Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That wasn't what you started with. Can you say "move the goal posts"? Sure, I knew you could.George W. Bush.
George W. Bush
BushCo caused the worst economic failure in history.
And Bush was an economically liberal president. The only economically conservative thing he did was cut taxes.
That wasn't what you started with. Can you say "move the goal posts"? Sure, I knew you could.
Bullshit.
I stated: Name one Republican politician that either authored or supported any legislation that benefited the middle class, without giving rich/wealthy/corporations a bigger boost?
Your (s) answer was W. Bush, that caused to worst economic crash in US history.
And the answer is correct. Medicare expansion, for one.
And Bush was an economically liberal president. The only economically conservative thing he did was cut taxes.It worked quite well until the housing bubble popped, but you knew that. The middle class hasn't fared so well since, either, even though we've had enough time for a decent recovery.How did eight years of BushCo work for the middle class?
And the answer is correct. Medicare expansion, for one.
Nice try. Mega payday for big pharma, and well as one of the largest cover-ups by Scully.
It worked quite well until the housing bubble popped, but you knew that. The middle class hasn't fared so well since, either, even though we've had enough time for a decent recovery.
And Bush tried to regulate it, but was denied by the democrats in Congress. They must really hate people.Why wouldn't an economy based on loans and spec not work? Oh yeah, it didn't.
The current republican approach seems to be to make the US enough of an armpit that illegal immigrants will 'self deport'. I don't know anyone who wants bleeding borders except maybe the corporations that can take advantage of such a thing.I've been hearing about how the Nordic countries are going bankrupt under their generous welfare state for about 30 years. Somehow, they're still here and the people are still the happiest. Maybe they've figured out something that Americans seem to be too stupid to understand. They adapt to the current situation.Well, like I said, not a single civilized nation in the world agrees with you.Because every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.
When you subsidize laziness and acceptance of poverty, you get what you pay for.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Gads will we ever stop hearing about how great all the *other* civilized countries have it sooo much better than the us?
"Progressives in America are often keen on promoting the European welfare state as an argument for big government, not least in the healthcare debate. They point to European countries, often the social-democratic Nordic countries, as role models, with their universal healthcare, public school system, generous social-safety net, and all the happy people who live there.
"This line of argument got a significant boost when Newsweek proclaimed that Finland was the best country in the world to live in, closely followed by Sweden and Switzerland. And of course they are happy. After all, there is no poverty in these great countries, the populace is educated, and people generally don't have a care in the world, because the benevolent government is always there to solve every problem.
"Many people have tried to dispel this myth, but it still persists. I don't presume to be able to put this issue to rest, but there are some things that should be known about this mythical utopia, the "best country in the world" — Finland."
The Bankrupt Finnish Welfare State
They are overwhelmingly white, Christian and native. We want diversity and bleeding borders, so that will not work here. You can't take a snippet from a homogeneous culture and enact it in an opposite culture. If we kick out our immigrants, maybe it would work, but we aren't going to do that.
The current republican approach seems to be to make the US enough of an armpit that illegal immigrants will 'self deport'. I don't know anyone who wants bleeding borders except maybe the corporations that can take advantage of such a thing.
Tell that to every American that lost monies in their 401K.
If they were stupid enough to put monies in those products, they get what they get. I have at least 2 arguments with my employers HRS department because I refuse to participate in that crap.
If they were stupid enough to put monies in those products, they get what they get. I have at least 2 arguments with my employers HRS department because I refuse to participate in that crap.
There is no free market, never has been, never will be.
What exactly does this statement mean to you? Its one of the most common fallback arguments for progressives, and they always state it like they've really said something - like it means something significant. But I'm not sure what that is.
Are you simply saying there's no such thing as a perfectly free market? That would seem obvious, but what does it prove in your view? How does it relate to the current debate?
What exactly does this statement mean to you? Its one of the most common fallback arguments for progressives, and they always state it like they've really said something - like it means something significant. But I'm not sure what that is.
Are you simply saying there's no such thing as a perfectly free market? That would seem obvious, but what does it prove in your view? How does it relate to the current debate?
There is no free market in any shape or form.
That's like saying there's no such thing as freedom. And I suppose it's possible to define freedom in such a way that that is a true statement. Which makes me wonder how you're defining a free market such that it doesn't exist.
We have as much, or as little, freedom as our laws accommodate. I'm really not sure what your angle is.
