Republicans kick some Democrat butt

[Disir]

It's not a random question.

Peach174 makes an overgeneralized statement on welfare programs creating dependency but does not define which ones, how or why. It's very vague and intentionally so. What this means is that the primary issues are not resolved. Hell, they aren't even addressed.

Let me show you something:
Federal funds spent on day centers for homeless people. They are only open during the day. Some have a night time shelter (limited) but many do not. There are limited services offered.......during the day. Many of them have opened not because they will actually help the homeless but because they remove the homeless people during the day time from the sight of people that have homes. Specifically from places like libraries where some homeless people go to read or because they have no place else to go.
Now, some of them offer mental health counseling but because of the short falls in the lack of long term mental health care facilities it's pretty much dismal. While it may provide an address for mail, it may not be enough of a legitimate address in some states to qualify for an ID or license. This was supposed to be a crack down on illegal immigrants but the result was that the homeless couldn't get an ID to be used for getting a job or anything else. While some offer aid in acquiring documentation there are many accounts of acquiring the paperwork and getting the holy crap beat out of them and having it stolen when they return at night to wherever they are staying.
If the goal was simply to keep them from annoying all the civilized folks and keep them out of sight then it has the capacity to achieve the desired goal. I'm sure lots of people pat themselves on the back at black tie affairs geared towards fundraising. I'm sure that they mean well.

Is it successful? You won't know because records are kept for a limited time. So, where is the accountability? You have demanded none. Where and why does it not work? Be specific.I'm not asking you to be specific with my example but yours.

Repeating the socialist mantra is not an answer.

I am not peach, so when you ask me a question where you're assuming I know what she said and that you're referring to that, I'm not likely to actually make that connection.

What I said was when you asked what bigger government meant, I was referring to spending and regulation. Homeless shelters are a tiny, tiny portion of the government. So you blew of Obamacare as not being specific enough, which makes no sense, then you dived into the weeds and went to homeless shelters. Obamacare is massive spending and regulation. And regulation is a tax because companies have to spend to comply. Homeless shelters is such a tiny portion of the budget I am not clear what debating that establishes.

So, other than homeless shelters, what are you actually claiming?

Regulation: Retaliation towards an employee, by either the insurance group or the employer, once you have found out that the individual has been diagnosed with an illness.

OK...and?

Exactly, and? It's not enough to say the ACA or say regulations and imply that as big government.
So what is the problem?

I still have no idea what you are arguing. You started talking about homeless shelters and said something about individuals with illnesses. What does that have to do with anything?

You're being intentionally obtuse. I don't have time for that shit.

 

[kaz]

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Libertarians are FARRRRRRR right wingers Bubba, especially on economics!

Actually, we are moderates. We want government to be a referee, not a kindergarten teacher.

YOU are a moderate? LMAOROG


Bubba, you are soooo extreme even Rove is laughing his ass off at you and your type

The funny part of this is that you don't even know what a stupid comment this was.

We rejected Rove, he is NOT a Conservative.

Yes, Rove was a disaster. He may have engineered the W/Republican takeover, but then he engineered giving it back.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[kaz]

I still have no idea what you are arguing. You started talking about homeless shelters and said something about individuals with illnesses. What does that have to do with anything?

You're being intentionally obtuse. I don't have time for that shit.

Apparently you don't have time to make a lucid point either. When you do have time, start with that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Echo Echo Echo...........chamber..................

America rejected Obama and you Dad.................yell in the Grand Canyon and you might get a response............take your daddy Obomb with you............and you can cry and get drunk.....

Enjoy.

Really? Near record low turnouts in almost EVERY state means the Prez who was the first in 50+ years to win with 52%+ of popular vote in 2008 and 2012, was means rejection? lol


ONLY in right wing 'reality' Bubba

GOPers won because of turnout more than anything else

So you blame low info voters from your side for not coming out?

