# Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

*Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message *Paul Ryan calls for cuts to anti-poverty programs in GOP budget - latimes.com


By Lisa Mascaro This post has been corrected. See note at the bottom for details.

March 3, 2014, 10:07 a.m.

WASHINGTON - House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan is taking aim at the nation's poverty programs, unveiling an ambitious report Monday that will underpin Republican budget priorities this election year.

The former Republican vice presidential nominee is long on criticism of the nearly $800 billion in government spending on more than 90 different poverty programs in 2012 that provided food, housing, education and other assistance for low-income Americans.

But the report is short on policy prescriptions, which are coming later from the budget chairman.

Paul Ryan calls for cuts to anti-poverty programs in GOP budget - latimes.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Poor GOP. It can't catch a break what with all those wingnuts in positions of power in their caucus


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 5, 2014)

we know that you all have run out of idea on how to attack and smear people

so we now have ANTI-POVERTY programs, when the hell did we get that? Get that title from the slimes folks

You all must feel desperate? must be that almost 60% disapproval of your dear leader his Democrat comrades in arms

the LAslimes  is just what they are, slimy and in the back pockets of the DNC

take anything they say with a grain of salt

and the laslimes is so worried about poverty, why aren't they out raising money for "the people in poverty"?

oh wait, they expect all you TAXPAYERS to  use your monies


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 5, 2014)

I say send them to Fight Obama's War for Ukrainian Oil


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 5, 2014)

that 47% had it MUCH BETTER WHEN REPUBLICANS RAN THINGS

 true story


libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 5, 2014)

not only did that 47% have things MUCH BETTER UNDER BUSH AND REPUBS; but 93% of American households are WORSE OFF UNDER OBAMA.
 in fact the top 7% of the RICHEST Americans and ONLY that 7%; has seen an increase in Household Income


libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 5, 2014)

They will do anything to for their party..even after Obama's record and how many people disapprove of him

it's just sad how many loyal subjects and tools they have hooked


----------



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> we know that you all have run out of idea on how to attack and smear people
> 
> so we now have ANTI-POVERTY programs, when the hell did we get that? Get that title from the slimes folks
> 
> ...



Translator in aisle 5?!


----------



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I say send them to Fight Obama's War for Ukrainian Oil



Ukranian oil?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> that 47% had it MUCH BETTER WHEN REPUBLICANS RAN THINGS
> 
> true story
> 
> ...



Being sent to two wars and losing 700,000 jobs a month?  Oh yea, the 47% were THRILLED with the Republicans and showed it at the polls


----------



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

In the upside down world of right wing loons, people are worse off for accepting government assistance as if the assistance came before the need.

Ignore why people need assistance, just mention they are worse off than before they accepted assistance. DO not question why they need assistance


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 5, 2014)

and we get, Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

lol


----------



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

from the conservative Heritage Foundation

Why I do not trust conservatives when it comes to criticism of Obamacare&#65279;

http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...all-households-to-obtain-adequate-insurance/#


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 5, 2014)

Dante said:


> In the upside down world of right wing loons, people are worse off for accepting government assistance as if the assistance came before the need.
> 
> Ignore why people need assistance, just mention they are worse off than before they accepted assistance. DO not question why they need assistance





YOU POOR BABBLING IDIOT.  people are worse off because THINGS ARE WORSE under obama. and because obama has loosened welfare restrictions. we're not living in an upside down world leftard;  you're living in DENIAL. THE TWO items are not mutually exclusive. ....... under obama there are more needy AND more people gaming the system


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 5, 2014)

look at the left-wing idiot trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth!

wants us to question why people need assistence. ok; but why dont you take your own advice? where is your intellectual curiosity? how can food stamps, welfare and unemployment have to remain at RECORD, EMERGENCY LEVELS that are from teh end of the bush years and beginning of the obama years; if you left-wing morons are insisting things are so much better now then when we were losing 700,000 jobs per month at the height of the recession?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2014)

Poor people can't succeed unless they are suffering.......Ryan knows what is best for the poor


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Poor people can't succeed unless they are suffering.......Ryan knows what is best for the poor






YAWN
 there are more poor people since a brilliant Progressive community activist became a wannabe dictator. the Left knows what is best for the poor; they're creating them; and keeping them there

true story


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > that 47% had it MUCH BETTER WHEN REPUBLICANS RAN THINGS
> ...



obama oversaw the largest increase in House Republicans in 60 years.. so yea what were people showing at the polls then genius?

libs are idiots who lie to themselves


----------



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Poor people can't succeed unless they are suffering.......Ryan knows what is best for the poor
> ...



ah, when and how did these people become poor?


----------



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > In the upside down world of right wing loons, people are worse off for accepting government assistance as if the assistance came before the need.
> ...



of course things got worse...but why?


----------



## jillian (Mar 5, 2014)

Dante said:


> *Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message *Paul Ryan calls for cuts to anti-poverty programs in GOP budget - latimes.com
> 
> 
> By Lisa Mascaro This post has been corrected. See note at the bottom for details.
> ...



time to vote them out until they can cull the herd of the nutbars


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Ummmm.....Bush lost the House, Senate AND Whitehouse to the Dems

Triple Crown


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 5, 2014)

Well this certainly a surprise.I mean really a surprise. Strategically it seems completely ill timed. The tactic would normally be try to run Obama's budget over the coals for two weeks _at the very least_. Does this mean they don't think they can run Obama's budget over the coals? Do they feel the only way to take the edge off of Obama's budget is to counter with Ryan's document out of the gate. This could be a sign of real desperation. If it is not then do they think that they can come over the top of Obama's budget and grab broad based appeal? I haven't looked over Ryan's document yet, heck, I have only read the first dozen or so pages of Obama's budget. The document Ryan released is 205 pages long. It is not actually a budget so it won't be exactly comparing apples to apples.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Mar 5, 2014)

It might help if you read and represented what Ryan is actually saying (maybe, maybe not.)



> But rather than provide a roadmap out of poverty, Washington has created a complex web of programs that are often difficult to navigate. Some programs provide critical aid to families in need. Others discourage families from getting ahead. And for many of these programs, we just dont know. Theres little evidence either way.
> 
> So in a spirit of reform, this report hopes to inform the public debate. This important anniversary is an opportunity to review the record in full. And we should seize it.


The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later | Budget.House.Gov

Is there any particular reason why the safety net should not be examined? As a safety net I would imagine holes in that net would be a concern?

Since the report he released "is short on policy prescriptions" it seems what you are actually opposing is the fact that he dared to examine the programs that are in place to see what may or may not be working. I know the safety net is sacred ground, but if we are going to have one shouldn't we make sure it is working?


----------



## Dante (Mar 5, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> It might help if you read and represented what Ryan is actually saying (maybe, maybe not.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The safety net has always been reexamined and the GOP has mostly been against it since before they even knew what the particulars were.

Ryan's motivations have always been suspect, after all:  Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said he regularly gave out Ayn Rand novel &#8216;Atlas Shrugged&#8217; as Christmas gifts, but today he says he no longer espouses her beliefs.  Paul Ryan does an about-face on Ayn Rand - CSMonitor.com


----------



## theHawk (Mar 5, 2014)

Dante said:


> *Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message *Paul Ryan calls for cuts to anti-poverty programs in GOP budget - latimes.com
> 
> 
> By Lisa Mascaro This post has been corrected. See note at the bottom for details.
> ...



It's amazing how stating facts can make liberals crazy.

You libs would love to see the vast majority of people dependent on the State, propped up by a few elites who get taxed to death to support them.  After all, those downtrodden poor people are too stupid to ever make it on their own, right?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2014)

theHawk said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > *Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message *Paul Ryan calls for cuts to anti-poverty programs in GOP budget - latimes.com
> ...



As a lib, I would love to see the vast majority of people in well paying jobs that they can support themselves on. 

But since Conservatives have done everything in their power to hold down wages and benefits.......I guess social programs is the next best alternative


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 5, 2014)

too me, using people in this fashion like the Democrats do is offensive

they act like these people can never make anything of themselves they have to have money and government for them to live...

even think of cutting a little from a program (because by golly that money that funds it GROWS ON FRIKKEN TREES) and you get titles like the one from the LAslimes

they've done it to black for years, now working on Hispanics and the "poor" 

it's sickening to see a Lamestream newspaper  spreading fearmongering about a party and a politician in this fashion

shun that paper folks, in fact don't subscribe to it and hit them where it hurts


----------



## Mathbud1 (Mar 5, 2014)

Dante said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > It might help if you read and represented what Ryan is actually saying (maybe, maybe not.)
> ...



Again, it might help to read what he actually said (again, maybe not)

From the interview where he said he gave out the book:


> His staff, however, gets the benefit of his pedagogical streak. "I give out 'Atlas Shrugged' [by Ayn Rand] as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well, . . . I try to make my interns read it." Ryan "looked into" Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, when he was young, he says, but he is a Christian and reads the Bible frequently.



And from the later interview where he supposedly about-faced:


> I, like millions of young people in America, read Rands novels when I was young. I enjoyed them, Ryan says. They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman, a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. But its a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.
> I reject her philosophy, Ryan says firmly. Its an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a persons view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas, who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. Dont give me Ayn Rand, he says.



That doesn't look like an about-face to me.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 5, 2014)

LyinRyan was on the news this morning bitching about President Obama. After saying that "this admin" wasn't handling Putin right, he then said we should do exactly what the president is doing. 

