GOP wants to make the poor productive

[whitehall]

Over the last year, I've heard a number of GOP politicians talk about how we need to preserve the middle class and turn the poor into productive citizens. Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I'm all for it.

And now, Mr. Speaker and other gentlemen, here's what needs to happen in order to achieve this very worthy goal:

• Guarantee ample funding and the most talented educators in public schools at all levels and in all neighborhoods
• Make tuition at colleges and universities free or greatly subsidized, for those who are academically qualified and who want to pursue an economically useful degree (those who want to major in lesbian Uzbekistani basket weaving can do it on their own dime)
• Fund a public option for universal health care
• Regulate markets to prevent scams that discourage widespread investment
• Rebuild the infrastructure to pave the way for faster economic development
• Revamp the justice system so that it no longer disproportionately punishes the poor
• Bring the percentage of incarcerated citizens back in line with the rest of the free world (jails aren't free)

You realize that NONE of the items above is a handout for lazy, irresponsible people, of course. They are simply tools for those willing to make the effort to escape poverty and be successful.

Time to put your money where your mouths are.

Republicans might not have all the answers but one thing is sure, democrats ain't got a clue. LBJ's abomination of a "war on poverty" is still being funded by a-holes who think government can do it better than the private sector. Left wing crazies even think there is a connection between poverty and American security (usually when a republican is in the White House). Free college and free medical care won't make a difference in the poverty statistics . For God's sake's didn't the destruction of the Black family under LBJ's policies teach pundits anything? The poor want jobs and if there is any irresponsible laziness involved it is in corrupt redundant government agencies and fools who make the rules but don't have to live by them.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Shrink the enabling government bureacracy. It isn't rocket science.

Will you explain how that makes anyone more productive,

Simple, the liberal bureaucracy interfered and caused the current depression. It exists to intefere with capitalism in general which is 100% about productivity. Still over your head??

Liberalism is based on 100% ignorance so you must always start with Econ 101 class one day one!!

So you did come by just to waste everyone's time with the same old soundbites. That's cool: I won't crucify you - just tune you out. Feel free to PM me if you ever come up with anything remotely useful to say.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Over the last year, I've heard a number of GOP politicians talk about how we need to preserve the middle class and turn the poor into productive citizens. Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I'm all for it.

And now, Mr. Speaker and other gentlemen, here's what needs to happen in order to achieve this very worthy goal:

• Guarantee ample funding and the most talented educators in public schools at all levels and in all neighborhoods
• Make tuition at colleges and universities free or greatly subsidized, for those who are academically qualified and who want to pursue an economically useful degree (those who want to major in lesbian Uzbekistani basket weaving can do it on their own dime)
• Fund a public option for universal health care
• Regulate markets to prevent scams that discourage widespread investment
• Rebuild the infrastructure to pave the way for faster economic development
• Revamp the justice system so that it no longer disproportionately punishes the poor
• Bring the percentage of incarcerated citizens back in line with the rest of the free world (jails aren't free)

You realize that NONE of the items above is a handout for lazy, irresponsible people, of course. They are simply tools for those willing to make the effort to escape poverty and be successful.

Time to put your money where your mouths are.

Republicans might not have all the answers but one thing is sure, democrats ain't got a clue. LBJ's abomination of a "war on poverty" is still being funded by a-holes who think government can do it better than the private sector. Left wing crazies even think there is a connection between poverty and American security (usually when a republican is in the White House). Free college and free medical care won't make a difference in the poverty statistics . For God's sake's didn't the destruction of the Black family under LBJ's policies teach pundits anything? The poor want jobs and if there is any irresponsible laziness involved it is in corrupt redundant government agencies and fools who make the rules but don't have to live by them.

LBJ's "war on poverty" was ill-conceived in many ways. However, he didn't address the education issue in any meaningful sense.

 

[Rshermr]

No con seems able to actually comment on content. Just dogma. How normal.

For 24th time: you said taxing an economy on the verge of recession will help it grow?? How??Would you choke a man to help him breath?

You said most economists agree stimulus works , when we all know if they did agree it would have been tried many many times and there would be no question whatsoever and recessions and depression would have disappeared 100 years ago!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?? What other possibility is there??

You do like Reagan and deficit spend while leaving taxes the same or increasing them on the wealthy to pump the economy. Depends how much you care about the national debt.

