Welfare should be ended completely

[candycorn]

If by "us" you mean conservatives...all of these posters must, by definition, be liberals, Right Andylusion ?

Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy. Theowl32
Racist signs on HIllary's campaign office walls TheGreatGatsby
Black votes matter, not so much lives eagle7_31
Black Cop Shoots Black Man: ‘All White People Are F***ing Devils’?! easyt65
Butthurt Racist Gutiérrez...Seriously is that the racist douchebag's real name...eat Skittles Snouter
White Teens Walking Near 'Black Lives Matter' Protest In CA Viciously Attacked... easyt65

I have no idea what you are talking about, or in what context. I would suggest using the quote system to first establish context before making some random comment.

Beyond that, I have no idea who these people are that you are quoting, or why I would care. In fact, I don't even recognize them as posters on this forum. I'm not saying they are not posters, I just have never read a post by any of them notable enough for me to remember their names.

However, I have had similarly bizarre comments by left-wingers, that if I desired I could go around responding to your posts, and spamming a bunch of bonkers quotes and connect them to you.

Don't you think that would be equally irrelevant as what you are doing?

No.
You said conservatives never mention race. Now you're pretending that you haven't seen these topics. When you are forced into intellectual dishonesty, you're both losing the argument and any integrity.... You should stop that.

 

[Crixus]

Republican welfare ideas actually do get people off of welfare. The left criticizes them for some minor reason but they do reduce the welfare rolls to some degree. The same can never be said about 'liberal' welfare programs. Those always seem to expand.

Reducing the welfare rolls would be to reduce the Democrat voting base.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Republican welfare ideas actually do get people off of welfare. The left criticizes them for some minor reason but they do reduce the welfare rolls to some degree. The same can never be said about 'liberal' welfare programs. Those always seem to expand.

Are you really so dense to not even recognize all of the corporate welfare created because of republicans? Do you really see ANY republican try to put an end to it? Instead they would rather target cheaper programs for the poor. That makes for good politics.

It's amazing to me how willfully ignorant and stupid you people really are.

Corporate welfare. LOL
Your the ones giving wall street a billion a month.
What's going to happen if Trump stops that nonsense
The stock market will become honest and the gop will suffer the blame.

 

[jillian]

Republican welfare ideas actually do get people off of welfare. The left criticizes them for some minor reason but they do reduce the welfare rolls to some degree. The same can never be said about 'liberal' welfare programs. Those always seem to expand.

Are you really so dense to not even recognize all of the corporate welfare created because of republicans? Do you really see ANY republican try to put an end to it? Instead they would rather target cheaper programs for the poor. That makes for good politics.

It's amazing to me how willfully ignorant and stupid you people really are.

they've been brainwashed to vote against their self-interest. me? i think giving michelle bachman's "family farm" money is failed welfare.

but they don't want to talk about that. they'd rather say there shouldn't be anything controlling unfettered capitalism and then screw the people who get left behind.

reality: social security is probably the greatest success we've ever had in terms of social safety net. prior to social security, more than half of all senior citizens lived below the poverty line. not that using our own money is welfare, but the loons hate social security, too.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Our seniors have a measure of financial security thanks to Social Security that they wouldn't have otherwise. In the larger sene of the word "success", I'm not sure it's a success to have to rely on it. I think it's successful that it's there for them... And we don't have millions of geriatrics dying in the streets from starvation.

And there was no evidence of that in the 1920s either. Of course people who didn't expect government to take care of them, actually planned how to live out their retirement.

Today though, the average Social Security check is $1,300 dollars.

The local McDonald where I live, has a starting wage of $10.10/hour. That means a McDonald's worker is making $1,600 a month, while the Social Security pensioner is making $1,300. Base pay for a Walmart greeter, is 9/hr. That's $1,400 a month.

Of course, we're comparing these wages to the *average* Social Security check.

Meaning half of Social Security recipients get less than $1,300 a month.

Which is exactly why you see old retirees working at Walmart, and Wendy's and Tim Hortons. These retirees are escaping their "financial security thanks to Social Security".

And here is what is even more pathetically ironic.

