Republicans Hate Babies, schoolchildren, the elderly, unemployed, welfare, immigrants

[Rozman]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......

Then again how bout we don't.....

 

[Immanuel]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......

Then again how bout we don't.....

How we going to stop them? It seems to me that it is pretty clear that the American electorate will not vote very many incumbents out of office and unless we are willing to do so, we gain nothing. The American electorate won't make them accountable for their actions so we get no where.

Immie

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......
Then again how bout we don't.....

How we going to stop them? It seems to me that it is pretty clear that the American electorate will not vote very many incumbents out of office and unless we are willing to do so, we gain nothing. The American electorate won't make them accountable for their actions so we get no where.
Immie

Then, there will be a economic/governmental/societal collapse, in which those people will surely perish.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Babies, schoolchildren, the elderly, unemployed, welfare, immigrants
Wait a minute
I was a baby once
I will be one day one of the elderly
I have been unemployed in the past and maybe again someday
Even though my parents helped my Grand mothers they were on welfare before they passed away
Most of us have immigrants in our family trees

Sounds like you are accusing Republicans of self hate?

I know doesn't it sound totally ridiculous to say republicans hate any of those groups along with other groups people always accuse them of hating?

See BigRebnc gets it, liberals who say these things about republicans are either intentionally lying/broadbrushing or not bright

And I see you've now turned into a hypocrite as well. You mean cons don't intentionally lie and embellish? Please, Pilgrim, I always gave you more credit. As far as being "not too bright," well there are several of those in each camp, wouldn't you say? That said, I guess you guys finally know what it feels like to have stupid sloganeering tacked onto some proposal, i.e., "death panels," don't you...

I'm speaking for myself both party's have have those who hate babies,the old, the sick, the unemployed and immigrants. You will be a hypocrite if you disagree.

Thing is with Republicans they want to treat the sickness and make a way so people will be able to take care of themseleves. Democrats want people dependent on the government

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......

Then again how bout we don't.....

Don't be fooled Roz.

The reps are spending us into oblivion also, they are just doing it slower.

It's kinda like chosing between getting beaten to death with an iron pipe or a rubber hose.

One will kill you faster, but death will be the final out come.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......

Then again how bout we don't.....

Don't be fooled Roz.

The reps are spending us into oblivion also, they are just doing it slower.

It's kinda like chosing between getting beaten to death with an iron pipe or a rubber hose.

One will kill you faster, but death will be the final out come.

I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.

The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.

Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'll only be happy when the elderly are actually eating puppies and kittens.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......

Then again how bout we don't.....

Don't be fooled Roz.

The reps are spending us into oblivion also, they are just doing it slower.

It's kinda like chosing between getting beaten to death with an iron pipe or a rubber hose.

One will kill you faster, but death will be the final out come.

I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.

The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.

Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.

not that I enjoy defending Bush

Clinton did not have wars do deal with and he got to rid the tech bubble.

Not that Bush was a fiscal conservative by any stretch of my imagination.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll only be happy when the elderly are actually eating puppies and kittens.

Especially kittens.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'll only be happy when the elderly are actually eating puppies and kittens.

Especially kittens.

Yeah, cats are like Felis catus' rdean.

 

[R.D.]

As MM once said;

"You can't put me on ignore. Sucks donut."

Just because the software won't allow it doesn't mean that he or del are any less on the list.

Since for you it's a power play you must
feel impotent ... Sorry

 

[MaggieMae]

Eliminating wouldn't be a sign of hate either.

I have a lot more faith in americans than most do. I'd rather cut programs/cut taxes and let the charitable will of the american public take over and allow them the choice of how to help. I'd have more faith in that scenario than our current huge, inefficient, nation-bankrupting government programs.

I'm of the opinion that if taxes were raised another two points and a 5% across the board cut in every agency happened, we could be out of this fiscal mess in a year, and THEN start figuring out a permanent path to sustainability.

I think the fed has a lot more control of it since they control how strong our dollar is for the most part.

But I think it would take a lot more tax raises and a lot more cuts to clean the current mess.

Cutting 5% should be over and above the sub-agencies and offices of blah blah blah that are repetitive and costly. I think the GAO has been tasked with cleaning out the duplication, and in many case, triplication. So with a concerted and CONTINUING team effort, I think a few trillion can probaby be shaved. We're always going to have debt, but at least such dramatic slicing and dicing would be a start toward a leaner government, which we thereafter would learn to live with.

 

[MaggieMae]

Do you also think a person is entitled to the fruits of his labors even though his actions were illegal?

Two separate issues. Children of illegal immigrants should not be punished for the illegal actions of their parents.

I also think that people who think it's "easy" for illegals to collect government welfare, don't know what they're talking about. First off, to even apply, they would be admitting they're not here legally, and all it would take is a quick phone call to ICE. That's why they stay in the shadows.

So, tell me, are you saying it is our responsibility to take care of and provide for the children of every illegal alien that gets across our borders? If so, why don't you just extend that to every child on earth?

I would have no child starve if I could get away with it, but it seems to me that you are saying these children are our responsibility. I'm more than willing to help, but they are not my responsibility.

Immie

I'm simply saying that, according to the Constitution, if a person is born here, he/she is a citizen of the United States. And that means even if it's a child of an illegal immigrant. Nowhere do I say that if said child goes off on his own, just because he's a citizen, the government is obligated to support him. That child would be treated the same as any other. He'll qualify for some government benefits and not others, depending on his situation, if he ever finds the need.

 

[MaggieMae]

Look at what group of people are fear mongering now.
I think this kind of rhetoric is brought up everytime there is an attempt to roll back spending.

You can't just threaten to cut people off, or that kind of rhetoric will never stop. There are masses of Americans who don't know anything other than what they see in a headline, and make judgments accordingly.