He's lying slime.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Mar 5, 2014)

Ok so basically since the report he released wasn't actually a war on people in poverty we've switched to just trying to bash the guy himself.

I see.


----------



## Agit8r (Mar 5, 2014)

yeah, darn those SS survivor benefits that held him back


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 6, 2014)

I guess their strategy was actually tactically brilliant. Dang them. I interrupted my reading of Obama's budget to read Ryan's "War on Poverty". I only started yesterday so I have not gotten very far. I did learn the main reason for poverty, too many poor black people.


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 6, 2014)

The report opens with a little intro to the War on Poverty, a little overview, some background, and by the second page of text it gets right down to the causes of poverty. The first cause is, of course, family. And the first paragraph of that cause reads as such:



> *The Causes of Poverty*
> *Family*
> Perhaps the single most important determinant of poverty is family structure. It has been the subject of fierce academic debate since the Moynihan Reportnamed after its author, then-assistant secretary of labor Daniel Patrick Moynihanwas released in 1965. The Moynihan Report identified the Breakdown of the family as a key cause of poverty within the black community.8
> 
> (8) Daniel Moynihan, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. U.S. Department of Labor, Mar. 1965.




This Moynihan Report must have really been something. It was not until this Moynihan Report was published that the debate on family structure began. Apparently the House Budget Committee has taken great reflection upon this ground breaking work while preparing their document. I just knew I had to get me some look at this document. 

http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/moynchapter1.htm
Exerpts from the first chapter of the report:



> *Chapter I. The Negro American Revolution*
> The Negro American revolution is rightly regarded as the most important domestic event of the postwar period in the United States.
> 
> ...
> ...



I do hope the Republicans are not assuming the Negro American vote.


----------



## rdean (Mar 6, 2014)

I like the way Republicans now say that they are only following what Jesus would want.  They politicize everything.  Nothing is off limits.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 6, 2014)

How many times do you have to remind whiny lefties that their guy won the election? Under Barry Hussein the poverty rate has almost doubled. The strange thing is the radical left wants to focus on food stamps instead of jobs.


----------



## rdean (Mar 6, 2014)

whitehall said:


> How many times do you have to remind whiny lefties that their guy won the election? Under Barry Hussein the poverty rate has almost doubled. The strange thing is the radical left wants to focus on food stamps instead of jobs.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343670-household-wealth-in-the-u-s-climbs-to-a-record.html


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 6, 2014)

rdean said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > How many times do you have to remind whiny lefties that their guy won the election? Under Barry Hussein the poverty rate has almost doubled. The strange thing is the radical left wants to focus on food stamps instead of jobs.
> ...





good one idiot; can you point to me where in the link you leftardz are providing that supposedly shows household income so high; where it says exactly what group is seeing a rise in household income?

we all know; or at least those of that arent blind rabid LWNJs; that the RICH AND ONLY THE RICH are getting richer under obama


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 7, 2014)

I've been reading along, taking notes, and highlighting text of Ryan's "War of Poverty" document. I was going to wait until I got through the whole thing before posting a summary. The first part is a page or two on each safety net program; short description, pros and cons, and total cost. I just got to page 85, _National School Lunch Program_. The document states that, "The academic literature suggests that the NSLP contributes to childhood obesity, but overall findings are inconclusive." The titles of the two comments in the pros and cons are "NSPL contributes to obesity among schoolchildren." and "Participating low-income girls see an increase in body mass index." As someone who got one filling meal a day that I ate with relish thanks to NSLP I would like to say something to a certain someone who supports tax cuts for the top tax bracket, I am not saying who, I do hope he does not take this the wrong way. I would like to say, "Please go fuck yourself."


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 7, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Well this certainly a surprise.I mean really a surprise. Strategically it seems completely ill timed. The tactic would normally be try to run Obama's budget over the coals for two weeks _at the very least_. Does this mean they don't think they can run Obama's budget over the coals? Do they feel the only way to take the edge off of Obama's budget is to counter with Ryan's document out of the gate. This could be a sign of real desperation. If it is not then do they think that they can come over the top of Obama's budget and grab broad based appeal? I haven't looked over Ryan's document yet, heck, I have only read the first dozen or so pages of Obama's budget. The document Ryan released is 205 pages long. It is not actually a budget so it won't be exactly comparing apples to apples.



that's just it
everything to a liberal is a game
you will take anything some leftwing rag says and run with it because, you Democrats have no good record to run and gawd forbid these programs have even a penny cut from them...because you and the laslimes figures MONEY GROWS ON TREE'S....and then you, Dante and your party people with the help from the liberal rag like the Laslimes give's which by the way was SO BIASED headlines like the title of this article beat your chest like apes, bellowing how the Gop hate the POOR, CHILDREN, PUPPIES, etc

All you liberals do is USE PEOPLE for you political games and dirty politics like this post of yours...you really don't care they are "poor"


----------



## Dante (Mar 8, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Mathbud1 said:
> ...



how convenient...except he wasn't passing out Rand's books in his youth. He was a damned Congressman, not a student or youth


----------



## Dante (Mar 8, 2014)

theHawk said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > *Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message *Paul Ryan calls for cuts to anti-poverty programs in GOP budget - latimes.com
> ...



yeah right....

Dante wants people dependent on government 

okie dokie


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 9, 2014)

Republicans do not have a war on poverty, they have a war on the poor

But they deserve it.....they are lazy, stupid and expect free stuff


----------



## Geaux4it (Mar 9, 2014)

Dante said:


> *Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message *Paul Ryan calls for cuts to anti-poverty programs in GOP budget - latimes.com
> 
> 
> By Lisa Mascaro This post has been corrected. See note at the bottom for details.
> ...



I support this. Cut the fluff

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it (Mar 9, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > In the upside down world of right wing loons, people are worse off for accepting government assistance as if the assistance came before the need.
> ...



Indeed and disability

-Geaux

SSA: Disability Recipients Soar, Funding Nearly Depleted Under Obama
Tuesday, 17 Dec 2013 05:37 PM
By Jennifer G. Hickey

The number of Americans receiving Social Security disability payments has increased 20 percent since President Barack Obama took office and the influx of new recipients has pushed the program close to insolvency.

The annual deficit in the Social Security Disability Trust Fund hit $31.49 billion in fiscal 2013 and the remaining balance of $100.49 billion in the fund will be depleted by 2016, the Social Security Administration predicts.

SSA: Disability Recipients Soar, Funding Nearly Depleted Under Obama


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 9, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> I've been reading along, taking notes, and highlighting text of Ryan's "War of Poverty" document. I was going to wait until I got through the whole thing before posting a summary. The first part is a page or two on each safety net program; short description, pros and cons, and total cost. I just got to page 85, _National School Lunch Program_. The document states that, "The academic literature suggests that the NSLP contributes to childhood obesity, but overall findings are inconclusive." The titles of the two comments in the pros and cons are "NSPL contributes to obesity among schoolchildren." and "Participating low-income girls see an increase in body mass index." As someone who got one filling meal a day that I ate with relish thanks to NSLP I would like to say something to a certain someone who supports tax cuts for the top tax bracket, I am not saying who, I do hope he does not take this the wrong way. I would like to say, "Please go fuck yourself."



The right just loves starving kids though. LyinRyan considers hunger a good thing - even though he was also helped by public programs. 

The good news is that every time that that serial liar opens his mouth, the R loses votes. 

The bad news is their gerrymandering and stealing votes will probably give them some wins.


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 9, 2014)

Making comparisons between someone or some group and Hitler or the Nazis is most of the time completely inaccurate and done as a way to oversimplify rather than shed light into the deeper conflict. It is a well know conflict however between good and evil which why it is so often used. This is an overstatement I will admit but since the dynamic is indeed similar and well known I will. The Jews were to Nazis what the poor are to Republicans. "The poor are the threat. The poor will ruin your great country. Eliminate the poor and everything will get better." On one hand the Nazis would call anyone a Jew who was related to a Jew but on the other Jews did not make up 47% of Germany. They both hate minorities. The Aryan race is the only race to rule. If you are not an Aryan you are part of the plan but unfortunately for you, not part of the future.


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 9, 2014)

I was thinking over the above post and Immigration reform and I ended up thinking of the two things at the same time. That is why House Republicans will not take up Immigration Reform. Mexicans (Hispanics) are not members of the Aryan race. To grant them a path to citizenship, to American citizenship, Republicans think that it would make the country even more impure than it is now. I think we should push Republicans to confess their motives just as hard as they push Ms. Lerner to admit to a scandal long since disproved.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 9, 2014)

LOl, look at the desperate lefties

now we are  STARVING KIDS

I've been paying to welfare, food stamps, wic, gawd I'm sure I have forget a few all my 40 years of my working life

but it's the same dirty politics every election...hell with Obama re-election campaign we were pushing grandmas over cliffs in wheelchairs....are they pathetic? we know they are desperate...but it's the same ole same ole...every election...dirt, smears, lies, they have no record to run on, the people can't stand Obama and his party...


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 9, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> LOl, look at the desperate lefties
> 
> now we are  STARVING KIDS
> 
> ...



You dumb shit. The rich have been stealing your money, not the poor.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 9, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > LOl, look at the desperate lefties
> ...



You dumb shit, those wealthy politicians you elect are first in line to steal your money...and you still shill for them


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 9, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



If you give someone a dollar and they give you two back, you give another person a dollar and they give you nothing back, who is 'stealing your money'?