Every single one of these people, if they had the option to take the money away from Social Security, and place it into a standard retirement mutual fund.... They would ALL be millionaires.

How do I come up with that? Easy. Take $100 a month, and place it into a 401K or IRA, Stock Mutual fund. I have a mutual fund that has made 13% ROI, from its inception.

Let's take just 10%. You put $100 into an investment from 20 to age 65, at 65 you will have a Million dollars.

Now that's just $100 a month. Social Security takes 15% of your income. What's 15% of minimum wage? $175. Now you are up near $2 Million dollars.

But Social Security takes 15%, and the AVERAGE pay out is $1,300 a month.

Which is better? $2 Million.... or $1,300 a month?

Far from "financial security thanks to Social Security", it's more like preventing retirement in wealth, to have a retirement in poverty... but at least it's a 'secure' poverty.

Since when can dems to simple arithmetic.

 

[jillian]

Republican welfare ideas actually do get people off of welfare. The left criticizes them for some minor reason but they do reduce the welfare rolls to some degree. The same can never be said about 'liberal' welfare programs. Those always seem to expand.

Are you really so dense to not even recognize all of the corporate welfare created because of republicans? Do you really see ANY republican try to put an end to it? Instead they would rather target cheaper programs for the poor. That makes for good politics.

It's amazing to me how willfully ignorant and stupid you people really are.

Corporate welfare. LOL
Your the ones giving wall street a billion a month.
What's going to happen if Trump stops that nonsense
The stock market will become honest and the gop will suffer the blame.

if only you lived in a fact-based reality.

 

[jillian]

Our seniors have a measure of financial security thanks to Social Security that they wouldn't have otherwise. In the larger sene of the word "success", I'm not sure it's a success to have to rely on it. I think it's successful that it's there for them... And we don't have millions of geriatrics dying in the streets from starvation.

And there was no evidence of that in the 1920s either. Of course people who didn't expect government to take care of them, actually planned how to live out their retirement.

Today though, the average Social Security check is $1,300 dollars.

The local McDonald where I live, has a starting wage of $10.10/hour. That means a McDonald's worker is making $1,600 a month, while the Social Security pensioner is making $1,300. Base pay for a Walmart greeter, is 9/hr. That's $1,400 a month.

Of course, we're comparing these wages to the *average* Social Security check.

Meaning half of Social Security recipients get less than $1,300 a month.

Which is exactly why you see old retirees working at Walmart, and Wendy's and Tim Hortons. These retirees are escaping their "financial security thanks to Social Security".

And here is what is even more pathetically ironic.

Every single one of these people, if they had the option to take the money away from Social Security, and place it into a standard retirement mutual fund.... They would ALL be millionaires.

How do I come up with that? Easy. Take $100 a month, and place it into a 401K or IRA, Stock Mutual fund. I have a mutual fund that has made 13% ROI, from its inception.

Let's take just 10%. You put $100 into an investment from 20 to age 65, at 65 you will have a Million dollars.

Now that's just $100 a month. Social Security takes 15% of your income. What's 15% of minimum wage? $175. Now you are up near $2 Million dollars.

But Social Security takes 15%, and the AVERAGE pay out is $1,300 a month.

Which is better? $2 Million.... or $1,300 a month?

Far from "financial security thanks to Social Security", it's more like preventing retirement in wealth, to have a retirement in poverty... but at least it's a 'secure' poverty.

Since when can dems to simple arithmetic.

is that why its republican presidents who send us into recession? idiota

 

[tyroneweaver]

Republican welfare ideas actually do get people off of welfare. The left criticizes them for some minor reason but they do reduce the welfare rolls to some degree. The same can never be said about 'liberal' welfare programs. Those always seem to expand.

Are you really so dense to not even recognize all of the corporate welfare created because of republicans? Do you really see ANY republican try to put an end to it? Instead they would rather target cheaper programs for the poor. That makes for good politics.

It's amazing to me how willfully ignorant and stupid you people really are.

they've been brainwashed to vote against their self-interest. me? i think giving michelle bachman's "family farm" money is failed welfare.

but they don't want to talk about that. they'd rather say there shouldn't be anything controlling unfettered capitalism and then screw the people who get left behind.

reality: social security is probably the greatest success we've ever had in terms of social safety net. prior to social security, more than half of all senior citizens lived below the poverty line. not that using our own money is welfare, but the loons hate social security, too.