You must be REALLY pissed at black america!!!!1

Yep, Americans are pretty lazy on the voting thing, except the GOPers base, seniors sucking on the teet of big Gov't via SS and Medicare, ESPECIALLY on off year elections (midterms)

Blacks huh? The ones the GOPers try to suppress?

Please keep bring up the war on race, the war on gays and the war on women, these are key issues and the Dems need to concentrate on them heavily. It has helped the Democrat party so much.

You GOPers are doing a GREAT job of that Bubba, wait till the turn out in 2016, NOT an off year election with record low turnouts!

Sounds like a you got your panties in a knot. Maybe your war on women will straighten all out.

 

[Disir]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

Fuck Cato. They are not a valid source.

I still have no idea what you are arguing. You started talking about homeless shelters and said something about individuals with illnesses. What does that have to do with anything?

You're being intentionally obtuse. I don't have time for that shit.

Apparently you don't have time to make a lucid point either. When you do have time, start with that.

I did. You're being intentionally obtuse. Go play that shit with someone else.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Disir]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

Fuck Cato. They are not a valid source.

If you cannot locate one and explain the problems with it then you got a bumper sticker issue and there is no reason that the rest of the US has to pay for your inability to critically think.

 

[kaz]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

Fuck Cato. They are not a valid source.

I still have no idea what you are arguing. You started talking about homeless shelters and said something about individuals with illnesses. What does that have to do with anything?

You're being intentionally obtuse. I don't have time for that shit.

Apparently you don't have time to make a lucid point either. When you do have time, start with that.

I did. You're being intentionally obtuse. Go play that shit with someone else.

You asked what big government means and then started talking about homeless shelters and something about individuals with illnesses. You are the game player, my dear.

 

[Disir]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

Fuck Cato. They are not a valid source.

I still have no idea what you are arguing. You started talking about homeless shelters and said something about individuals with illnesses. What does that have to do with anything?

You're being intentionally obtuse. I don't have time for that shit.

Apparently you don't have time to make a lucid point either. When you do have time, start with that.

I did. You're being intentionally obtuse. Go play that shit with someone else.

You asked what big government means and then started talking about homeless shelters and something about individuals with illnesses. You are the game player, my dear.

Back up.

You said: Big gummint ACA and rambled on about regulations funding.

I said show me.

You drooled for a bit.

I gave you a specific example of identifying federal funding that is wasteful and lacks accountability.

You drooled for a bit.

You said regulations and you wanted the ACA.

I gave you a regulation.

You drooled for a bit.

You aren't the type of person that is capable of handling this type of conversation. You are only good talking about how cool you think you are as a special libertopian snowflake.

 

[Listening]

What has this got to do with the OP...which says...

The GOP kicked Obama's/Dem's asses last night.

 

[AntiParty]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

Now it seems they have to focus on Governmental Topics instead of;

Low information voters?
Democrat cheating?
Voter suppression?
Left wing media?

After today............it's no longer Obama's fault for everything........

Are you prepared for actual legislation? Or were you primped by bias news sources to think everything wrong in the History of America was 1 persons fault LOL. And are you prepared to THINK about topics instead of stating the standard, "You are stupid"?

I can't wait to see a small town Redneck Right Wing idiot vote for the freedom of a Corporation to plant there and destroy their profits, livelihood and poison the people. "Why regulate lead paint! Derp! It costs taxations! Derp!"

America has been too busy WORKING to THINK.

 

[AntiParty]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

I agree with everything in your post...............Except a politician should be informed enough to talk. Not sure why you support the, "Just shut up enough and you will win" tactic, which is proven today.

If you have good morals, good idea's good standards, good information..........there is no way you would ever want to shut up.

You remind me of me years ago in every post. You still believe in the difference between Conservative and Liberal but not in Republican and Democrat.

Basics;

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists
Democrat (All the people) vs. Republican (The people in one State)
Liberals (More of Anything) vs. Conservative (Less of Anything)

More of thinking might apply here.

 

[rightwinger]

So you're admitting that the $30 Big Mac is a hyperbole and a half?

The correction is to $4.99. not $7.25. An increase of 1 dollar instead of 68 cents.

