2012 Elections in the USA

[Miami Bob]

You guys debating would be like ron paul and huntsman-everyone would fall asleep. You guys are missing the drama and idiocy of Rick perry, herman cain and super newt.

After newt loses the primaries and gets thrown out of clalista's bed, he should join ap and take sweet jazmin and her girlfriend carla for a weekend with TL's love drops supplied via iv. Newt could liven up this board and if he really had the balls to ask his wife with cancer for an open marriage,

He would fit right in here: there is no substitute for class.

Well back on point-don't want to confuse anyone-I have not been reading the political boards because all the nasty name calling and dumb repition was boring. I am re-reading your on-going dialog and it is a "reasonable discourse" my comments should not apply to the two of you. I stand corrected.

I for one miss WW. He actually would research and think through his postings even if I found him to have the sensitivity of gengus khan and the mongol hoard

[Esten]

Esten, sitting on your ass, with your hand out for a government program to fill is not capitalism it's typical liberal feel good policies with someone else's money.

Notice Doppel recycling a favorite right-wing message, that liberal policies are focused on giving handouts to lazy people. Why is such right-wing messaging and propaganda so pervasive? Because it helps prop up their ideological arguments, so they can feel good about their position. So they can believe they are right. No doubt, a significant chunk of Republican support depends on frequent repetition of such nonsense.

Now Doppel deserves credit for laying out his position with some details. But let's have a closer look.

Cutting all federal welfare (including Medicaid) would be a big hit. There is no way such a shortfall would be made up by the states, or by increased charitable giving. Not even close. Who takes the hit? Millions of lazy people with their hand out? Not quite.

About two-thirds of Medicaid (the largest welfare component) goes to spending on the elderly and disabled. Also, many people who receive welfare and can work make an honest effort to find work. With the high ratio of applicants to openings, it's inevitable that millions of people will not land a job. What's the number / cost of able-bodied people 'sitting on their ass' with their hand out, not making an honest effort? That number is unclear, but irrelevant to folks like Doppel. It's easier to just lump everybody together in one group, cut the funds, and let the chips fall where they may.

Likely outcomes would be:
- Increased leverage for employers, decreased leverage for workers. Which often translates into a poorer deal for workers.
- An increase in the poverty rate.
- An increase in economic inequality (already at extreme levels).
- An increase in infant and child mortality.
- A decrease in average life expectancy. Currently the US ranks 36th, well-behind other countries with universal health coverage.

To far-right Conservatives, it appears the risk of these outcomes is worth it, if we can weed out those lazy freeloaders.

[Esten]

A Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar.

The bartender says, "Hey Mitt !"

[Member #4112]

Bob, I readily agree intelligent people can have very different views of the body politic; an example would be Esten and me. We have been going at it for years now and nothing has changed. We continue to swap good natured barbs.

No we are not going to change anyone's mind on this site or anywhere else for that matter, but me thinks you take this tread much too seriously. I also think you are confusing social conservatives as a general group with evangelicals.

If Mr. Rick is going to cut off my Johnson he better bring a magnifying glass and some tweezers, cause that's what it's going to take to find that sucker!

As far as Mitt is concerned, it is pretty clear he will be the nominee. What you are seeing in these smaller races are the conservatives telling Mitt he needs to get off center and move right. No different than Obama getting off center, well maybe not 'center' but moving more to the left to satisfy his base.

If you remember during the 2008 campaign the Democrats did not choose a candidate until late in the primary season after some really bruising campaigns and he still went on to win.

I think the Catholic thing is going to really hurt Obama in the general election, there are a lot of Catholics out there and he just pissed them all off. Not because of the birth control per say but because he is forcing it down their throat by presidential fiat.

[Miami Bob]

Unfortunately, that is almost never acknowledged on this site. Politics doesn't belong here. The divisions in the contemporary USA will not be resolved here. This forum serves a better purpose to share what we can share about things.

I think we all agree that the "social conservatives" would want 99. 999999% of the membership here stoned and flogged in public as an example to the youth that we are all ungodly perverts. Maybe mr rick would bring back the guillotine to cut off jackosn's head during half-time of next years superbowl.