What's the current support level for Wheat Ag lady?

 

[candycorn]

Our seniors have a measure of financial security thanks to Social Security that they wouldn't have otherwise. In the larger sene of the word "success", I'm not sure it's a success to have to rely on it. I think it's successful that it's there for them... And we don't have millions of geriatrics dying in the streets from starvation.

And there was no evidence of that in the 1920s either. Of course people who didn't expect government to take care of them, actually planned how to live out their retirement.

Today though, the average Social Security check is $1,300 dollars.

The local McDonald where I live, has a starting wage of $10.10/hour. That means a McDonald's worker is making $1,600 a month, while the Social Security pensioner is making $1,300. Base pay for a Walmart greeter, is 9/hr. That's $1,400 a month.

Of course, we're comparing these wages to the *average* Social Security check.

Meaning half of Social Security recipients get less than $1,300 a month.

Which is exactly why you see old retirees working at Walmart, and Wendy's and Tim Hortons. These retirees are escaping their "financial security thanks to Social Security".

And here is what is even more pathetically ironic.

Every single one of these people, if they had the option to take the money away from Social Security, and place it into a standard retirement mutual fund.... They would ALL be millionaires.

How do I come up with that? Easy. Take $100 a month, and place it into a 401K or IRA, Stock Mutual fund. I have a mutual fund that has made 13% ROI, from its inception.

Let's take just 10%. You put $100 into an investment from 20 to age 65, at 65 you will have a Million dollars.

Now that's just $100 a month. Social Security takes 15% of your income. What's 15% of minimum wage? $175. Now you are up near $2 Million dollars.

But Social Security takes 15%, and the AVERAGE pay out is $1,300 a month.

Which is better? $2 Million.... or $1,300 a month?

Far from "financial security thanks to Social Security", it's more like preventing retirement in wealth, to have a retirement in poverty... but at least it's a 'secure' poverty.

Since when can dems to simple arithmetic.

332>206, right?

LOL

 

[tyroneweaver]

Republican welfare ideas actually do get people off of welfare. The left criticizes them for some minor reason but they do reduce the welfare rolls to some degree. The same can never be said about 'liberal' welfare programs. Those always seem to expand.

Are you really so dense to not even recognize all of the corporate welfare created because of republicans? Do you really see ANY republican try to put an end to it? Instead they would rather target cheaper programs for the poor. That makes for good politics.

It's amazing to me how willfully ignorant and stupid you people really are.

Corporate welfare. LOL
Your the ones giving wall street a billion a month.
What's going to happen if Trump stops that nonsense
The stock market will become honest and the gop will suffer the blame.

if only you lived in a fact-based reality.

Ya, I'm sure jillian isn't your real name. It's just a pseudonym right

 

[tyroneweaver]

Our seniors have a measure of financial security thanks to Social Security that they wouldn't have otherwise. In the larger sene of the word "success", I'm not sure it's a success to have to rely on it. I think it's successful that it's there for them... And we don't have millions of geriatrics dying in the streets from starvation.

And there was no evidence of that in the 1920s either. Of course people who didn't expect government to take care of them, actually planned how to live out their retirement.

Today though, the average Social Security check is $1,300 dollars.

The local McDonald where I live, has a starting wage of $10.10/hour. That means a McDonald's worker is making $1,600 a month, while the Social Security pensioner is making $1,300. Base pay for a Walmart greeter, is 9/hr. That's $1,400 a month.

Of course, we're comparing these wages to the *average* Social Security check.

Meaning half of Social Security recipients get less than $1,300 a month.

Which is exactly why you see old retirees working at Walmart, and Wendy's and Tim Hortons. These retirees are escaping their "financial security thanks to Social Security".

And here is what is even more pathetically ironic.

Every single one of these people, if they had the option to take the money away from Social Security, and place it into a standard retirement mutual fund.... They would ALL be millionaires.