----------



## Boatswain2PA (Mar 10, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> You dumb shit. The rich have been stealing your money, not the poor.



No, in a true capitalistic market, the "rich" don't "steal" our money, they EARN it.

Neither do the poor "steal" our money (unless they are, indeed, thieves)...they elect politicians to take the money from the rich and middle class and give it to the poor.

Of course, the US is no longer a true capitalistic market.  We are a "crony-capitalist" nation now.  Not only do the poor elect politicians to take money from the middle class and the poor, the wealthy also elect politicians to take money from the middle class and give to the rich.  (Can yo say Fiskars anyone?  Solyndra??  Halliburton???
)


----------



## Dante (Mar 17, 2014)

[MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] 





Stephanie said:


> ...
> 
> I've been paying to welfare, food stamps, wic, gawd I'm sure I have forget a few all my 40 years of my working life
> 
> ...


 the Whining Class


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 17, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



The ACA was supposed to save the average family 2500 dollars. We were supposed to keep the health insurance we had and the doctors we had and our premiums would go down. What happened?  Obama lied, that's what happened and you idiots still believe every word he utters.


You people are beyond stupid.


----------



## Rozman (Mar 17, 2014)

Republicans are mean evil people....OK got it.


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 20, 2014)

Just finished Ryan's "War on Poverty" report. It was not the only thing I was reading, it does not usually take me that long to read 205 pages. The report goes through all the entitlement programs divided into the categories of: 1) Cash Aid, 2) Education and Job Training, 3) Energy, 4) Food Aid, 5) Health Care, 6) Housing, 7) Social Services, 8) Veterans. To provide an bias and unfair assessment of the report it went through each individual program stating the program was ineffective and that there were cases of fraud. What specifically should be done was not stated although a general assumption could be made.

In Appendix I the report stated the 2013 level of income is $23,550 for a four-person household. The number was originally set in 1964 at three times minimum food costs and since has been increased annually according to inflation. The report states that the gauge might be inaccurate because the measure of income does not include income such a SNAP aid or that inflation is overstated or others might be living in the household. "In other words, there is good evidence that the OPR significantly overstates the amount of poverty." (200) (OPR, Official Poverty Rate) Well if there poverty is overstated then we can just go cut all the entitlement programs. Rep. Ryan will be so surprised when I tell him this wonderful plan I thought up all by myself. 
The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later | Budget.House.Gov


----------



## whitehall (Mar 20, 2014)

The first thing we have to ask ourselves is if LBJ's "war on poverty" was effective. It's been fifty freaking years and there are more people in the poverty classification since LBJ decided that the federal government should be the head of the family. The second thing we have to ask ourselves is WTF has Barry Hussein accomplished in almost five years? The cost of gas and diesel has gone up which drives the price of everything up and that effects the poverty level. Hussein had two years with a solid democrat majority. He could have done anything he wanted and all he did was create "cash for clunkers".  Why not put people to work instead of extending the unemployment payments? It's easy to see behind the pitiful left wing desperate posts these days. Anything is better than talking about the abject failure of domestic and foreign policy.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 20, 2014)

whitehall said:


> The first thing we have to ask ourselves is if LBJ's "war on poverty" was effective. It's been fifty freaking years and there are more people in the poverty classification since LBJ decided that the federal government should be the head of the family. The second thing we have to ask ourselves is WTF has Barry Hussein accomplished in almost five years? The cost of gas and diesel has gone up which drives the price of everything up and that effects the poverty level. Hussein had two years with a solid democrat majority. He could have done anything he wanted and all he did was create "cash for clunkers".  Why not put people to work instead of extending the unemployment payments? It's easy to see behind the pitiful left wing desperate posts these days. Anything is better than talking about the abject failure of domestic and foreign policy.


The War on Poverty worked, until the 80s.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 20, 2014)

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.[7]
War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## whitehall (Mar 20, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The first thing we have to ask ourselves is if LBJ's "war on poverty" was effective. It's been fifty freaking years and there are more people in the poverty classification since LBJ decided that the federal government should be the head of the family. The second thing we have to ask ourselves is WTF has Barry Hussein accomplished in almost five years? The cost of gas and diesel has gone up which drives the price of everything up and that effects the poverty level. Hussein had two years with a solid democrat majority. He could have done anything he wanted and all he did was create "cash for clunkers".  Why not put people to work instead of extending the unemployment payments? It's easy to see behind the pitiful left wing desperate posts these days. Anything is better than talking about the abject failure of domestic and foreign policy.
> ...


----------



## initforme (Mar 21, 2014)

Our whole system is predicated on the top few controlling everything.  Luckily the middle class is given a little.   I call what we have now a plutocracy.  But things occur behind the scenes.   The system is completely out of whack.  Completely.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 23, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> not only did that 47% have things MUCH BETTER UNDER BUSH AND REPUBS; but 93% of American households are WORSE OFF UNDER OBAMA.
> in fact the top 7% of the RICHEST Americans and ONLY that 7%; has seen an increase in Household Income
> 
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves



And you cons still believe that the reason things aren't better is because we are taxing the wealthy too much.  You act as if Obama put an end to "trickle down" economics by massively increasing taxes on the wealthy.  And then on top of that, you blame poor people for getting a little help because despite working a full-time job and a part-time job, they still aren't making enough to feed their kids.


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 27, 2014)

Next week the House budget bill is to be marked up in committee. Talk about your War on the Poor, er, I mean, War on Poverty. Should be good, watching Representatives worth millions from districts with high rates of poverty argue against any social program whatsoever. I will get to hear Paul Ryan give his Ann Rand economic philosophy a stroll in the sun. Anyone who thinks there is even the slightest similarity between Democrats and Republicans should watch a few minutes of it. I will have a thread going of course I might even get a little video uploaded.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 11, 2014)

He puts another nail in his coffin for the 2016 Presidential bid.


----------



## Papageorgio (Apr 11, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Poor people can't succeed unless they are suffering.



That right there is the Democratic motto.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 11, 2014)

"Though they spoke forcefully against the Ryan budget, House Democrats are, no doubt, privately pleased that nearly* the entire Republican conference is on the record supporting a measure that would bump up defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade while simultaneously cutting the funding available for virtually everything else the federal government does, including Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of programs that support the poor.*

The budget eliminates the federal deficit within 10 years through proposals that Ryan says would cut more than $5 trillion in spending over a decade. *The single biggest cost savings that Ryan identifies is $2.1 trillion from the complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act.*"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-approves-ryan-budget-dems-182700767.html

Q.  How can Paul Ryan, a good and devout Catholic, be so unchristian?

A.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 11, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Though they spoke forcefully against the Ryan budget, House Democrats are, no doubt, privately pleased that nearly* the entire Republican conference is on the record supporting a measure that would bump up defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade while simultaneously cutting the funding available for virtually everything else the federal government does, including Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of programs that support the poor.*
> 
> The budget eliminates the federal deficit within 10 years through proposals that Ryan says would cut more than $5 trillion in spending over a decade. *The single biggest cost savings that Ryan identifies is $2.1 trillion from the complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act.*"
> 
> ...


Sister Simone Campbell called out Ryan on his budget.

Sister Simone Campbell, ?Nun from the Bus,? calls GOP budget ?immoral? | OnFaith


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 11, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > not only did that 47% have things MUCH BETTER UNDER BUSH AND REPUBS; but 93% of American households are WORSE OFF UNDER OBAMA.
> ...


You leftists need to stop saying that you are helping the poor.

You are not.  Government assistance in any form but that which helps people become self sustaining is not help and is in fact, the worst form of cruelty.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 11, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > LOl, look at the desperate lefties
> ...


Back to the ignore list for you.  You are literally, too stupid to interact with.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 11, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Really?  You know that?  Gov't Assist is worse than not having food for one's children, or not having the money to buy medicine for them?  With all due respect, you're full of shit.


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 12, 2014)

The best thing about any financial plan at all (which has been absent for 5 years now) would be that a benefitted business community would mean many, many full-time jobs for the 20% of Americans who are not holding jobs down right now.

They could quit depending on other people's taxes and earn their own money to spend as they wish and take care of themselves in the manner that they see fit.

Ryan's plan would reestablish the business sector that Nancy, Harry, Barack, and Hillary have dismissed as inconvenient, chasing jobs out into the wild blue yonder.

With more jobs, there is less poverty, and voila! When people earn money, they pay taxes, so the gummint gets what it needs without having to punish people whose businesses have been a success.

Thank you for starting this thread, Mr. Dante. I'm excited about a change of power in Washington that will dump the job killers in favor of helping the job creators grow wealth where poverty struck.



You go, Senator Ryan!


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 12, 2014)

^ link to prove all of that rw fluff???


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 13, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



LyinRyan's college was paid for my Social Security but now he wants it cut.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 13, 2014)




----------



## Kondor3 (Apr 13, 2014)

I haven't quite figured out whether Ryan and his bunch served-up such a (seemingly) Draconian budget as something they expected to pass in large part, or whether it was merely showmanship and brinksmanship... tossing-in bargaining chips that they could remove from the stack one at a time during the course of negotiations.