The belief that doubling labor cost will have no or a negligible impact of the price of the product is utterly ridiculous.

The REAL impact will be the new McDonalds employee:

democrats; putting the needy out of work and onto the streets since 1972!

Regardless of the minimum wage scale, McDonalds will install modern technology. The idea of threatening employees that they will be replaced by robots if they won't acept low wages is ridiculous

 

[rightwinger]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

I agree with everything in your post...............Except a politician should be informed enough to talk. Not sure why you support the, "Just shut up enough and you will win" tactic, which is proven today.

If you have good morals, good idea's good standards, good information..........there is no way you would ever want to shut up.

You remind me of me years ago in every post. You still believe in the difference between Conservative and Liberal but not in Republican and Democrat.

Basics;

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists
Democrat (All the people) vs. Republican (The people in one State)
Liberals (More of Anything) vs. Conservative (Less of Anything)

More of thinking might apply here.

By "keeping their mouth shut" I did not mean don't say anything but avoid those third rail subjects that destroy a campaign. There was no talk about rape, no harping against birth control, no scapegoating the poor
Republicans were still Republicans and hit their talking points, but they avoided the circular firing squad of the past

I remember the days when you had both Liberals and Conservatives in both parties and decisions were made at the middle. Those days are gone....maybe for good

 

[rightwinger]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

That is like saying that the TRILLIONS of dollars we spent on the military over the last 50 years were wasted because we still have wars.

Of the two, I would rather spend money on the people

 

[peach174]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

Fuck Cato. They are not a valid source.

I still have no idea what you are arguing. You started talking about homeless shelters and said something about individuals with illnesses. What does that have to do with anything?

You're being intentionally obtuse. I don't have time for that shit.

Apparently you don't have time to make a lucid point either. When you do have time, start with that.

I did. You're being intentionally obtuse. Go play that shit with someone else.

Cato is just as much a valid source as any lefty source.
A difference in philosophies does not make any of them invalid.

 

[Redfish]

So you're admitting that the $30 Big Mac is a hyperbole and a half?

The correction is to $4.99. not $7.25. An increase of 1 dollar instead of 68 cents.

The belief that doubling labor cost will have no or a negligible impact of the price of the product is utterly ridiculous.

The REAL impact will be the new McDonalds employee:

democrats; putting the needy out of work and onto the streets since 1972!

Regardless of the minimum wage scale, McDonalds will install modern technology. The idea of threatening employees that they will be replaced by robots if they won't acept low wages is ridiculous

And why are they doing that? Greed? survival? evilness? they hate blacks? Bush did it?

most McDonalds employees make more than minimum wage. Here in NOLA no one in fast food make minimum wage, why? because people won't work for minimum wage----------------Supply and Demand, not govt interference.

 

[Redfish]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

That is like saying that the TRILLIONS of dollars we spent on the military over the last 50 years were wasted because we still have wars.

Of the two, I would rather spend money on the people

Do you think military spending does not put people to work? Who the fuck do you think makes ships, planes, tanks, guns, uniforms, boots, rations? American blue collar workers, thats who.

But instead you would just give that money to the "poor". You dumb shit, without US military spending you could be speaking German or Japanese today---------ya dumb fuckhead.

 

[rightwinger]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

That is like saying that the TRILLIONS of dollars we spent on the military over the last 50 years were wasted because we still have wars.

Of the two, I would rather spend money on the people

Do you think military spending does not put people to work? Who the fuck do you think makes ships, planes, tanks, guns, uniforms, boots, rations? American blue collar workers, thats who.

But instead you would just give that money to the "poor". You dumb shit, without US military spending you could be speaking German or Japanese today---------ya dumb fuckhead.

Spending on the poor also puts money into the economy with housing, food, medical expenses and personal expenditures. The poor do not keep their money, it moves into their community. Unlike the wealthy who hoard their wealth

A trillion dollars on the poor goes into those communities. A trillion on the defense industrial complex goes into stockpayer funds