How do I come up with that? Easy. Take $100 a month, and place it into a 401K or IRA, Stock Mutual fund. I have a mutual fund that has made 13% ROI, from its inception.

Let's take just 10%. You put $100 into an investment from 20 to age 65, at 65 you will have a Million dollars.

Now that's just $100 a month. Social Security takes 15% of your income. What's 15% of minimum wage? $175. Now you are up near $2 Million dollars.

But Social Security takes 15%, and the AVERAGE pay out is $1,300 a month.

Which is better? $2 Million.... or $1,300 a month?

Far from "financial security thanks to Social Security", it's more like preventing retirement in wealth, to have a retirement in poverty... but at least it's a 'secure' poverty.

Since when can dems to simple arithmetic.

332>206, right?

LOL

Our seniors have a measure of financial security thanks to Social Security that they wouldn't have otherwise. In the larger sene of the word "success", I'm not sure it's a success to have to rely on it. I think it's successful that it's there for them... And we don't have millions of geriatrics dying in the streets from starvation.

And there was no evidence of that in the 1920s either. Of course people who didn't expect government to take care of them, actually planned how to live out their retirement.

Today though, the average Social Security check is $1,300 dollars.

The local McDonald where I live, has a starting wage of $10.10/hour. That means a McDonald's worker is making $1,600 a month, while the Social Security pensioner is making $1,300. Base pay for a Walmart greeter, is 9/hr. That's $1,400 a month.

Of course, we're comparing these wages to the *average* Social Security check.

Meaning half of Social Security recipients get less than $1,300 a month.

Which is exactly why you see old retirees working at Walmart, and Wendy's and Tim Hortons. These retirees are escaping their "financial security thanks to Social Security".

And here is what is even more pathetically ironic.

Every single one of these people, if they had the option to take the money away from Social Security, and place it into a standard retirement mutual fund.... They would ALL be millionaires.

How do I come up with that? Easy. Take $100 a month, and place it into a 401K or IRA, Stock Mutual fund. I have a mutual fund that has made 13% ROI, from its inception.

Let's take just 10%. You put $100 into an investment from 20 to age 65, at 65 you will have a Million dollars.

Now that's just $100 a month. Social Security takes 15% of your income. What's 15% of minimum wage? $175. Now you are up near $2 Million dollars.

But Social Security takes 15%, and the AVERAGE pay out is $1,300 a month.

Which is better? $2 Million.... or $1,300 a month?

Far from "financial security thanks to Social Security", it's more like preventing retirement in wealth, to have a retirement in poverty... but at least it's a 'secure' poverty.

Since when can dems to simple arithmetic.

is that why its republican presidents who send us into recession? idiota

Ya it was the republican recession that led to Ronald Reagan

 

[guno]

The only reason I can think of why we have so many people not in the work force is that food stamps is better which is why those programs should be ended.

many people who do work get food stamps , should food be taken away from them and their kids?

Get a Job? Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One

When work isn’t enough to keep you off welfare and food stamps

The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

 

[Flash]

There is a moral issue about welfare that the Liberals always refuse to understand.

The concept of government welfare is fundamentally wrong. The government should never be in the business of taking money away from the people that earn it and give it to the welfare queens that didn't do anything to earn the money.

It is state sponsored thievery to take forcefully money away from some Americans and give it to others. Absolutely wrong.

 

[guno]

I guess these people are libs

Majority Of The Residents Of America's Food Stamp Capital Are White Republicans
Read more at

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Tommy Tainant]

There is a moral issue about welfare that the Liberals always refuse to understand.

The concept of government welfare is fundamentally wrong. The government should never be in the business of taking money away from the people that earn it and give it to the welfare queens that didn't do anything to earn the money.

It is state sponsored thievery to take forcefully money away from some Americans and give it to others. Absolutely wrong.

Governments take money off people and use it for many things. Welfare is one of the better uses for our money.
Your one dimensional attitude towards it illustrates your limitations as an adult.

 

[guno]

Shocker: Republican-Led States Are The REAL Welfare Queens - The Ring of Fire Network

 

[guno]

No whining about this massive welfare, huh


The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.