Maggie the republicans are cutting funding to programs, not eliminating the funding. You are speaking as if they are eliminating programs which they haven't proposed legislation for....YET.
I get that. I was simply saying that's the response you will get when people only read headlines.

I'm still going to get to your other post, i promise but i'll quote it again when i do so you dont miss it.

Any time.

 

[MaggieMae]

I know this thread is meant to be a little silly, but when was the last time republicans had power in government and scaled back any big government program?

They created a huge one in the department of homeland security, and grew every big gov't program I can think of from 2001-2007 when they were in power.

Keep in mind this wasn't just a few rogue "rhinos" or whatever the term is, it was the entire party.

Hence my avatar

Trust me I know most republicans are exactly the same as most democrats, at least the freshmen republicans are causing a stir instead of abiding by the status quo.

Even freshmen republicans will soon find out how hard it is to stay the course when their arms are being twisted into pretzels by lobbyists and back door wheeling and dealing, and when it's time to start campaigning for reelection. That is the sad truth about ALL political maneuvering these days, boys and girls.

 

[Immanuel]

Don't be fooled Roz.

The reps are spending us into oblivion also, they are just doing it slower.

It's kinda like chosing between getting beaten to death with an iron pipe or a rubber hose.

One will kill you faster, but death will be the final out come.

I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.

The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.

Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.

not that I enjoy defending Bush

Clinton did not have wars do deal with and he got to rid the tech bubble.

Not that Bush was a fiscal conservative by any stretch of my imagination.

Bush did not have to have two wars to deal with. Bush could have retaliated with some bombings and then been done with it. Bush chose to listen to Cheney and the other neocons and to enter the field of nation-building. Note: he chose, he made the choice. We didn't have to go in as an occupying force.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

I know this thread is meant to be a little silly, but when was the last time republicans had power in government and scaled back any big government program?

They created a huge one in the department of homeland security, and grew every big gov't program I can think of from 2001-2007 when they were in power.

Keep in mind this wasn't just a few rogue "rhinos" or whatever the term is, it was the entire party.

No, no, no, you don't understand. The only time Republicans want to scale things back is when Democrats are in control. When that changes then they have to cut taxes on the wealthy so that wealth will trickle down to the rest of us. BTW: I'm still waiting for the first drop to trickle down to me.

Of course, President Obama's idea of flooding the basement has done little except bring me a lot closer to that bottom step.

So what the heck is a good guy like me supposed to do?

Immie

Do what I do, do your best to ignore it
The rest of my life, and the rest of yours, government is going to be screwing us over (unless you become a billionaire, millions isn't enough in 2011 and beyond) and we're completely helpless to stop it.

Enjoy your family, your friends, life, and try to find a way to enjoy being broke lol.

That's interesting because I'm constantly asked why I care so much, since I'm no spring chicken (as most people here know), and nothing that happens in the near future will affect me at all no matter what they do or who "wins" at anything. I just care about the deterioration of my country's moral, cultural, and social conscience which doesn't seem to be improving by the actions of our gridlocked elected representatives and especially by the citizens of the country who ARE "the government."

 

[Immanuel]

Two separate issues. Children of illegal immigrants should not be punished for the illegal actions of their parents.

I also think that people who think it's "easy" for illegals to collect government welfare, don't know what they're talking about. First off, to even apply, they would be admitting they're not here legally, and all it would take is a quick phone call to ICE. That's why they stay in the shadows.

So, tell me, are you saying it is our responsibility to take care of and provide for the children of every illegal alien that gets across our borders? If so, why don't you just extend that to every child on earth?

I would have no child starve if I could get away with it, but it seems to me that you are saying these children are our responsibility. I'm more than willing to help, but they are not my responsibility.

Immie

I'm simply saying that, according to the Constitution, if a person is born here, he/she is a citizen of the United States. And that means even if it's a child of an illegal immigrant. Nowhere do I say that if said child goes off on his own, just because he's a citizen, the government is obligated to support him. That child would be treated the same as any other. He'll qualify for some government benefits and not others, depending on his situation, if he ever finds the need.

I must have mis-understood you. My interpretation of what you said was that if illegals brought their children across the border with them those children were our responsibility. Rather you are speaking of anchor babies. Different story and something that we as a nation need to decide upon. Under the Constitution as it stands now, those children are U.S. Citizens... the question is does that give the parents full citizenship rights?

My apologies

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

Hmm.
Assuming you are correct... what's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that. However, it is not very popular to come right out and say that sort of thing in our society these days.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm of the opinion that if taxes were raised another two points and a 5% across the board cut in every agency happened, we could be out of this fiscal mess in a year, and THEN start figuring out a permanent path to sustainability.

I think the fed has a lot more control of it since they control how strong our dollar is for the most part.

But I think it would take a lot more tax raises and a lot more cuts to clean the current mess.

Especially in a year.

I think Maggie's heart is in the right place on that, but I think she should do the math on it, because I simply don't see where she is getting her idea.

Immie

Because in the 90's, the budget was balanced (okay, we didn't have extra cash on hand, but money was moved around enough so that we were in the best financial position in decades), and it was balanced by raising taxes, cutting discretionary spending, scaling back Reagan's HUGE increase in defense spending to where it was before it was increased, and living by an established pay-go rule.

I don't see why it can't be done again. But I'll tell you how it won't happen, and that's if the powers that be continue to shove wedges into sane propositions offered by both sides before they can even iron out an agreement. Every time a big issue is tackled, everybody and his brother has to get his/her face on television and ask a bunch of obscure questions or make some ridiculous statements, which get taken back to the table for "discussion." The lawmakers need to shut out the noise and get down to business.