I usually do not respond to ed, because he is incapable of rational discussion. And he lies a lot. But, if you do not mind my useing your post, Toronodo, let me respond to his drivel. And it should tie in to the questions that he is trying to put together and ask you. Trying, however, is the operative word: So, Ed says:

For 24th time: you said taxing an economy on the verge of recession will help it grow?? How??

As Ed knows I did not say that. The argument is too complex for him. What I said was that stimulus spending funded by tax increases on the wealthy is a good idea. And, on the wealthy BECAUSE it has been proven taxing them causes no real problem for the economy.

Would you choke a man to help him breath?

As I have told ed, it depends. If it was ed, yes, probably. (I think ed, in his mental illness fog, feels that that question has some real meaning.)

You said most economists agree stimulus works , when we all know if they did agree it would have been tried many many times and there would be no question whatsoever and recessions and depression would have disappeared 100 years ago!!

Now, this question is a 80 mph fastball right over the center of the plate. Except. Except this is ed. And, there is really no reason explaining how stupid the question is, because it is ed. Ed is incapable of anything, except posting conservative dogma.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?? What other possibility is there??

The "we" turns up quite a bit in ed's posts. He is referring to his imaginary friend. Poor ed is delusional, but it is not his fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[Rshermr]

Over the last year, I've heard a number of GOP politicians talk about how we need to preserve the middle class and turn the poor into productive citizens. Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I'm all for it.

And now, Mr. Speaker and other gentlemen, here's what needs to happen in order to achieve this very worthy goal:

• Guarantee ample funding and the most talented educators in public schools at all levels and in all neighborhoods
• Make tuition at colleges and universities free or greatly subsidized, for those who are academically qualified and who want to pursue an economically useful degree (those who want to major in lesbian Uzbekistani basket weaving can do it on their own dime)
• Fund a public option for universal health care
• Regulate markets to prevent scams that discourage widespread investment
• Rebuild the infrastructure to pave the way for faster economic development
• Revamp the justice system so that it no longer disproportionately punishes the poor
• Bring the percentage of incarcerated citizens back in line with the rest of the free world (jails aren't free)

You realize that NONE of the items above is a handout for lazy, irresponsible people, of course. They are simply tools for those willing to make the effort to escape poverty and be successful.

Time to put your money where your mouths are.

Republicans might not have all the answers but one thing is sure, democrats ain't got a clue. LBJ's abomination of a "war on poverty" is still being funded by a-holes who think government can do it better than the private sector. Left wing crazies even think there is a connection between poverty and American security (usually when a republican is in the White House). Free college and free medical care won't make a difference in the poverty statistics . For God's sake's didn't the destruction of the Black family under LBJ's policies teach pundits anything? The poor want jobs and if there is any irresponsible laziness involved it is in corrupt redundant government agencies and fools who make the rules but don't have to live by them.

LBJ's "war on poverty" was ill-conceived in many ways. However, he didn't address the education issue in any meaningful sense.

I have to admit I loved Whitehall's response. It was so...so....conservative. As in typical con tool.
Just one interesting point from Whitehall:
1. Free Medical - Whitehall, me boy, there is no such thing. We now pay for the very poor to go to emergency rooms. So, cons like whitehall believe that that is free, but providing health insurance at low to no cost will be a more expensive solution. No proof, it is simply what the con web sites say, and what the health insurance companies say. And, of course, there is no interest in seeing the uninsured get better health care as a result of getting health care coverage. However, there is great interest in providing the private insurance companies the opportunity to make all they can while refusing to cover them. And for people like whitehall, there is never any consideration that while every other industrialized nation in the world covers all citizens and costs way less than our private coverage, we should ever want to look at that as an option.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BECAUSE it has been proven taxing them causes no real problem for the economy.

oh???????? so then why be so afraid to show us "the proof" and the theory behind the proof?? If a VC firm has less money to fund the future Googles Apples Amazons Intels and Facebooks that does no real harm?????

So is the theory that the less money for the new startups we have the more new startups we will have??


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

BECAUSE it has been proven taxing them causes no real problem for the economy.

oh???????? so then why be so afraid to show us "the proof" and the theory behind the proof?? If a VC firm has less money to fund the future Googles Apples Amazons Intels and Facebooks that does no real harm?????

He probably meant taxes on personal income. VC firms are not "the wealthy," they're just business entities.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BECAUSE it has been proven taxing them causes no real problem for the economy.

oh???????? so then why be so afraid to show us "the proof" and the theory behind the proof?? If a VC firm has less money to fund the future Googles Apples Amazons Intels and Facebooks that does no real harm?????