10 Taxpayer Handouts to the Super Rich That Will Make Your Blood Boil

 

[frigidweirdo]

And you'll defend Republicans no matter what, and then you just end up with partisan bullshit.

And you'll defend Democrats no matter what, and then you just end up with partisan bullshit.

(what goes around, comes around)

See, that's the thing. I won't. I'm not a partisan hack. I say what I think, I make my own arguments, I wouldn't vote Democrat or Republican, I favor a system of Proportional Representation to get rid of the power the two parties have and to make more ideas, more democracy, more choice, more sensible politics.

.... Yeah.....

Right. First off, you don't even know me, or my voting habits. That's why I smacked you in the face with your own quote.

I was highly critical of no child left behind, and common core, and amnesty for illegals. I was against the bailout of banks, regardless of Bush supporting it.

Your claim about me, was judgemental and ignorant. That's why I threw your judgemental and arrogant claims back in your face.

You claim you are not like that? I claim I am not like that either. Now what?

Setting that arrogance on your part aside.....

I don't know where you people get this idea about proportional voting. Do you people not follow politics around the world?

If you don't..... then how do you claim it will "get rid of the power the two parties have and to make more ideas, more democracy, more choice, more sensible politics"?

If you DO follow international politics, then you should know by now that proportional representation does absolutely none of what you claim.

If anything, it guarantees more power to the largest parties.

Do you know why it is that when Republicans are in power, they still consult with Democrats? Do you know why Democrats in power, still consult with Republicans? Do you know why the majority gives a flip rats butt what the minority parties think?

Because if the Republicans hold 51 seats, and Democrats hold 49, two Republicans voting against the party, could allow the Democrats to round up and throw the vote. So the Republicans listen to the Democrats.

Now imagine a situation that is extremely common and typical in Europe. Imagine that the Republicans have 51 seats, and the Democrats have 30 seats, and the Christian Coalition has 10, and the independents have 5, and some nutter party, the Green party or something, has 5.

Now if 2, or even 5, perhaps even 10 Republicans flip.... do you think the Democrats are going to be able to unify a bunch of smaller parties to over turn the vote?

No, of course not. This is why in Europe the ruling party virtually ignores the smaller parties, like that almost don't even exist. Because practically..... they don't. They have no power at all.

All they do is fracture the opposition vote. A fractured opposition vote, means the ruling party is even more powerful than they ever could be, with a unified opposition.

I do not see one good result from proportional voting. Not one. If anything, you actually cause more of the problem you claim to be against.

Where is the win here? The German CDU/CSU party is pretty much what I'm talking about. They do whatever the heck they want. They have 310 votes in a 630 vote system. Yet they do whatever the heck they want.

Why? Because even though they don't even have the majority of votes, the other 320 votes are fractured between a half dozen smaller parties. They can't unified to oppose them. The ruling party has free reign.

Worse than that, the CDU/CSU has formed a coalition with the SPD. The Socialists, have a coalition with the right-wingers. combined the two largest parties have 503 votes. The opposition is less than even a spec on their radar.

Do you see my point? How is it any better? The two largest parties in Germany, linked together, making the proportional system completely irrelevant. NOTHING IS ANY DIFFERENT.

... Now.... if you really really want a proportional system..... fine. Whatever. I'm not even really against it.

But in all honesty, if you think it's going to make things even remotely better than they are now.... you are crazy. It's exactly the same in Europe. It hasn't hasn't done any of the things you claim over there. There is no logical reason to think it would here.

No, I don't know you. However you were also making a comment that was, and I quote "judgemental and arrogant", so... what? If you come on here and make comments like "they blame everything on the GOP" then what am I going to do? Again, what comes around goes around. So I wouldn't feel so smart about trying to smack me down.

So, setting your arrogance to one side....

You don't know where "you people", what people would that be? Seriously, if you don't want people making comments like I made, perhaps you should consider your use of language a little better.

Where do I get my ideas about proportional representation? Well, apart from having lived in countries where they have proportional representation, and having looked at many different political systems, I've seen how proportional representation leads to more democracy and better politicians.

So, you're telling me that PR doesn't lead to more parties?

Okay. Let's see.

