves nothing. Just because I didn't get into a pissing match doesn't mean I agree with the opinions or arguments of those pissing in my general direction. Under Bush, a "temporary" across-the-board income tax cut was made, the bulk of the benefit going to the richest 2-4% of US citizens and their corporate property.
The economy went to hell. Atop the borrowing to support the tax cut was piled the debt of the stimulus program.
The "temporary" tax cut was supposed to be repaid by increased tax revenue after the double stimulus had time to work.
That hasn't happened; the borrowed money continues to earn interest while the now-permanent tax cut forced the burden of payback onto regressive taxes and fees, and cuts to people who had already paid their share all their lives.
It is disingenuous to characterize the Republican priority of tax cuts for the richest as tax cuts for all American citizens; the fact is that all but the richest already had their "temporary" tax cut made permanent, and nobody politically opposed that. Allowing a benefit many times the monetary size to be paid to those who already got most of the benefits of the borrowing - and won't be paying back what was borrowed to make them richer - is shameless pandering to financial power.
If corporations are richer than governments, they cannot be reined in by government (which has input from citizens) and gaily run the economy solely for their own benefit.
There is nothing but hot air in any dispute that cutting income taxes and raising consumption taxes and fees isn't enriching the rich at the expense of everyone else. It's convenient to "believe" in trickle-down, but there's no evidence of it ever having worked. Yes, earnings and even tax revenue have sometimes increased, but NEVER enough to pay back the borrowed money that was given away to those tricklers.
Here in Canada, it looks like the Conservative Harper administration is about to do what US Republicans just did, putting all their energy into long-term corporate tax reductions leading to, they suggest, a 15% flat corporate tax. Massive increases in sales taxes are already in place and progressing. The Harperites want to take tax and employer revenue out of pensions, too.
So far, Canadians are 25% behind the corporate tax cuts. They've got their work cut out selling the rest of us, particularly after the Chretien-Martin Liberal administration cut everyone's taxes and generated consistent surpluses after a decade of balanced saving BEFORE borrowing and spending.
Here's hoping they choke (politically speaking) on it.
BOTTOM LINE: this thread is asking for the Republicans' biggest single problem as a party. The answer: that they serve a small minority of the population, and have to use the most powerful techniques to convince people to vote against their own interests.
ED BEAR
 | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 1/29/2011 1:19:36 AM |
don't come back with empty rhetoric about inflation and artificial increases of wages.
As I already told you....
Firstly I'm not repeating anything (maybe others are repeating me?). I'm just stating what occurs based on observances of my own and others' behavior.
I ask for some analysis and you provide me with several paragraphs expounding on the plight of the poor.... with a little rhetoric of your own saying "raising the minimum wage would fix everything".
Back in your teaching days, if a janitor at your school was given a raise to where their salary was equal to your own, would you be wanting an increase in pay? How about your colleagues? Are these the kind of questions you're afraid to ask yourself?.... the way you managed to completely gloss over my own thoughts in attempting to answer some of your questions makes me think this is the case.
You've provided no analysis and no answers.... come back whenever you have an original idea.
Can you supply some examples to show us that the money they don't use buying $1000 shoes or $50,000 vacations is usually spent building industry? Is the business friendly government you reference in the United States or else where?
To my knowledge, nobody I've ever known owns $1000 shoes. Millionaires aren't that uncommon in my area..... there's at least a dozen guys in my city who sold their trucking companies for 8 figure sums in the last ten years. I've met a lot of these guys... I'm not really close to any of them (even though one of them is my present employer). From my understanding, all of these guys signed no competion contracts when they were bought out and all of them started ventures dealing with other aspects of the oilfield. Once their "no-competition clause" expired, most got involved in trucking again (I know a couple of brothers who are multi-millionaires who are back driving again.... as well as employing at least 20 other people).
While I've never seen any of these guys' bank statements, I would estimate that at least %80 of their wealth is tied up in their new companies. Myself, if I was handed a $20 million cheque, I doubt I'd feel the drive to try and turn it into a $50 million fortune (and this explains why I'll never get my hands on a cheque that size).
Sorry I can't give you any verifiable facts and figures.... have you any evidence that would suggest most multi-millionaires keep the majority of their cash locked in a vault?
A better idea? Raise the import taxes on foreign made goods to a point that makes it possible for hard working Americans to be competitive, in other words take away the incentive for companies to pack up their bags and leave, don't make trade agreements with countries that have human rights violations or that don't have or enforce environmental laws.