One area that interests me, in connection with personal family, is the realm of Veterans benefits, and a number of veterans' organizations are clamoring about the dangers to the VA Healthcare system and other operations of the US Dept of Veterans Affairs, in connection with the Ryan budget, and, frankly (and admittedly, superficially), I'm not seeing that.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > I've been reading along, taking notes, and highlighting text of Ryan's "War of Poverty" document. I was going to wait until I got through the whole thing before posting a summary. The first part is a page or two on each safety net program; short description, pros and cons, and total cost. I just got to page 85, _National School Lunch Program_. The document states that, "The academic literature suggests that the NSLP contributes to childhood obesity, but overall findings are inconclusive." The titles of the two comments in the pros and cons are "NSPL contributes to obesity among schoolchildren." and "Participating low-income girls see an increase in body mass index." As someone who got one filling meal a day that I ate with relish thanks to NSLP I would like to say something to a certain someone who supports tax cuts for the top tax bracket, I am not saying who, I do hope he does not take this the wrong way. I would like to say, "Please go fuck yourself."
> ...



oh shut, I was poor in my childhood, we got charity boxes of government rations, like cheese, bread, flour, etc....and we survived (which we were frikken grateful for) and at others times we had to cut back on some things..THAT'S CALL LIFE

no you were probably born with a silver spoon in your mouth it's no wonder you accuse people of wanting to stave people..it's about a low as you can crawl
being a liberal is easy, you can stand on a soap box and say and post thread like this, because if any on you had any honor you know we are not looking to starve people...but as for one penny be cut from any entitlement and this is YOUr UGLY SPEW


----------



## initforme (Apr 13, 2014)

Let's tax the 47 percent each $2000 and give that to the top 1 percent because its hard for them to afford their taxes.   Some people are out there and are working 2 jobs to get by.  They surely are thankful for those jobs LOL.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 13, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



 [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] - Yet another rw who got a hand up but doesn't think anyone else should. 

Or, are you saying you got the help you needed and it made you a lazy bum and you never again held a job? 

You've also said you now get Social Security AND Medicare but you don't think others should.

Hypocrite.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 14, 2014)

@Stephanie saying she took government aid but is against it for others, reminds me of this other rw hypocrite. How many more millions brainless rw hypocrite are there?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U]Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 14, 2014)

Dante said:


> from the conservative Heritage Foundation
> 
> Why I do not trust conservatives when it comes to criticism of Obamacare&#65279;
> 
> Heritage Foundation: 'Mandate All Households To Obtain Adequate Insurance' | ThinkProgress



Where does it say anyone agreed to impose mandates through "federal govt"
(especially the IRS by fining taxpayers!) and changing the rates and regulating the
services offered by insurance instead of leaving that to free market choices?

Just because Christians believe the world would be better off if all households
followed the principles in Christianity doesn't mean it wouldn't be a national disaster
to impose this politically through federal government! Under penalty of law, by the IRS?
Can you imagine. Of course that is messed up! NOBODY would agree no matter WHAT the benefits were.
That is NOT the purpose of federal govt to make private decisions for people that can be handled other ways.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 14, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



wouldn't surprise me if she got job placement assistance at the state-level either. IOW's she was SENT to her job. Now she claims to be a boot strapper


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 14, 2014)

Dear Luddly:
I think you and Stephanie are equally balanced, left and right,
(or you and PoliticalChic; and Sallow and Stephanie.)

You couldn't really answer to how are the ACA regulations and mandates
"prochoice" if liberals claim to want to keep government out of personal health decisions.

So you claim to be prochoice when it comes to free choice of abortion,
but not went it comes to the free choice of health care which is not as dangerous.

Doesn't that seem just as mindless to critics?



Luddly Neddite said:


> @Stephanie saying she took government aid but is against it for others, reminds me of this other rw hypocrite. How many more millions brainless rw hypocrite are there?
> 
> Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube



P.S. If Political Chic is your karmic opposite evil twin,
and Sallow and Stephanie are equal evil opposites,
I think Jake Starkey may be my equal karmic opposite.

If we could all come to terms with our most extreme opposites,
maybe this would give us better insights in how to solve problems
independently of our beliefs and biases. If solutions are truly
effective in addressing objections on all sides, wouldn't people
on all sides support them? If we only push concepts that resolve our issues but
overrule the objections of others, isn't that being onesided and incomplete?

Wouldn't the best comprehensive solutions include everyone's input to satisfy all interests?

Luddly if we are to embrace diversity and include everyone's voice equally, why compete to undercut those we disagree with? isn't that the same coercive bullying tactic we oppose?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



What is it with certain rw's to always lie about their own circumstance? I don't think there's any shame in getting a hand up. Nor is there anything wrong with getting and using the Social Security and Medicare you paid into. 

But, to deny it to others is just wrong. IMO, its the very definition of meanness of spirit.

We're all human beings, we're all just trying to live our lives the best way we know how.

  [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] Not every thread/forum is a platform for your ACA rant any more than every thread is a place for Gismo's bible thumping. He can post his preaching in Religion and you've got the Healthcare forum.


----------



## RandomVariable (Apr 14, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



If your impression is as it seems to be by this post it is a very tragic concept of what Ryan proposes. The one percent understand that Ryan's budget slashes social programs drastically so they can get a tax cut. To low income people, which I am not saying you are, the Ryan budget is sold as reform and cutting the waste that is overpayment to intercity blacks. The poor Republicans believe this will improve how the government works and jobs will come to their town. Truth of the matter the 1% know the truth, these cuts are across the board and drastic. Ryan's budget cuts $135 billion from SNAP, cutting million of families from the program. This isn't a one penny cut. Under Ryan's budget every low-income family in this country would be significantly altered. If Ryan's budget was implemented the day it was would go down in American history as great as any New Deal or another declaration of a new tomorrow as anything this country has experienced. It can not be overstated just how fundamentally different this country would be after a Ryan budget. People who have absolutely no clue how the other half live sit and read biased research papers which reconfirm their beliefs and then people will billions to spare hire ad agencies to pump out the propaganda so the low income will take the very poison which will kill them.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 14, 2014)

Yes. Ryan's "budget" actually adds to the debt.


----------



## RandomVariable (Apr 15, 2014)

Link for above: Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP Funding By $135 Billion Over Ten Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 15, 2014)

Hi [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION], No it isn't just about ACA
it's about FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS to both this issue,
ACA and related issues like this one, AT THE SAME TIME.

A lot of issues on here have been polarized
"against rw" or "for or against liberal positions".

THAT is the same issue that PREVENTS focusing on bipartisan solutions.
ACA is just another example, which I am trying to RESOLVE AT THE SAME TIME
instead of back and forth bashing on all these as "separate" issues when they are RELATED.

I DID propose a solution. See thread for "Proposed Amendments" on Equality of Political Beliefs which INCLUDES Right to Health Care.

*How many BIPARTISAN solutions have YOU Proposed Luddly???
That seek to resolve and INCLUDE issues on BOTH the left and right EQUALLY?*

Shouldn't our federal govt and laws reflect CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS
that all people agree on including all parties?

If we can resolve the conflicts over ACA, the SAME SOLUTIONS can solve all related issues --
*INCLUDING THIS ISSUE OF "ANTI-POVERTY" OR WELFARE THAT COULD BE REPLACED
WITH MICROLENDING IF BOTH PARTIES FOCUSED ON SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF DIFFERENCES.*

ACA and this issue BOTH allow an opportunity to propose BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS
for ALL ISSUES OF POLITICAL BELIEFS INSTEAD OF BASHING LEFT AND RIGHT.

Sorry you misunderstand my messages and intent, Luddly.

If you don't see that the SAME SOLUTIONS can solve RELATED partisan conflicts over:
ACA, corporate and social welfare, prison and immigration reform, etc. YOU MISS MY POINT!

Instead, you have grouped me along with "rw" you attack
and do not understand me as a fellow prochoice progressive liberal/Democrat
for Equal Rights. So of course you do not understand my messages either --
if you only see me as about ACA or about RW views, YOU MISS THE POINT.



Luddly Neddite said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



P.S. I have an idea for a separate thread and project for GISMYS to work on that might solve that problem, too.
I am into SOLUTIONS to the ROOT CAUSE of conflict, not blaming one side and thinking that solves anything!

Luddly -- If you want or need to hash this issue out in a separate thread,
I am MORE than happy to resolve it so it doesn't keep coming up in other threads.

It's the "same issue" of political bias and attacking people for their beliefs,
while claiming to respect equal Constitutional rights under law.

Unlike you "attacking and excluding rw beliefs" I DO include prochoice
and progay beliefs EQUALLY as antigay and prolife/pro-govt health care beliefs.

So Luddly if you are tired of this argument, I am happy to go into the
Bullring and offer my approach and yours and see which one is more about EQUAL RIGHTS: Your approach to prochoice, pro-govt health care, pro-gay marriage that EXCLUDES the prolife, pro-free market, and anti-gay beliefs
vs. the approach I advocate that treats ALL such political beliefs EQUALLY 
as choices under law and requires CONSENSUS before federal laws are passed
which are supposed to represent the entire population, regardless of views.

Luddly I don't even think we disagree: I believe prochoice positions are the default because they include both sides. Where we disagree is on the PROCESS of reaching a consensus; I do not agree with the bashing and exclusion/coercion back and forth. While you appear to "react against rw" in response to the discrimination the other way; that is where we differ.

Sorry you still see the need to bash and exclude others you fear because you disagree.

I believe in INCLUSION and resolving conflicts to reach a consensus.