That's like saying there's no such thing as freedom. And I suppose it's possible to define freedom in such a way that that is a true statement. Which makes me wonder how you're defining a free market such that it doesn't exist.
We have as much, or as little, freedom as our laws accommodate. I'm really not sure what your angle is.
OMG! The closest thing we've ever had to a free market is when BushCo didn't enforce regulations. We ended up with the worst financial crash in the history of the United States.
What you happy-happy/joy-joy folks need to understand is that EVERY top floor of EVERY company in this country is loaded with crooks and liars, most of which would fuck their Mother for a higher Net profit.
What we need in this country are stronger laws and regulations in not keeping it financially feasible to do wrong if the middle class wants to survive.
Well, you're just plain WRONG. What's amazing to me in your commentary is how you can not comprehend your wrongness. In your first sentence, you clearly indicate that Bush's supposed non-enforcement of regulations is "the closest thing" we've had to a free market. So, you do understand, the less regulations --the more close to free market.... However, your last sentence you say we need more regulations.
In other words, by your own statements, you want to move AWAY from possible free market capitalism and toward... What? If free market capitalism is the voluntary mutual exchange of commerce... I suppose you mean you don't want commerce exchange to be voluntary or mutual? You would prefer it to be involuntary and one-sided. Heaping on more regulations and laws makes it like that and that's what you think works better.
The problem here is.... Free market capitalism works very well every single time it is tried. Attempts to destroy free market capitalism results in an abysmal failure when it is tried. Your middle sentence describes how you go about destroying free market capitalism... through class warfare rhetoric. Generating envy and jealousy between supposed "classes" of people who you never seemed to acknowledge, is an ever-changing demographic.
Well, you're just plain WRONG. What's amazing to me in your commentary is how you can not comprehend your wrongness. In your first sentence, you clearly indicate that Bush's supposed non-enforcement of regulations is "the closest thing" we've had to a free market. So, you do understand, the less regulations --the more close to free market.... However, your last sentence you say we need more regulations.
In other words, by your own statements, you want to move AWAY from possible free market capitalism and toward... What? If free market capitalism is the voluntary mutual exchange of commerce... I suppose you mean you don't want commerce exchange to be voluntary or mutual? You would prefer it to be involuntary and one-sided. Heaping on more regulations and laws makes it like that and that's what you think works better.
The problem here is.... Free market capitalism works very well every single time it is tried. Attempts to destroy free market capitalism results in an abysmal failure when it is tried. Your middle sentence describes how you go about destroying free market capitalism... through class warfare rhetoric. Generating envy and jealousy between supposed "classes" of people who you never seemed to acknowledge, is an ever-changing demographic.
Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.
Some interesting statistics:
Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.
Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%
Israel spends 2.4%
Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.
And the US? 0.7%. That's it.
So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.
Why is that such an outrageous idea?
Are you for real.? 55% of the total federal non discretionary budget goes to social entitlements.Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.
Some interesting statistics:
Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.
Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%
Israel spends 2.4%
Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.
And the US? 0.7%. That's it.
So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.
Why is that such an outrageous idea?
I have no issues with my tax dollars going to people who actually need it. If somebody's disabled and needs assistance-fine. If there are minors who require healthcare-fine, or aide-fine.
However I don't want to pay for groceries of the person next to me at the grocery store because they're too lazy and/or stupid to get a job that will support them.
Trillions of dollars are spent on behalf of the less fortunate. The money we spend dwarfs the entire budgets most 90% of the nations on earth. And with you left wingers, its never enough.Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.
Some interesting statistics:
Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.
Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%
Israel spends 2.4%
Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.
And the US? 0.7%. That's it.
So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.
Why is that such an outrageous idea?
Trillions of dollars are spent on behalf of the less fortunate. The money we spend dwarfs the entire budgets most 90% of the nations on earth. And with you left wingers, its never enough.
Now hear this. Social spending is merely a a tool by which certain politicians buy votes from those who benefit. Meanwhile the number of those living off the taxpayer tit continues to grow. It grows because the welfare state has made poverty comfortable. And it is far too easy to game the system.
Oh it gets better. I see the cars in the parking lot of the county Social Services building. The cars in this lot are those I cannot afford to buy.I have no issues with my tax dollars going to people who actually need it. If somebody's disabled and needs assistance-fine. If there are minors who require healthcare-fine, or aide-fine.