I somewhat agree with most of this.... but where should the line be drawn? If products need to be taxed 200% in order for America to compete, should this be done? Are you not worried that other nations would cease trading with the US completely? Would American consumers be OK if the prices of products tripled? I have no answers to any of these questions, but I suspect that unforseen consequences could be dire...
I'm curious how competitive America could be on the world stage if it had no debt? A huge portion of taxes collected in your country are paying interest. If people (rich and poor) were to have that portion of their taxes still in their pockets, I think it could make a huge difference. And it would make it a lot easier for your President to tell the Chinese to "beat it"....
the opinions or arguments of those pissing in my general direction.
Whoaa.... whatever happened to:
We're in a public forum where you and others may contest any part of my personal account you disagree with.?
As I mentioned earlier, I was never trying to be nasty with you. From wikipedia:
Weasel words is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.
You said:
siding with the rich in so many ways.
Sounds vague and ambiguous to me.What's with the false outrage?... if you were really upset I'd have expected to see it in your prior post.
....and all this after I gave you the benifit of doubt; thinking you were misinformed about Texans and Albertans.... I could have just called you disingenous.
The economy went to hell.
The world economy went to hell.... there's countries with much higher taxes that are in worse shape than the US. Can we blame that on Bush too?
It is disingenuous to characterize the Republican priority of tax cuts for the richest as tax cuts for all American citizens; the fact is that all but the richest already had their "temporary" tax cut made permanent, and nobody politically opposed that.
Okay... so now we have it on record that the GOP were not opposed to tax cuts for the poor. And I guess I was misinformed.... I was under the understanding that these cuts were only extensions and that they were voted on as a complete package.
And don't get me wrong.... I'm fairly undecided whether Bush should have given tax cuts to anybody. Instead he should have drastically reduced spending. I think there's a possibility that even the rich would be fine with this if it meant sometime in the future their taxes would be a lot lower.
From my own experience viewing the wastefulness of government spending, I have little doubt that these cuts could have been accomplished with little impact on the quality of US education or even their military.... and about a thousand other areas which could be trimmed. Government beuaracracy is nothing short bof monumental.
It's convenient to "believe" in trickle-down, but there's no evidence of it ever having worked. Yes, earnings and even tax revenue have sometimes increased, but NEVER enough to pay back the borrowed money that was given away to those tricklers.
You can't see me, but I'm pointing out my window right now..... AND.... as well as paying off our debt, we also had money left over to send out as equalization payments for the rest of Canada.
As far as I'm concerned, tax the hell out of the rich, they're not my buddies..... that is.... right up until the point you go past that "sweet spot". Once you overstep that line, the companies who employ everyone decide to pick up their toys and go looking for another sandbox. My provincial government has done this as well.
The bottomline that I'm getting from everything posted here is that:
"If you don't hate the rich, then you must hate the poor!!!!" | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 1/29/2011 6:02:54 AM |
I ask for some analysis and you provide me with several paragraphs expounding on the plight of the poor.... with a little rhetoric of your own saying "raising the minimum wage would fix everything".
A few points:
1. It is kind of funny, coming from you, to ask for analysis when you are the one throwing charges around without any basis. I called you out for insulting Ed Bear post calling it a "weasel phrase," and asked you, based on the explanation given by Wikipedia for the term "weasel phrase," to give us the analysis required to prove that his assertion about the U.S Republicans was a "weasel phrase." So far you haven't given us any evidence to contradict the assertion that the U.S. Republicans "side with rich in so many ways." I offerred you an opportunity to dispel that notion by showing us how the U.S. Republicans could have helped the working people who need the most help by raising the Federal minimum wage, but you just replied with something about "artificially raised wages" and inflation, which have been their regular excuses to deny the working people the possibility of earning a living wage to support themselves and their families.
So far you have just given us rhetoric and insults, but nothing to prove that Ed Bear opinion was a "weasel phrase." At least now we know that this is your 'modus operandi' since you have recognized that you are unable to back up your assertions because when you are asked about evidence you can only reply:
Sorry I can't give you any verifiable facts and figures....
Somehow I already knew that!
2. You are mis-stating my position on this debate. I am not advocating the "plight of the poor." I am arguing that the U.S. Republicans don't side with the working people who happen to be poor because they don't earn a living wage. There is a big difference between the working people who are poor because they don't receive a just compensation for their labor and other people who may be poor because of other circumstances. Working people shouldn't be deprived of the dignity of not having to depend on what is available at the charities' outlets in order to feed themselves and their children.