The USA. Two parties. I believe there are only two parties in the US Congress AND all of the state legislatures in the country. I might be wrong, there might be one person who isn't independent or Rep or Dem, but I don't know about them.

I'll pick, at random, some countries from the Wikipedia list of countries which use PR and see how many parties they have in government.

Albania. 7 parties.
Belgium. 12 parties
Burkina Faso. 8 parties (well, would be if there hadn't have been a coup)
Denmark. 9 parties
Israel. 12 Parties
Namibia. 9 parties
Sri Lanka. 6 parties (well sort of more, but they are alliances, so I've put the alliances together as one party).

So, out of a random pick of 7 countries which use PR, 7 seats is the lowest. Yes there can be lower, Germany has 5 parties.

However that's more than 2 which the US has.

You talk about ignoring the smaller parties. In the US there aren't any parties to ignore. But in Germany in the last 20 years, 4 parties have been in power. That's twice as many as have been in power in the US for TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Also, in Germany smaller parties can rise up, like one has done recently. In the US this is impossible. People simply don't have the choice, in their view, to vote anyone but the main two. In Germany and other countries they do have the choice because one vote counts, as opposed to the US where half the votes are often meaningless.

View attachment 91109

There are actually far greater number of smaller parties than this.

Besides that, you post a dozen countries, none of which are models of anything I want to follow.

Albania? Belgium? Burkina Faso? Namibia? Sri Lanka?!?

Denmark, yeah it has 9 parties. ... You know how many of those parties have one single vote? which means, absolutely no political power whatsoever?

Once again, the key groups, all ban together into a coalition. The rest are ignored. Just like Germany, and every other proportional system I have ever looked at in Europe.

Yeah, they have a bunch of parties. Exact same politics. Exact same two major groups. Exact same everything. I see no difference, or at least no real improvement, over what we already have.

Ok, you want to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans. Would it really matter that much if Ted Cruise ran as a... I don't know... Social Liberal Party? No. It would still be Ted Cruise, with a different letter by his name. Would it really matter if Maxine Waters ran as a Social Democrat? No, it would still be the brainless moron with a different letter by her name.

Same people... different party. You think by changing the Elephant and Donkey icon, that magically the options will be better if you have a Lion or a Bear or something? No. no no no.

Yes, you talk about how German has had 4 different parties in power. That's true.

Guess what.... it's the same people under a different party. Take the SPD. Do you know what the origins of the SPD? If you go back all the way to East Germany run by the GDR. German Democratic Republic, the puppet government created by the USSR, after unification, they changed into another party, merged into another party, and ended up the SPD of today.

Same people.... same ideology... different name, different party. You want a bunch of people switching parties, so you can have the illusion of choice... fine. You actually already have that. Bernie Sanders was a communist, the and independent, then a Democrat, and now he's independent again.

Same person, same ideology, bunch of different banners. You want that here? You can have it I'm not opposed to it.

But if you think that it's actually going to change anything at all. Well... you are delusional. It's no different in Germany, or any other Euro-porporational system.

Okay, thanks for the chart. Not many then. Out of 5,411 there are 24 not of the main two parties. Hmm... democracy at its.......

Maybe you don't want to follow all those countries which are PR, however I was showing about PR, so...

I literally picked random countries from the list of PR countries. You could take Germany, for example, which s the example I usually give. However the point isn't what these countries are like, it's that with PR they have more parties in their parliaments. Hence why I stated this.

Sure, the parties might have one or two seats in parliament and therefore not much power. However the people they represent, the people who feel the same as this party, get a say. In the US how much power would such people get? They have no one to stand up in parliament and express their views, they don't have a vote and if things change, they will still not have a vote, but in Denmark this party could potentially get lots of seats at the next election if things go their way. That's democracy, that's mobility for political views, that's keeping politicians on their toes, that's having politicians listen to the people, that's having the rich struggle to just give money to one or two parties and have all the control.

Yes, key groups band together in coalitions. This is a GOOD THING. In Germany, four parties, SPD go with the Greens, the CDU/CSU go with the FPD. So, the Greens and the FPD have been in junior government (as well as the SPD) and their ideas have come into being because they negotiate deals in order to get there. Therefore people are far more likely to have their wishes granted than in the US where... well... where the two parties tell people what to think and they follow like zombies.