That is the best way I know to treat and protect all people of all views equally.

Luddly THAT is the issue for me, and it touches everything and everyone on this forum.

It is "not just about ACA" which is merely a venue for getting this resolved in government.

Thank you, Luddly.
Let me know if we need a separate thread or debate under Bullring to get this straight.
But by the time we agree what the question or issue is, we will likely have a solution!

That's usually how the process goes.
Sorry you do not like that either, you seem to complain about that, too.
But that is the process of RECONCILING different views instead of
competing to exclude each other. It IS a different process and takes more work!

Sorry for that as well.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 15, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Yes. Ryan's "budget" actually adds to the debt.



Dear Luddly:
When is Obama or any other Democrat in Congress
going to propose implementing his "microlending" idea for shifting
from welfare to sustainable methods of hand ups instead of hand outs.

If I am the only Democrat on here pushing for a system
paying back corporate and social welfare so there are no complaints of deadbeats
at taxpayers expense, why do you insist on slamming me as just another rw opponent?

I'm sorry if you don't see the ACA as an opportunity to introduce welfare,
prison and immigration reforms. Why not solve several conflicts at once
with ONE COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION instead of fighting individual battles?

That's my point and my purpose.

To find the most cost-effective, sustainable and Constitutionally inclusive solutions
to stop abuse and waste of government resources.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 22, 2014)

Dante said:


> from the conservative Heritage Foundation
> 
> Why I do not trust conservatives when it comes to criticism of Obamacare&#65279;
> 
> Heritage Foundation: 'Mandate All Households To Obtain Adequate Insurance' | ThinkProgress



 [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]

Question, Dante:
Do you also find disturbing conflict of interest
in why prochoice liberals criticize regulations on abortion that risk a "slippery slope"
of controlling FREE CHOICE and reproductive freedom,
but then don't apply the same to criticisms of restrictions, mandates and penalties
on the FREE CHOICE in paying for health care in general?

Why is due process and stopping govt intrusion an issue in one case,
but there are "no real liberties lost" in the other?

If you DISCOUNT conservative arguments that seem to be politically driven,
what about liberal arguments? Does this bother you at all?

Or is regulating free choice truly justified to you in one case and not the other?
Is it politically motivated, and if so, are they both equally unfair?


----------



## Dante (May 23, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > from the conservative Heritage Foundation
> ...



Fair? Life isn't fair. Politically motivated? Depends on the individual players and their motivations. It's situational. Lots of things I agree with, laws included, may trouble me, but that is life. The payment known as the mandate/penalty is justified in my _not-so-humble-opinion_, but only because it was the only compromise that could get through the system. I'd prefer a single payer system for basic health care insurance as Switzerland put into affect a few years back (I should re-check out how it is working) with private insurance markets for those who wanted more...  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/couchepin.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/couchepin.html

   [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] It appears you are a bit confused with principle and ideology.

1) abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues, ones own body and pregnancy;  a medical choice that may or may not affect the life of a woman who is pregnant. It's very personal and in the opinion of many religious busy bodies or the state have no overriding interest that could possibly be of any value, unless of course one hides behind being a self-appointed protector of an unborn human being, a fetus. This choice or result of a sexual act between individuals should not be a state/government issue.

2) health care insurance: read the law ad the Supreme Court opinion where it is explained why the principles involved.

The 'free choice' is to pay for health care insurance, which historically the state will end up paying for in the end, or to accept the 'shared responsibility payment' in the law, known as the penalty within the mandate, that functions as a tax for the constitutional purposes of the ruling.

See?


----------



## Dot Com (May 23, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



^ that

and this v


----------



## emilynghiem (May 28, 2014)

_BTW  [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] overall I do respect your belief that this bill frees up more choices FOR YOU
because you assume insurance is needed anyway to pay costs, so to you, it is not
losing any freedom, but working within the choices anyway.

That's fine, but please understand this is the same logic of prolife advocates do not believe banning abortion
would eliminate choices either because they wouldn't chose that anyway! 
Or why govt imposing Christian prayer wouldn't affect their freedom if "they would choose it anyway."
I don't think you like when people "of other beliefs" imposing THEIR choices on you through govt.

They feel similar to you, here, where if the "choice" is needed anyway, and helps more people by "mandating it through govt," why not?
Clearly this only works if you AGREE with that choice, and would choose it anyway, or you would argue that govt is abused to push someone's beliefs or agenda, wouldn't you?

Dante if you are going to impose YOUR standards of what is free choice on 
people who don't agree, think about when Christians or prolife people impose
limits on choices where they don't see any loss or threat to freedom either.

I can appreciate if this bill helps YOU protect YOUR CHOICES, but please "equally respect the free choice of others" who are deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms._



Dante said:


> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] It appears you are a bit confused with principle and ideology.
> 
> 1) abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues, ones own body and pregnancy;  a medical choice that may or may not affect the life of a woman who is pregnant. It's very personal and in the opinion of many religious busy bodies or the state have no overriding interest that could possibly be of any value, unless of course one hides behind being a self-appointed protector of an unborn human being, a fetus. This choice or result of a sexual act between individuals should not be a state/government issue.



Hi Dante: Thanks for the extra effort to clarify this in detail; I think it is very important to make some distinctions here:
(1a) the issue of choice is one thing - and leads to admitting the problem is "faith-based" arguments and beliefs in defending the "right to life" equally as the "right to choice."
As long as the "right to life" arguments DEPEND on faith based arguments such as "when does life begin" and what constitutes a person protected by law, etc., then these arguments "technically" don't hold up under Constitutional requirements to keep religious bias out of govt authority and laws. Otherwise, the right to life could be defended equally as right to choice -- the problem is not letting "faith based beliefs" get imposed by law.
That's ONE issue

(1b) the other is DUE PROCESS. Even if both sides AGREED against abortion, the problem remains that punitive laws "after pregnancy occurs" are going to affect the women more than the man in the decisions made, including legal burdens and punishment if this is illegal. I believe this issue should be addressed separately from the choice/life issue.
I believe it was the "due process" issue that got the law struck down by Roe v. Wade.



			
				Dante said:
			
		

> 2) health care insurance: read the law ad the Supreme Court opinion where it is explained why the principles involved.
> 
> The 'free choice' is to pay for health care insurance, which historically the state will end up paying for in the end, or to accept the 'shared responsibility payment' in the law, known as the penalty within the mandate, that functions as a tax for the constitutional purposes of the ruling.
> 
> See?



Again there are at least TWO different issues here, Dante

(2a) If it is a tax, then it violates the principle of "no taxation without representation"
For the taxpayers who dissent, and do not agree to the terms of the taxation, this is causing multiple layers of problems as a result. 
Any person or politician who is HONEST and seeking to REPRESENT the public would LISTEN to the objections and try to work them out in good faith. Anyone who DENIES the objections and dismisses the complaints as invalid is not representing those citizens.
So the spirit of the legislation is off to begin with if it does not represent the whole public.

(2b) there are OTHER ways to pay for health care that were not even addressed.
*Sorry, Dante, but it is NOT "free choice" to mandate that people buy insurance and to penalize 'all other ways' of paying for health care - especially when these "other ways" are NEEDED ANYWAY because insurance does NOT cover all costs or all people. This is punitive and regulating choices, especially where health care involves religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction.*

I mentioned prison reforms where those costs taxpayers are already paying could easily pay for educational and medical loans, for example. Also immigration and drug policy reform could also free up BILLIONS of STATE dollars to pay for health care per STATE.

Dante the problem is the President wanted to make this a FEDERAL issue so he can take control as President. He wanted to initiate action, but as President he has to keep it FEDERAL.

If the health and prison problems were delegated to STATES then GOVERNORS and local reps would have responsibility, and the President could not control that process.

Dante, I cannot tell you enough that the problems need to be addressed and represented LOCALLY by STATE.

Where the FEDERAL authority comes in
is that PEOPLE and States DO reserve equal Constitutional rights to due process, petitioning and protection of the laws.

So we should INDEED take the SPIRIT of the Constitutional laws on a Federal and empower local CITIZENS and STATES to set up Constitutional protections LOCALLY using  LOCAL programs and resources to manage sustainable systems.

If we delegate this to the States and people locally there is more DIRECT access, representation and accountability.

Instead, if you go through Federal levels and Congress, then it takes a lot more process to reform and make adjustments to policies/programs needed PER STATE, and each STATE has different populations to represent and serve, so their process is different.

It is selfish, shortsighted and unfair to push policies for whole states uniformly through Congress where it naturally is going to backlog the system in conflict because too many people and interests cannot be covered by one generic policy.

The federal law should have simply made it mandatory for states to manage their own health care where nobody is forced to foot the bill for expenses from other people's irresponsibility except where people AGREE to pay for those costs.

So if people AGREE to pay for insurance, or pay for hospitals or ER for others,
whatever methods or groups citizens AGREE to pay for, everyone remains free to meet their terms and work out the plans; but people CANNOT force taxpayers to pay, for example, for drug addicts who refuse to get help or commit crimes and send people to the hospital, or pay for people either to have abortions if they don't believe in that or pay to have kids as welfare tickets if they don't agree. States can set up microlending with requirements to pay back welfare, similar to educational loans, and work with charities or schools to set up medical programs where people work off their education, internships or residencies, by serving the public through clinics and teaching hospitals.

There are any number of ways to cover health care, especially by addressing prison and immigration reforms at the same time. 