3. I have never said that "raising the minimum wage would fix everything". That is an exaggeration on your part, which is somewhat understandable because I get the feeling that you are unable to deal with the fact that the U.S. Republicans, despite all their rhetoric about caring for the "workers," and how important is for them not paying high taxes, in reality are forcing millions of workers to live in poverty and stripping them of their dignity as working members of society.
Back in your teaching days....
It looks as if you would like to get personal here..... Well, I am not interested in that kind of argument. I will leave my posts to answer your questions. It should be sufficient to say that I didn't go into teaching to become rich or feel superior to a janitor because I would earn more money than him or her. My father was a janitor and my mother was a cook. They were barely literate, but all their six children attended and graduated from college, and they were all proud of their achievements. I have never begrudged a working man or woman earning a living wage, and never will stop supporting the struggle of the working people for achieving a living wage in reward for their labor. Yes, even a janitor deserves a living wage. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 1/29/2011 6:14:22 AM | I think any politician whether they be republican, democrat or independant should never again be elected to office if they do not support Americans and the American way of life, the bill below shows what's wrong with our system we elect them to represent Americans and to protect our economy and our way of life and what do they do? Every thing they can to protect the interests of companies that produce products,goods and services in foreign countries.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-242
Whether you vote republican, democrat or independant should not effect your love of our country and our way of life. If you are one of those who are heavily invested in companies that have relocated overseas try to remember our economy determines our ability to protect our way of life
Those who voted against this bill do not have your best interest at heart and should never hold public office again, the hard working American can compete with any other worker in the world but can not compete with an hourly average wage that would not put food on his/her families table.
The main problem I see with the republican party is that they have either forgotten who they represent or they just don't care. Almost every thing being done today by the republican party hurts our countries chance of economic survival | |
|
| |
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:42:17 AM | Ironically, the determination of the Party's "single greatest problem" (and there might not be a singularly worst - there are a lot of 'em) can really only been made from within, because a "greatest problem" is rarely an action or lack of an action... much more often, the biggest problems have do with its processes.
Such a question does provide a platform for a lot of squawking and whining from outsiders, though. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:54:38 PM |
One word can describe the problem's within this party--- "NeoConservative's"
So true. Maybe the neocon wing will implode under the pressure of tea partiers and libertarians. If we're lucky Colbert will get the nomination in 2012. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/4/2011 2:38:19 PM |
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Attempting to change the rule behind if the federal government will pay for an abortion.
New rules proposed by the GOP.
Only paying if it is "Forcible Rape", other rapes no longer would count.
Reasoning, they say they are tiring to be fiscally responsible, which is really ironic when you consider this is the party that put themselves in debt to get elected and that the per tax payer reduction if this bill passes would amount to approximately 2 tenths of one penny.
For an interesting look into this: Jon Stewart
Canada: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---february-2-2011/#clip410208
USA: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---february-2-2011/#clip410208 | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/4/2011 7:01:29 PM |
Attempting to change the rule behind if the federal government will pay for an abortion.
I need some context here. Why is the federal government paying for any elective medical procedures? Is this for soldiers or government employees or something else? | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 7:15:43 AM |
Attempting to change the rule behind if the federal government will pay for an abortion. Why is the federal government paying for any elective medical procedures?
How much does it cost to support grotesquely deformed babies that a mother has to bring into the world because of anti-abortion laws or the lack of a mother to afford to get an abortion?
Is this for soldiers or government employees or something else? So only soldiers or government employees should be entitled to tummy tucks or face lifts on the taxpayers dime?
And what does any of that have to do with the Republicans Single Greatest Problem ... other than the Republicans appear to want to ban abortion in general? | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 1:24:54 PM |
I think a bigger question would be ...
How much does it cost to support grotesquely deformed babies that a mother has to bring into the world because of anti-abortion laws or the lack of a mother to afford to get an abortion?
I'm pro-choice so I don't want to see any abortion laws. But I don't think it's the government's job to fund them. If a woman can't afford an abortion then she certainly can't afford to raise a child. What business then does she have getting pregnant in the first place? There are lots of very inexpensive and free ways to avoid getting pregnant.
So again, why is the government involved in this at all?
So only soldiers or government employees should be entitled to tummy tucks or face lifts on the taxpayers dime?