NO the guillotine is french and well all know how those "social conservatives "generally feel about all things french.

It is unfortunate that the current republican candidates have to pander to the social conservatives. A "moderate republican" can beat the president, but the party base apparently is in revolt and mitt is now a severely conservative guy and was a severely conservative governor.

The mitt of the past who I was assuming I would vote for is getting sliced and diced in the sausage machine and coming out severely conservative at the end of the assembly line.

[Miami Bob]

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-calls...001541619.html

I guess rick doesn't like BBBJ. Rick when you visit the privados in baires ask for bucal sin

[Member #4112]

Esten, sitting on your ass, with your hand out for a government program to fill is not capitalism it's typical liberal feel good policies with someone else's money.

I gave you two very specific criteria by which to judge the 'great society' welfare programs effectiveness which you have ignored, as usual.

Yes the 1960's Great Society is where this monster started. It's like eating possum, the longer you chew it the bigger it gets!

My suggestion is to totally abolish ALL FEDERAL WELFARE PROGRAMs, turn them over to the several states to fund and manage as each state sees fit. This would include MEDICAID, which would also revert to the several states.

Reduce the Federal Tax Rate since the Fed does not have to feed the Welfare Monster anymore.

Let the private charities do their work with VOLUNTARY donations from the 'evil rich' and get the Federal Government out of the welfare business.

The Federal Government has collected taxes from both employees and employers for years for MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY, as such they should be continued at the Federal level, but these programs need to be returned to their original payment schedules which do not include spouses, kids and all the other additional pay outs never envisioned in the original program.

Last but not least, your arguments are much like Obama's man Lee trying to explain how Obama's budget which adds an additional Trillion dollars to the national debt is a good thing.

It's the Keep It Simple Stupid – STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!

Esten, is that specific enough for you?

[El Alamo]

All this nonsense about who has wealth is just an attempt to divert attention from the fact that the economy of the United States is in the gutter and will remain in the gutter as long as Obama's birdbrain policies are followed.

[Miami Bob]

The same name calling and blind nonsense disconnected from reality. Jackson-please close both political threads and let's just agree to disagree.

-

I was saddened to see Mitt on TV trying to win over the right wing of the grand old party:" I was a severely conservative governor."

Mitt and the democract were almost in a dead heat until Mitt became part of the who is the most conservative conservative contest:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

-

Now a true social conservative has to be against birth control. Mr Rick made the Sunday morning new talks shows and told the world that he personally is against the use of birth control regardless of who pays for it. I am sure the Mr Rick would make a great leader for maybe 25% of the USA whose moral conviction play out as abstinence if sex is not for making babies. I am sure that all the members here would applaud this as social policy in the good old USA.

I call him Mr rick because he looks like the dashing gay blade who used to cut one of my X's hair who was called Mr Rick in his salon.

The general poplulation doesn't buy this stuff no matter whatever the republican primaries might say:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-2912.html

_________________________________________________________.

The president demonstrates problems with the basic job skills while the republicans play a game as to who can tame the far right wind of the grand old party[that represents maybe 25% of the electorate. ]

While the country self destructs-I can imagine bill clinton play sax with the rolling stones while mick sings honky tonk women-a modern equivalent of nero playing the fiddle while rome burns

[Esten]

And now we have Doppelganger, yet another conservative complaining about welfare, but with no answers. No details on what should be cut.

Truly UNBELIEVABLE.

Doppel, the simple answer to your question is this. The Great Society had some initial success. But over the long run, government efforts have been inadequate to counter the forces of free-market capitalism, which have increasingly concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. Surely you are not so naive as to think legislation from the 1960s is the sole or even main factor influencing the poverty rate today.