The federal level could oversee the security and public regulations, but the states have to address and represent their local populations to equally include all citizens.
the federal level is not designed for those specific needs.

So that is where the individual liberties or free choice are completely wiped out by these federal mandates.

The mandates selectively penalize options other than "insurance" while politically granting exemptions to whole groups. So it is not equal protection or equal choice, but only serves certain political agenda and criteria.

It makes NO sense to penalize choices such as 'charitable donations' to pay for health care or even medical facilities, programs or education directly,
when all these other avenues are NEEDED ANYWAY.

If health care reform were pursued by investing FIRST in developing programs needed to PROVIDE for public health, education and services, then people would naturally use insurance and other means to manage all the costs and services.

Instead the legislation sought to mandate insurance first, which deprived citizens of liberty to pay for health care and develop programs by FREE WILL, by business, charitable and educational outreach.

So it is basically PUNISHING people for NOT depending on federal govt to mandate insurance. Instead it should be REWARDING states and people for setting up better coverage and programs for people, and respecting natural freedom to create these locally.


----------



## rdean (May 28, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> we know that you all have run out of idea on *how to attack and smear people*
> 
> so we now have ANTI-POVERTY programs, when the hell did we get that? Get that title from the slimes folks
> 
> ...



The "master" speaks.  No DB like DB.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2014)

Ryan is a 'butt boy' for the Koches.


----------



## Political Junky (May 28, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Ryan is a 'butt boy' for the Koches.


He's looking forward to all those campaign contributions they'll give him.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 29, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan is a 'butt boy' for the Koches.
> ...



Glove Up!!!


----------



## Bush92 (May 29, 2014)

We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.


----------



## whitehall (May 29, 2014)

How much money do we have to spend on LBJ's failed 50 year old "war on poverty" to convince the low information left that it freaking don't work? Poverty programs have been set up by crooked democrat administrations to make government pimps rich and destroy minority families. Somehow it translates to votes for democrats.


----------



## whitehall (May 29, 2014)

One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.


----------



## bedowin62 (May 29, 2014)

there are more people in Poverty now under obama and Democrats than there were in the worst bush years; forget the best Bush years

libs are laughable morons who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62 (May 29, 2014)

big right-wing Kochs terrify left-wing nutjobs


----------



## OnePercenter (May 29, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.



Here ya go!

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 29, 2014)

whitehall said:


> One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.



Propaganda like; 'The rich pay 40% of their income to taxes?'


----------



## Dante (May 29, 2014)

whitehall said:


> How much money do we have to spend on LBJ's failed 50 year old "war on poverty" to convince the low information left that it freaking don't work? Poverty programs have been set up by crooked democrat administrations to make government pimps rich and destroy minority families. Somehow it translates to votes for democrats.



*yawn*



> Recent research from the Columbia Population Research Center at Columbia University reveals the extent to which anti-poverty programs since the 1960s have alleviated poverty for millions of Americans. The study, titled Trends in Poverty with an Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure, uses a uniform measure of poverty (supplemental poverty measure or SPM) to show a dramatic drop-off in poverty rates from 1967 to 2011. From the study (emphasis added):
> 
> The OPM shows the overall poverty rates to be nearly the same in 1967 and 2011  at 14% and 15% respectively. But our counterfactual estimates using the anchored SPM show that without taxes and other government programs, poverty would have been roughly flat at 27-29%, while with government benefits poverty has fallen from 26% to 16%  a 40% reduction. Government programs today are cutting poverty nearly in half (from 29% to 16%) while in 1967 they only cut poverty by about one percentage point.


 publichealthwatch | Conservative Media?s Misleading Coverage Of The War On Poverty


----------



## Dante (May 29, 2014)

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]





emilynghiem said:


> _BTW  [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] overall I do respect your belief that this bill frees up more choices FOR YOU because you assume insurance is needed anyway to pay costs, so to you, it is not losing any freedom, but working within the choices anyway.
> 
> That's fine, but please understand this is the same logic of prolife advocates do not believe banning abortion would eliminate choices either because they wouldn't chose that anyway!  Or why govt imposing Christian prayer wouldn't affect their freedom if "they would choose it anyway." I don't think you like when people "of other beliefs" imposing THEIR choices on you through govt.
> 
> ...



You are still confused about individual and collective choices, the role of elected government in making laws. And this is nonsensical: "deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms."

(1a): abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.

(1b): Huh? 

(2a): No it doesn't. We all have representation. You lack the most basic understanding here. Civics 101

(2b): Congress chose how to pay. An elected Congress that represents ALL the people. 

For most rational people health care does NOT involve "religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction." There are of course situations that arise where religious beliefs may butt up against science, technology, and medicine. When society and government has a compelling interest in specific cases the law gets involved.

Whatever you are ranting and raving about the President, it was the duly elected Congress who enacted the health care law, not the President. 

READ the law and the ruling legal opinion. You have strayed off the reservation in your thinking and reasoning (if you want to call it that) and your arguments


----------



## whitehall (May 29, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.
> ...



No, propaganda that suggests a single republican in the House of Representatives would ruin the great "war against poverty" that LBJ created.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 30, 2014)

[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] I am going to stop in the middle of this and give you rep on one of these msgs
just for taking the time and effort for nitpicking these pieces apart. If more people had done this a long time ago, we would be too busy solving each problem to fight politically over Roe v Wade and abortion by throwing all these individual conflicts together in a stew.

Thank you, and please continue until you make me spell it all out and you correct each point until we AGREE what points can and cannot be resolved. My point is to make public policy based on what we CAN agree with, and QUIT fighting over the points we cannot. I want to show the problems CAN BE SOLVED WITHOUT having to force points in conflict.

I am going to split the "Abortion Roe v Wade" issue into a separate post from
the health care issue, so we can go into more detail and hash every point out
where you see there is conflict. All sides need to spell out their issues this way,
and maybe we'd actually get somewhere instead of politically deadlocking.

A = Abortion legality issues
(B will be the health care reform issues)
========================

A. Two key conflicts regarding Abortion
1. the issue of abortion itself
2. the issue of HOW LAWS ARE WRITTEN AND ENFORCED and why illegality and penalties cannot be LEGISLATED because "even if abortion was murder" the legal process of penalizing the WOMAN would impose a burden to prove she was FORCED etc.

My point in SEPARATING 2 from 1, is that EVEN IF PEOPLE CAN NEVER AGREE ON 1
(which involved the religious differences and beliefs/perceptions etc.)
We can still address what is wrong with 2, and quit fighting over point 1.

[As for point #1, because right to life beliefs should be equally protected as right to choice,
the prolife could argue they are being "discriminated against politically by govt
UNLESS their beliefs in #1 ARE recognized EQUALLY" and public laws are based on #2 instead which does not diminish, exclude or discriminate against prolife views in #1.
OTHERWISE if laws are based on arguments "taking sides" on #1, this imposes a bias.]

So we could still acknowledge and defend the "equal right to believe in prolife views in #1"
and STILL have "prochoice views" DEFENDED based on #2. So there is no argument.

There is NO NEED either to defend, push or attack prolife/prochoice beliefs on point #1
if ALL arguments can still be made using point #2. And I believe conflicts can be resolved by focusing on #2, after we quit threatening to violate beliefs on either side on #1. 

I have not found ONE PERSON WHO DISAGREED WITH THE FACT THAT
2. laws about abortion "after the fact" are going to affect women more than men
so this is NEVER going to be fair and equally protective/applied/enforced. 
1. choosing to be prolife does NOT depend on making laws forcing this; so all measures to stop abortion can still be exercised freely as in #1 without requiring any legal mandates.
All Prolife activism, outreach, education is PROOF this can be done without laws forcing it.

Dante this is VERY important to make this distinction between point 1 and point 2.

I have actually convinced many conservative staunch prolife believers to respect the Constitutional standards preventing bans and punitive laws because of #2, where this does not affect or depend on their beliefs in #1. So there is NO NEED to force #1 on people,
because we really need to focus on #2.



Dante said:


> (1a): abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.
> 
> (1b): Huh?



RE: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.

Dante this is true but there are THREE levels where a different choice can be made
and where "govt can intrude on personal choices":

0. the point at which the COUPLE decides to have sex if it is consensual, or rape/coercion occurs, or something in between where the responsibility between the two people is on a completely private level. So if abuse occurs this cannot be policed by govt, but has to be identified and resolved personally by the people. If no crime is determined, it's personal.

This is the LAST point where the man could possibly be held equally responsible as the woman, if not more if he commits coercion rape fraud or some other abuse against her.

Clearly the govt cannot make or enforce any laws on this level, but that is the last level where there is even a CHANCE of holding men and women equally responsible for the choice to have sex in the first place. so clearly the rest gets skewed from there, toward imposing on women more than men, made worse by threatening govt regulations or bans.

1. the point at which the woman goes through abortion.
again this should be a private medical decision, and given the research and information we have collected by now on abortion, it should be easier to reduce the incidence of abortion simply by education and free choice.

2. the process by which government would "enforce and execute laws by due process" IF regulations and penalties were imposed.
If this is after the abortion, that is different from trying to use govt to intervene during the pregnancy, or intervene before the sex and pregnancy occurs.