The government pays for their health insurance so I'm wondering if the Republican plan is aimed at changing whether government paid health insurance. This is one of the drawbacks of having employer funded health insurance; the employer gets to decide what coverage is available, not the employee. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 2:59:53 PM | Any debate regarding Dems and Republicans always seems to gravitate towards extremes. I understand it’s much easier to demonize and deflect that way, but it’s nonsense. No major party in this country has ever been so monolithic that one catchall definition applies to every member.
I’m a moderate and have no official party affiliation. I’ve voted for Republicans “and” Democrats—along with Independents, Libertarian, Green, and Taxpayer Party candidates.
The biggest problem I see in our present political climate is partisanship and intolerance for moderate, centrist views. Blue Dog Dems and liberal Republicans are becoming dying entities. Everything in national politics is being forced through a prism of narrow ideology and passing extreme litmus tests.
That said, my opinion is the Republican Party has undergone a critical restructuring due to Tea Party influence. Some effects have been good, much have been bad. A platform built on anger, hate, intolerance, and painting opposition as unpatriotic, unGodly, and unAmerican has a much firmer toehold in the Republican Party than the Dems. If you disagree with a ‘Pub you’re not simply wrong, but not a “real” American. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 5:19:56 PM | What business then does she have getting pregnant in the first place?
Yeah stupid women going and getting raped and all, what are they thinking, they really should stop riding that gravy-train to free birth control.
The deal is the GOP wants to redefine what is rape and what is sorta kind of rape.
If you watched the Jon Stewart clip you would know this.
So lets say your 43year old retarded cousin impregnates your 12 year old daughter, well the GOP wants to define it so that is not considered rape and therefore they do not want tax payers paying for it.
IMO
That is one****sh move for reasons of fiscal responsibility and speaks of religion trying to poke its head in to other peoples affairs. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 7:20:57 PM |
If a woman can't afford an abortion then she certainly can't afford to raise a child. DUH!!! Tell that to the guys out there contributing (equally, I might add) to the fact that the woman is getting pregnant. If HE can't afford to pay to raise a child, what business then does he have getting a woman pregnant?
What business then does she have getting pregnant in the first place? There are lots of very inexpensive and free ways to avoid getting pregnant. Ya ... tell that to the men who are impregnating the women and then just leaving them to fend for themselves.
Tell that to the guys out there raping innocent women. Here ya go ... Hey you there ... yes you "Mister Raper" ... please take time to cover your tool there before you force it into your victim.
| |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 9:40:37 PM |
DUH!!! Tell that to the guys out there contributing (equally, I might add) to the fact that the woman is getting pregnant. If HE can't afford to pay to raise a child, what business then does he have getting a woman pregnant?
I agree.
Ya ... tell that to the men who are impregnating the women and then just leaving them to fend for themselves
Maybe some gals would be better off keeping their legs closed and avoiding "sports" that involve them laying on their backs. It takes two to make a baby.
We'd almost be better off to pay people (without kids) to get sterilized for life. In return they get like 10 grand. The idiots would bite onto that at a early age, we'd clean up the gene pool and save a boat load of potential welfare money on single momma's.
Here's a great quote--"The only problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard". | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 11:53:15 PM |
Yeah stupid women going and getting raped and all, what are they thinking, they really should stop riding that gravy-train to free birth control.
Why is it the government's job to pay for this? Sh1tty things happen to people all the time, but that doesn't mean that the government is supposed to pay to have things fixed. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/5/2011 11:56:03 PM |
DUH!!! Tell that to the guys out there contributing (equally, I might add) to the fact that the woman is getting pregnant. If HE can't afford to pay to raise a child, what business then does he have getting a woman pregnant?
He doesn't, but let's face it the reality is that the man can disappear and the woman can't. On the flip side the woman can choose to have an abortion and the guy can't do anything to stop her. Regardless, why should the government pay for the abortions? | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/6/2011 6:01:50 AM |
He doesn't, but let's face it the reality is that the man can disappear and the woman can't. On the flip side the woman can choose to have an abortion and the guy can't do anything to stop her. Regardless, why should the government pay for the abortions?
The government "we the people" are going to pay one way or another, abortion is probably a lot less expensive than the costs that "we the people" will end up paying by the time that clild will raech an age where he/she will not be dependant on the mother for support.