However I don't want to pay for groceries of the person next to me at the grocery store because they're too lazy and/or stupid to get a job that will support them.
Many people feel that way including myself.
I do get behind people at the grocery store on food stamps. Sure, they purchase their necessities with those food stamps, but then put cigarettes, alcohol, flowers, huge bags of dog food or cat litter, greeting cards just to name a few all on that conveyer belt, and pay for those items with cash.
They do this with no shame at all. Even look back at some of us behind them and snicker.
On a few occasions, I got behind them leaving the store. I would do anything to own the types of vehicles they drive.
It's one thing for me to go to work and support people that can't feed themselves, but quite another when I'm feeding them and they are feeding their cages of pets with their own money.
No...Because every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???
The problem is these social programs do not reduce poverty. Never haveBecause every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???
Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.
Some interesting statistics:
Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.
Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%
Israel spends 2.4%
Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.
And the US? 0.7%. That's it.
So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.
Why is that such an outrageous idea?
No...Because every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???
First, where is this social contract?
Second,. We do not take care of the poor. Able bodied people who are collecting benefits because it is easier to work at menial jobs and collect, should be given a period of time to find gainful employment. Their stipend will no longer be paid. Rather, the money will go to either a tech school or a adult continuing education school of the client's choice. If the student meets attendance guidelines and makes passing grades, the money keeps flowing. Upon graduation or earning of certificate, once the client finds a job, the money stops.
We should be caring for those who cannot care for themselves. That includes, the very young who have lost their parents. The disabled( mentally of physically( and these people with little aches and pains like this carpal tunnel crap and those with letters from their doctor) should not be eligible...and of course the way we toss our senior citizens aside is a disgrace.
That wasn't what you started with. Can you say "move the goal posts"? Sure, I knew you could.George W. Bush
BushCo caused the worst economic failure in history.
And Bush was an economically liberal president. The only economically conservative thing he did was cut taxes.
That wasn't what you started with. Can you say "move the goal posts"? Sure, I knew you could.
Bullshit.
I stated: Name one Republican politician that either authored or supported any legislation that benefited the middle class, without giving rich/wealthy/corporations a bigger boost?
Your (s) answer was W. Bush, that caused to worst economic crash in US history.
And the answer is correct. Medicare expansion, for one.
And Bush was an economically liberal president. The only economically conservative thing he did was cut taxes.It worked quite well until the housing bubble popped, but you knew that. The middle class hasn't fared so well since, either, even though we've had enough time for a decent recovery.How did eight years of BushCo work for the middle class?
And the answer is correct. Medicare expansion, for one.
Nice try. Mega payday for big pharma, and well as one of the largest cover-ups by Scully.
And yet the democrats all went along with it. Based on your criteria, obamadon'tcare is a MAJOR mess because it is a huge payday for the insurance companies. Willing to go down that road?
It worked quite well until the housing bubble popped, but you knew that. The middle class hasn't fared so well since, either, even though we've had enough time for a decent recovery.And Bush tried to regulate it, but was denied by the democrats in Congress. They must really hate people.Why wouldn't an economy based on loans and spec not work? Oh yeah, it didn't.
No...Because every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???
First, where is this social contract?
Second,. We do not take care of the poor. Able bodied people who are collecting benefits because it is easier to work at menial jobs and collect, should be given a period of time to find gainful employment. Their stipend will no longer be paid. Rather, the money will go to either a tech school or a adult continuing education school of the client's choice. If the student meets attendance guidelines and makes passing grades, the money keeps flowing. Upon graduation or earning of certificate, once the client finds a job, the money stops.
We should be caring for those who cannot care for themselves. That includes, the very young who have lost their parents. The disabled( mentally of physically( and these people with little aches and pains like this carpal tunnel crap and those with letters from their doctor) should not be eligible...and of course the way we toss our senior citizens aside is a disgrace.
I don't get what's so hard for other people to get this simple notion. Somebody who has Down's Syndrome, I'm ok helping. A 80 year old retired person, I'm ok helping. A minor who has no family, I'm ok helping. Somebody with a physical disability that prevents them from working (like ALS), I'm ok helping.
An able-bodied 35 year old adult who wants to sit on their ass eating Cheetos all day? I'm not ok helping. A person whose only qualifications are working at McDonald's due to decisions they made earlier in their life, I'm not ok helping.
Which financial product didn't loose value in 2007-2008 crash?
You didn't take free money from your employer? Are you nuts?