Would it matter if Ted Cruz ran as something else? Yes it would. It would make a massive difference.

For a start he wouldn't be forced to be just "Republican" which means what? People would know what he is and they'd either choose his party or another party based on whether they agree with him or not. How many people voted for him simply because he was a Republican? I mean, in the Texas Senate race, when was the last time a Republican didn't win? It was a sure thing. They could put a monkey in the seat and it'd win.

Have choice, have different levels of right wing and Texas wouldn't be for one party, it would be split among different right wing groups. Then you might have people voting for different parties and them having their different views being heard in Congress.

Some of the people will be the same, but they'll be more free to get away from the partisan nonsense and stand on a platform that is more real. But some people will be different. Because right now you have to go through the system and play the game. Change the game and different people will end up being politicians.

As for Germany and it being the same people. It's not the same people and it's not the same ideology. Please take some time to understand the German system and what has happened in at least the last 20 years. I know it's far away from the US and they speak another language so a lot of people ignore most of what is happening there, but on this topic it's really worth it.

When the SPD got in, they got in with the Greens. This happened last in 2002.

German federal election, 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Greens got deals with the SPD and these Green policies were implemented alongside SPD policies. However the SPD couldn't do whatever it wanted, it had to work with the Greens. And coalition works much better than the US system where neither party cares whether it works or not, because they don't lose either way. If it doesn't work in Germany, new elections will be called, and neither in the coalition really want that.

The Green Party in German really is a Green Party, interested in the environment. The FPD is a center right party, the CDU a little more to the right and the SPD to left of center. There's the NPD who are neo-Nazis and a new party has come up rather quickly called the AfD which is a Eurosceptic party and you die Linke (the Left) which is quite a left wing party. People have all this choice. In the US they don't. The people are different, or maybe those who wouldn't be prominent in the US are prominent in Germany.

Policies are far more important. Politicians stand in their place and the people judge them on their policies and what they do. In the US most just vote one party or the other based on nonsense.

So, I would ask you to at the very least consider this, think about it, ask me questions about it, debate with me about it, and you might come to see the benefits.

Of course, Germany had PR in the 1920s and 1930s. But they changed the threshold to 5% to stop ridiculous situations like in Weimar Germany. Others have 4%, or ever 3.5%. I think 5% is high, but does allow slightly more stability.

 

[Flash]

There is a moral issue about welfare that the Liberals always refuse to understand.

The concept of government welfare is fundamentally wrong. The government should never be in the business of taking money away from the people that earn it and give it to the welfare queens that didn't do anything to earn the money.

It is state sponsored thievery to take forcefully money away from some Americans and give it to others. Absolutely wrong.

Governments take money off people and use it for many things. Welfare is one of the better uses for our money.
Your one dimensional attitude towards it illustrates your limitations as an adult.

There are legitimate functions of government than benefits all citizens. Defense, police, courts etc most people would agree are necessary government functions. Very few people have a problem with those government functions.

However, those function are very different that the thievery of taking money away from the people that earned the money and giving it to the shitheads that didn't earn it like illegal aliens, Muslim immigrants and third generation welfare queens. It is not just those shitheads. It also applies to all government welfare to include subsidies, bailouts and foreign payoffs.

Your inability to understand how despicable and immoral it is to use the government for the transfer of wealth and income shows your unsophisticated, uneducated and confused outlook toward the government.

There is a place for charity in society but it should come from the heart, family and church like the Bible teaches and not from a corrupt bloated out of control government managed by asshole politicians elected by greedy special interest groups.

Let me guess. You voted for this Left Wing dumbass Obama and you plan to vote for Crooked Hillary that is running on a platform to raise taxes and give buy more votes with the promise of more frees shit like college education.

 

[Jackson]

no.

Care, I think a large portion of the population on welfare do believe it's just easier to get a government check that work for it. We can't end welfare altogether, that is not reality. But we can restrict it to 2 years for physically able people and not profitable.

I knew of a family that had so many gov't giveaways, that they bought an RV that I could not afford.