Their has to be a way to take away the financial incentive for single parents to keep bringing children into the world that they can not support emotionally or financially
Maybe an alternative to abortion would be to remove the child from the custody of any parent that shows drug positive or does not have the financial capability to provide a home enviroment that will give that child a chance in life. If the parent can at any time show that they are no longer drug users or that they have a stable enviroment to raise a child in the child could be returned to the birth parent.
There should be room in any law that will allow for the abortion of any pregnancy where the woman was raped or the baby is going to be born with severe mental or physical problems | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/6/2011 6:13:20 AM | I don't see how defending my right to disagree with those pissing in my general direction conflicts with my defense of their right to disagree with me.
The US can't cut spending to get out of debt. That boat has sailed. The debt is there, and there isn't room on the landscape to grow enough people to pay the debts left by earlier generations.
The bill has to be paid. The central dogma of Republicans in 2011 is "Not me."
I don't hate the rich. I have very strong disagreement with those who think that wealth is the only judge of human worth. If we continue to reward the skills that bring psychopaths to the top in business, we will always be ruled by psychopaths.
Trickle-down has failed every time. All the money's at the top and there's nothing leaking.
Alberta looking at the rest of Canada askance? Boasting about their wealth as if they put the oil in the ground and made the constitution that made it a provincial sphere of influence (a century or so ago), while "golden Fridays" used to prosper? Don't think I need to add anything. Some people just see it differently.
BACK TO TOPIC: The Republicans have chosen to represent a small minority of the electorate. That is a tough row to hoe in any sort of democracy, even when money is free to do as it will in campaigns and extremists are marshaled to swell the troops, and when old people and rich people are the ones who show up at the polls.
ED BEAR | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/6/2011 6:19:56 AM |
On the flip side the woman can choose to have an abortion and the guy can't do anything to stop her. He can prevent getting her pregnant in the first place. 
Perhaps men should avoid impregnating women who might choose an abortion over raising a handicapped child or moron child. Perhaps men should be more choosy about the women they impregnate ... most especially if they don't want to have to experience the possibility that a woman they impregnate is going to get an abortion.
Perhaps having a child should be discussed between both people involved and (as was the case in my marriage) at the same time we also discussed what would happen if during the pregnancy we discovered problems beyond our control. Sometimes (often) it's just best to let the bad go and try for something more whole the next time. (Note ... I never had an abortion, but did have the unpleasant experience of 2 miscarriages. Both times, I was told that if the baby had not miscarried, it would have been disastrously handicapped. The miscarriages were natures way of doing away with the bad.)
There should be room in any law that will allow for the abortion of any pregnancy where the woman was raped or the baby is going to be born with severe mental or physical problems. Agree!!!
But don't look for that to be the case if the Repuglicans have anything to say about it.
It just doesn't make sense. The Repugnicans don't want to fund the care of the severely handicapped (mental or physical), yet they have a problem contributing to the prevention of it.
But that's not a surprise ... since it's plain they don't want the poor to have health care benefits either. | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/6/2011 9:41:51 AM |
The US can't cut spending to get out of debt. That boat has sailed. The debt is there, and there isn't room on the landscape to grow enough people to pay the debts left by earlier generations.
Of course it can, and it doesn't need an acceleration in the growth rate of the population. The problem is that politicians (Democrat and Republican) don't have the political will to cut spending. The US spends as much on it's military as the rest of the world combined. We could easily cut defence spending in half and still be able to defend ourselves with ease. There absolutely no reason why Social Security should exist in this day and age. People are savy enough now to plan for their own retirement. It should be phased out of existence. The Department of Energy can be done away with, saving $26 billion per year. In fact most cabinet level departments can be cut from the budget.
I know that's just a pipe dream. Politicians won't cut spending and won't raise taxes (which wouldn't be able to cover the debt anyway). So it will continue to borrow money from China, until the Chinese wise up and the rest of the world dumps the US dollar as the reserve currency. Then the only thing left to do will be to print money. Weimar Republic here we come! | |
|
| The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 2/7/2011 7:24:45 AM |
Why is it the government's job to pay for this? Sh1tty things happen to people all the time, but that doesn't mean that the government is supposed to pay to have things fixed.
I will take Because it is the right thing to do for $600 Alex.
....but lets forget old news as that bill is dead, but here is a new one from the GOP who is only focused on fiscal responsibility.
"Let Pregnant Women Die Act of 2011"
New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion
Evan McMorris-Santoro | February 4, 2011, 4:10PM
The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.
The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives....
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