He probably meant taxes on personal income. VC firms are not "the wealthy," they're just business entities.

too stupid!!! All money is ultimately personl money. It does not stay in business entities. In fact most business entities are pass through entities anyway so the money is instantly personal money!!

 

[Wonky Pundit]

oh???????? so then why be so afraid to show us "the proof" and the theory behind the proof?? If a VC firm has less money to fund the future Googles Apples Amazons Intels and Facebooks that does no real harm?????

He probably meant taxes on personal income. VC firms are not "the wealthy," they're just business entities.

too stupid!!! All money is ultimately personl money. It does not stay in business entities. In fact most business entities are pass through entities anyway so the money is instantly personal money!!

This had to come from a script; I just know it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He probably meant taxes on personal income. VC firms are not "the wealthy," they're just business entities.

too stupid!!! All money is ultimately personl money. It does not stay in business entities. In fact most business entities are pass through entities anyway so the money is instantly personal money!!

This had to come from a script; I just know it.

typical dumb liberal trying to change the subject after losing debate

 

[saveliberty]

He probably meant taxes on personal income. VC firms are not "the wealthy," they're just business entities.

too stupid!!! All money is ultimately personl money. It does not stay in business entities. In fact most business entities are pass through entities anyway so the money is instantly personal money!!

This had to come from a script; I just know it.

We are still waiting to find a subject outside of Wonky Pundit you understand...

 

[Rshermr]

too stupid!!! All money is ultimately personl money. It does not stay in business entities. In fact most business entities are pass through entities anyway so the money is instantly personal money!!

This had to come from a script; I just know it.

typical dumb liberal trying to change the subject after losing debate

that simply proves the mental illness that ed has. He thinks he just won a debate. Poor guy. Mental illness is a serious problem. And Ed just has had really bad luck. Not his fault. But he is incapable of conversation, much less debate.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

This had to come from a script; I just know it.

typical dumb liberal trying to change the subject after losing debate

that simply proves the mental illness that ed has. He thinks he just won a debate. Poor guy. Mental illness is a serious problem. And Ed just has had really bad luck. Not his fault. But he is incapable of conversation, much less debate.

He's clearly from the Dubya school of "say something enough times and people will believe it."

Trouble is, he's never managed to think about anything he says for more than a couple of seconds. It was funny at first, but the novelty is sort of wearing off.

 

[saveliberty]

You have yet to prove any ability to debate Wanker. You found another one-celled organism. Yipee.

Did you make an appointment to discuss your ego issues yet?

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, well, regardless of how long we wait, what you have said so far will make no rational sense.

 

[Toronado3800]

What was Edward trying to say? Maybe I can make his case for him

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What was Edward trying to say? Maybe I can make his case for him

You don't get. Liberalism is based on pure ignorance that is why they must change to subject to personal attack!! Its easy enough to prove.
PLease say something substantive in support of liberalism. I won't holds my breath.

 

[Toronado3800]

What was Edward trying to say? Maybe I can make his case for him

You don't get. Liberalism is based on pure ignorance that is why they must change to subject to personal attack!! Its easy enough to prove.
PLease say something substantive in support of liberalism. I won't holds my breath.

What Edward means is he is sick of personal attacks (even if he brings them on himself by being soo darned abrasive)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What was Edward trying to say? Maybe I can make his case for him

You don't get. Liberalism is based on pure ignorance that is why they must change to subject to personal attack!! Its easy enough to prove.
PLease say something substantive in support of liberalism. I won't holds my breath.

What Edward means is he is sick of personal attacks (even if he brings them on himself by being soo darned abrasive)

PLease say something substantive and intelligent in support of liberalism or admit liberalism is based on pure ignorance. Is it any wonder that conservatives and libertarians regard liberalism as idiotic?

Ask a conservative to say something intelligent and not one needs to run away!! What does that tell you?

 

[Rshermr]

What was Edward trying to say? Maybe I can make his case for him

You don't get. Liberalism is based on pure ignorance that is why they must change to subject to personal attack!! Its easy enough to prove.
PLease say something substantive in support of liberalism. I won't holds my breath.

What Edward means is he is sick of personal attacks (even if he brings them on himself by being soo darned abrasive)

But you are a libertarian; You refuse to provide a name of a single country that has managed to become a successful libertarian country, ed. Till then don't expect any help from me.