Dante it is a separate level of law
if people were going to write and enforce ordinances regarding "relationship abuse" "rape" "unwanted pregnancy" and "unwanted abortion" BEFORE pregnancy occurs
OR
if people want to ban and restrict the abortion providers
OR
if people are trying to impose fines/penalties AFTER abortion occurs

The last two levels affect WOMEN more than men. 
So that is why the laws will never be fair.
HOW the LAWS are written, and what is involved with ENFORCEMENT and REGULATIONS is a SEPARATE issue from ABORTION itself.

[this is like arguing if the ACT of willful termination in executions or euthanasia IN ITSELF
is right wrong justifiable or allowable in some cases
versus the PROCESS the govt goes through to 
DECIDE if a crime is committed or how it enforced regulations or imposes punishment.

Those two levels are SEPARATE. is that more clear?]


----------



## emilynghiem (May 30, 2014)

*1. on liberty deprived by federal mandates in ACA* 


Dante said:


> You are still confused about individual and collective choices, the role of elected government in making laws. And this is nonsensical: "deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms."



I will separate this into another post B for the health care and mandates issue.

Cont'd    [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]: I couldn't find where to rep you, did you turn this off? If you would like one little rep from me, when we are both online at the same time, can I coordinate with you, for you to turn it on, let me rep your msg, and you turn it off again. Woudl that work?

B. health care insurance mandates and individual liberties before ACA was passed

What I was trying to say here, and sorry if I bungled it up:
the federal govt imposing mandates requiring citizens to buy private insurance or else pay a fine to govt to go into govt health care
EXCLUDES, DISCRIMINATES and PENALIZES people who believe in paying for their own health care FREELY and fully by themselves WITHOUT dependence or financial regulations from govt forcing them to pay into a govt system THEY DO NOT BELIEVE federal govt has Constitutional authority to be involved in (WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment where the States ratify and authorize federal govt to step in and oversee or manage this nationally).

Some people believe in STATES voting on and setting up health care NOT federal govt.
Some people believe in PEOPLE paying for health care through business charity or schools and NOT depending either on State or Federal govt.

NOTE: Even if people disagree on the concept, they can AGREE on the PROCESS of going through a Constitutional amendment to AUTHORIZE federal govt first, BEFORE enacting law

So that was disagreed on also. So there are SEVERAL LEVELS where either the law was not followed directly, or BELIEFS were violated and so the law was not followed indirectly.

So YES the mandates and the federal authority to write, reform and enforce health care legislation that regulates insurance by FORCING people to BUY and PARTICIPATE
under FEDERAL TERMS and  regulations -- this DOES take away rights we formally had to make these decisions ourselves WITHOUT fine or penalty much less regulations on our choices.

People used to be able to choose minimal plans, similar to buying just liability insurance or the minimum, and not being required to pay for full coverage.

This health care system depends on people having to pay for insurance BEFORE they need it; we used to have the choice to wait until we NEEDED to be covered to buy it. This is like choosing to buy a car and only buying insurance AFTER you buy the car. 
NOT being forced to buy car insurance before you need it.

Dante can you compare the choices people had BEFORE the ACA was passed,
and the choices people have now, and see that people are facing fines or added costs
they didn't have to pay before?

*2. RE Representation and beliefs*


Dante said:


> (2a): No it doesn't. We all have representation. You lack the most basic understanding here. Civics 101
> 
> (2b): Congress chose how to pay. An elected Congress that represents ALL the people.
> 
> For most rational people health care does NOT involve "religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction." There are of course situations that arise where religious beliefs may butt up against science, technology, and medicine. When society and government has a compelling interest in specific cases the law gets involved.




2a. NO Dante, I think you underestimate my views by assuming I have representation.
I have not found anyone who could represent and defend my views but myself.
I believe in CONSENSUS on laws and CONSENT of the governed by full and equal
inclusion and resolving all conflicts. I am at odds with 99% of govt/legal system that does not make decisions by consensus or consent.

So no, I am not represented by people in govt who believe in less than consent.
I believe in AGREEING to go by a different threshold -- such as 2/3 or 51% majority -- IF PEOPLE AGREE TO THIS BY LAW.

But cases where religious or religiously held political beliefs are involved, that is NOT up to majority rule to decide someone's BELIEFS.
To protect people's BELIEFS from infringement, I believe in conflict resolution on a local/individual level and consensus
on the last level where this is possible, and then separating jurisdiction after that.

2b. As for Congress, the split on this ACA vote was decidedly by PARTY.

So that is like if a bill passed with 51% of the Christians voting for it, and 49% of the Atheists against it, where the Atheists complained the bill, language or procedures in it DISCRIMINATED against them because they did not believe in the same things as the people voting for it.

If half the nation sided with the Christians and half with the Atheists, I would agree with the Atheists arguing they are "not represented" by this bill and their religious beliefs or differences were "DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND EXCLUDED" by majority vote of Christians.

Especially if the bill involves a TAX that the Atheists are protesting, I would look and see WHY there is a bias in that law that is making half the nation protest.

Even if a majority passed it, that doesn't mean there isn't some flaw or bias
that makes that law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Note: It happens to be MORE visible if the split is divided clearly by groups.

a Religious belief or religiously held political belief does not require the holder to be a member of the majority in order to defend their belief from government discrimination.

So even if 1 person or 1% protested that a bill was discriminatory,
I would look into that bias and see if the law could be corrected to eliminate the flaw. that is just Constitutional duty and principle and respect for equal protection and representation.

Otherwise, even if a law has majority support, it can still be unconstitutional by the First or Fourteenth Amendments and in violation of the Code of Ethics if it is partisan.

Clearly this ACA is partisan. That should be a big clue there is a bias going on.
It is disturbing that instead of ADDRESSING and RESOLVING the bias or conflicts,
the emphasis has been on fighting opponents back and forth POLITICALLY.

I believe all Congress members who touched this bill should be responsible for addressing all conflicts and correcting it; and put the bill on a moratorium until it is resolved; the separate parties can implement and participate/fund it voluntarily, but cannot regulate "other people's choices and standards of paying for health care" as long as they don't impose costs on other people or parties who disagree; and let each respect their choices.

Dante, that is what would represent me.

Anything less is imposing some political standard or "lack of faith that consensus is not possible" which is violating my constitutional belief and right to pursue and defend consensus on law. Since no lawyer will represent my view, I just have to argue for myself.
The whole legal system is based on adversarial competition, with one side beating out the other instead of equal protection of both sides, so that is why there is a conflict of interest with lawyers and the legal system. Most people agree with fighting because they don't believe you can win by asking nicely and resolving conflicts to reach a consensus.

Because I have this view, this belief in Restorative Justice, this proves that the systems and views that are NOT based on the same, ARE religiously spiritually and/or politically biased.

You can say that "most people do not see any of these choices as spiritual" and that just makes the matter worse of why people like me do not have "equal representation." 

Once our views are recognized as VALID and EQUAL choices, then maybe these can be equally included and defended in laws instead of overruled next to other political beliefs.

*3. Executive Involvement and Blockage of the process of reforming ACA*



			
				Dante said:
			
		

> Whatever you are ranting and raving about the President, it was the duly elected Congress who enacted the health care law, not the President.
> 
> READ the law and the ruling legal opinion. You have strayed off the reservation in your thinking and reasoning (if you want to call it that) and your arguments [/COLOR]



3a. The President did not seek to correct or reform the Bill to remove unconstitutional flaws as he did with the AZ Immigration bill. His duty is to enforce the Constitution, and he clearly  kept pushing the bill "as is" for Partisan power and REFUSED to sign any changes AT ALL to ACA in the proposed Budget because he did not want to give in and compromise.

(Note: *Obama agreed to oppose the Marriage bill as unconstitutional THAT WAS VOTED ON AND PASSED by LEGALLY ELECTED REPS and EVEN VOTES DIRECTLY
and still "not PERFECTLY Constitutional" because it left out people of other BELIEFS,*
and after the immigration bill as unconstitutional THAT WAS ALSO PASSED IN AZ USING THE GIVEN REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEM, 
but would not sign on the Budget passed by Congress if it changed ACA which is full of contested points on Constitutional grounds)

Dante: are you going to say that the DOMA and the AZ bill should have remained because BOTH were passed by Representatives duly elected?
Or will you agree that is NOT ENOUGH to guarantee it is constitutional.

To their credit, the Republican leadership overcame much division threatening to block it completely and managed an AGREEMENT to revise just TWO POINTS (the tax on medical devices and a one year extension on the individual mandate since the employer mandate already got a one year extension)

Given the President's duty to enforce the Constitution, and to protect citizens EQUALLY as he sought to do with IMMIGRANTS and with GAYS, 
he could and should equally defend the rights of citizens to Constitutional beliefs, as he did with these other cases that had unconstitutional flaws.

but he went out of his way to do the OPPOSITE.
He argued that the bill in Congress 'was not a tax' and so it had a chance to be stopped by the Supreme Court where the "commerce clause" interpretation was struck down.
but then he had lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that "it WAS a tax" in order to let it continue on since the "commerce clause argument" was eliminated.

Had Obama been seeking to CORRECT the objections and RESOLVE the conflicts, so that ALL people and ALL beliefs/views were EQUALLY represented as REQUIRED by the Fourteenth Amendment, he wouldn't have argued "both ways" to try to win for ONE side
OVER the other, to further EXCLUDE beliefs by which the mandates are unconstitutional.

He is clearly acting by PARTISAN interest, which is DISCRIMINATORY BY PARTY, over the Constitutional duty to represent the ALL the public equally. Thus in violation of Constitutional duty and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. ethics-commission.net

Obama is acting in collusion with the Democrats in Congress who refuse to address contested issues with this bill. Anyone who puts the Constitution first BEFORE party politics would seek RESOLUTION NOT IMPOSITION that excludes people's beliefs.

3b. As for the law and the ruling opinion.
Since both were split nearly 50/50, this shows that half the nation is represented
and half is not.  In order to represent ALL the public EQUALLY, ALL views would have to be INCLUDED. otherwise the bill and the ruling are Unconstitutional by discriminating by creed and party. The numbers and the complaints/defenses by people clearly show a 50/50 split.

but beliefs are NOT dependent on "majority rule" to be protected from exclusion by govt.

Examples of beliefs:
the bill was originally passed as a REFORM to existing public health act and NOT as a tax.
because it mixed the two, half the people believe it requires a Constitutional amendment, half the people don't. half the people believe it is justified as general welfare or under the commerce clause, half the people don't. half the people believe federal govt has the authority to set up health care or move toward singlepayer, half the people don't. half the people agree the federal govt has the right to mix taxing and health care requirements with "private insurance" and "mandates" to make people buy it, half the people do not.

It isn't "just disagreeing with paying fines" it is NOT BELIEVING federal govt has that authority, which is even stronger.

to be EQUALLY INCLUSIVE and NOT discriminate against ALL these different BELIEFS people have, then ALL would have to be resolved and satisfied or else SEPARATE JURISDICTION by state, party or other affiliated group that DOES represent ALL PEOPLE. 

Neither the bill nor the court ruling was passed with consensus, but was split almost 50/50
(with the majority of support from liberals/Democrats and majority
of objection from conservatives/Republicans --
So that TELLS me that (i) something was wrong and left unresolved.
(ii) the conflict and reason it cannot be resolved is PARTISAN due to  differences in POLITICAL BELIEFS, and that's why they cannot be resolved the way the bill is written.
it already excludes or divides people by belief and would have to be completely  changed to overcome this level of conflict involving deeply held BELIEFS that will not change.

Just ignoring the objections and assuming the beliefs don't matter as long as the vote overrules them DOESN'T SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS -- they still remain anyway!
So WHY NOT ADDRESS THEM. That is what I don't get.

Why not WRITE corrections instead of fighting any reform on this bill?
Why not WORK WITH the objections instead of excluding those beliefs as "invalid"?

On a bill as sensitive about personal choices as health care and how to pay for it,
any federal law should be so generic where the public can AGREE on it:
like requiring states to make sure their citizens health care is covered WITHOUT requiring costs or labor of people or government in ways that taxpayers do not agree to pay
or else any money states get from govt has to be paid back to deter abuse waste or losses.

_P.S. Dante if you make it through the end of this discussion and we actually resolve 2 or 3 points,
if I can't find a way to give you rep, can I pay for your membership or something else to show appreciation?
I think you are really heroic to follow this through to the end. If we can't agree on other points, if we can at least agree that the beliefs for and against will not change and
should not be forced one way or another by govt, but both sets of beliefs should be equally included, respected and protected without discrimination or penalty, then I will consider that a victory.
If even one person gets this, like you, I believe the Democrat Party and the Greens can be worked with to organize support to set up Singlepayer without imposing on others.
If NOBODY gets this, and the whole liberal/Democrat support for ACA is all based on "imposing politically through force of federal govt" without equally including or even considering other beliefs as valid,
I believe the Democrat Party should be sued. If this is something that can be corrected and resolved VOLUNTARILY that means there is hope for the party.
I need to know if this can be addressed and resolved from within, or if the party is no more than a cult and its members refuse to make any corrections, then I agree it should be shut down.
I will try to write to my Congress rep and Senators one last time, and will include any points that you can clarify and help me resolve if this is even possible! Thank you Dante._


----------



## initforme (May 30, 2014)

As long as there are no tax breaks for the affluent then make the cuts I guess.  Somehow I can see big business and the uber wealthy getting tax breaks while the middle class is asked to pay more.  If that's part of the deal, don't expect people to support it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 5, 2014)

Dear [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION]: Have you ever tried training workers at 15.00 an hour, much less 20.00?

What makes you think paying people more will magically produce better work quality so that the company can afford to pay that much PER HOUR?
And if the managers are expected to supervise the same people currently paid 10-14.00 and try to get them to produce as much as TWO PEOPLE per hour,
what about the extra work the MANAGERS would have to do?

Have you ever worked at jobs that required whole floors of people working AT THE SAME TIME. 
4 people working at the same time is about 100.00 an hour at the rate you propose.

So what about jobs that require teams of 20-40 people?
In order to get shipments packed and loaded SAFELY, for example.

To afford to pay the workers, they'd have to do the SAME WORK using HALF the team.
At manufacturing jobs, what you propose may not even be SAFE.

Reducing the staff to pay them more can cause other complications on the job.
Have you ever considered, much less physically TRIED OUT what you propose?



OnePercenter said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.
> ...


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 5, 2014)

Vern said:
			
		

> Americans today spend almost a trillion dollars in hidden costs and in just preparing their tax returns.  This is in addition to the payments they regularly make to the IRS. Each year they work full time for the government until April 21st just to pay their taxes. Their time and their money could be better spent if they were better able to make their own decisions on how to spend both.
> 
> I believe my FaST Tax Plan could be one of the best methods of implementing this. It would immediately solve most of these problems and move in a timely manner toward cementing a final solution. I believe at the same time it would be flexible enough to allow Americans to evaluate each change and make adjustments along the way.
> 
> ...



My friend Vern sent me this tax reform proposal.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 5, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.



The taxpayers supported your son dubya for eight years and he was lame and lazy.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jun 5, 2014)

We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 5, 2014)

Slyhunter said:


> We have 3 choices.
> 1. Pay everyone a living wage.
> 2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
> 3. or have our working poor live like this -->



How about organize community campuses in every district
combining housing, education and jobs and training?

So as people develop skills, they move up, similar to classes in school.
And let each community organize its own schools, businesses,
and nonprofits to manage the training and internships.

http://www.campusplan.org

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

Earned Amnesty


----------



## bedowin62 (Jun 5, 2014)

that 47% had it MUCH BETTER WHEN REPUBS RAN THE COUNTRY

the war on the poor is coming from you left-wing nutjobs; RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS

 libz are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Dante (Jun 15, 2014)

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

you keep phrasing differences of opinion as discrimination if one side wins. 

The PPACA on wikipedia may have some issues, but reading it should help show where and how your arguments are flawed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

you can go from there to original sources


Conservatives and Republicans have no true and honest arguments against the 'mandates' 



> When President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill in 1993 that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.[50] Ultimately the Clinton plan failed amid an unprecedented barrage of negative advertising funded by politically conservative groups and the health insurance industry and due to concerns that it was overly complex.[52] After failing to obtain a comprehensive reform of the healthcare system, Clinton negotiated a compromise with the 105th Congress to instead enact the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997.[53]
> John Chafee
> 
> The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance&#8212;an individual mandate&#8212;as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'.[54] Advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans who today oppose a mandate, such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond.[55][56] Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, 20 supported the HEART Act.[48][57] Another Republican proposal, introduced in 1994 by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision;[58] however, Nickles subsequently removed the mandate from the bill, stating he had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance".[59] At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, "I don&#8217;t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax."[48]


----------



## bedowin62 (Jun 15, 2014)

we simply cannot afford to cut anti-poverty programs at the rate this failed President Obama; and his failing Jackazz Party are CREATING POOR PEOPLE!


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 16, 2014)

The war on people is when the federal government raises taxes on hard working American's to give to those who want to rip-off the system.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 16, 2014)

Slyhunter said:


> We have 3 choices.
> 1. Pay everyone a living wage.
> 2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
> 3. or have our working poor live like this -->



Put them on a ship back to Hong Kong. Not my problem!


----------



## Slyhunter (Jun 16, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > We have 3 choices.
> ...



That kind of attitude will cost the Republicans the election.
The poor vote too.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 16, 2014)

Slyhunter said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



there is no down trodden masses in the United States. No need for Bolshevism here.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jun 16, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



Yet.
Let the Libertarianism take over getting rid of welfare, the minimum wage, and opening the borders and there will be.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 16, 2014)

Close the border, stop imports from China, give people jobs, and cut all welfare. There is your solution.


----------



## Dante (Jun 25, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Close the border, stop imports from China, give people jobs, and cut all welfare. There is your solution.



And now a message from the real world:


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 26, 2014)

Dante said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Close the border, stop imports from China, give people jobs, and cut all welfare. There is your solution.
> ...



Will you just go away already


----------



## Dante (Jul 5, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



Your attempts to arouse me just fall flat. Hmm...

You still have no life?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 6, 2014)

Anybody in their right mind think LBJ's "war on poverty" ended in a victory? Redundant and failed federal programs are still in effect after more than forty years. If Barry Hussein and the do-nothing democrat party has it's way we will all be back on the federal plantation. Hooray for gutsy congressmen like Ryan to take a stand.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 6, 2014)

After the support for the invasion that democrats are giving, they have no more right to complain about anything a republican does.


----------



## Dante (Jul 6, 2014)

Poor tools following Ryan right over the cliff into _absurdity_


----------