According to the Economic Policy Institute. 80% of the nation's wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The top 1% gained 40% of the nation's total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%. The bottom 60% lost 7.5% of the gains.
http://www.epi.org/publication/large...l-wealth-gain/

In general, conservative policies strongly support this type of extreme economic inequality. It is pretty much bottom --> up wealth redistribution. Similar though less extreme statistics exist for income as well. When liberals look at these statistics and propose to do something about it, conservatives march out their Wall-Street friendly messaging and propaganda:

"But the rich EARNED their money. It's wrong to take it away."
"Redistribution of wealth is morally wrong."
"Don't punish success."

And so the trend continues.

[Member #4112]

Sorry Esten, that was a pretty lame excuse for spending and one trotted out by liberals since 1964.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Johnson's "Great Society" project called welfare and its associated programs promise to lift those in poverty out of poverty in a single generation. If I can Google and find these promises so can you.

We are now 48 years down the road with that portion of the populace even move dependent on the Government than ever before as we watch new program after program fail to meet the Democrat's promise of 1964.

To the contrary the poverty pimps, such as Jackson & Sharpton just to name a few, still abound as well as the liberal Democrats who continue to push the programs to buy votes on election day. Obama is chief among those now.

What really puzzles me is the very people liberal's claim to 'care about' have been decimated during those 48 years. Look at statistics from pre 1964 regarding the black family structure and illegitimate birth rates among the black population, now compare them to today's figures.

If conservatives had wrought this much wholesale destruction on a minority population within the United States liberals would be up in arms calling conservatives racist and demanding redress in the courts and criminal punishment for those involved in this 'crime'. But since liberal's caused this destruction in the name of 'social justice', 'fairness', 'compassion' it is OK.

[Esten]

The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.

This is a cut-and-paste from the Heritage Foundation. Just more short, slanted right-wing messaging.

Notice the comparison of apples (poverty rate) to oranges (total spending). Guess what, the US population has almost doubled since the 1960s. So of course spending will increase even with a flat poverty rate. The 13X reference needs investigation, it is most likely a distortion to support the Heritage Foundation's right-wing agenda. An apples-to-apples per capita comparison is needed.

We already had significant welfare reform in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This added a workforce development component to welfare legislation. This reform has been hailed as a great success by Republicans.

But once again, Republicans are banging the drum that we still have a huge problem.

No doubt there is still some waste and inappropriate incentives in our welfare system, as Runner Up and Obama have said. The real question is quantifying and addressing the "some". If Republicans are banging the drum for action, the onus is on them to present a plan of action.

What will Republicans do? Cut the single biggest component of welfare - Medicaid? Good luck. Polls show most Americans are against Medicaid cuts, by wide margins.

So what else can be done? How do we distinguish appropriate welfare from inappropriate welfare? And how much money will that really save?

Runner Up provides no answers to these questions, but that's par for the course from people like him.

[Runner Up]

OMG. 65, 000, 000 is such a huge number. Therefore we must be spending too much!

That's the kind of simpleton message that Republicans depend on to maintain their support. Forget the analysis. What for? It's obvious we're spending too much. Just look at that number. 65 Million!

We can all agree it would be better if that number wasn't so high. But there are reasons why the number is what it is. And there are consequences if that number gets brought down through forced spending cuts, versus voluntary reduced usage of assistance.

OK. Let's give Runner Up a chance to prove he's actually given this some thought. Tell us sir, how much money is the goverment spending on those people, where is it going, and how and by how much would you reduce this spending?

Here is a fact. I fired a libtard today because I got tired of listening to his crap for 1. 5 years. I didn't even see this guy unless it was inspection time or on Wednesday whe he came in to get his check. He renovates properties for me but thinks he has banking hours and voted for Obama. His wife has 3 kids that aren't his and he supports them all. Well maybe not for the next few months! I felt so good firing his dumb ars.

Here is a fact from Obama mouth and then a few more.

"I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I've seen it where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."

He's absolutely right. The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.

[El Alamo]

I agree with Esten. Liberals are actually very knowledgeable about the private sector. In fact liberals have become experts at taxing the private sector and distributing that money to 'obama is our savior' constituents who prefer not to work.

[Esten]

Another typical liberal running his mouth with 0 factual statements. Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.

OMG. 65, 000, 000 is such a huge number. Therefore we must be spending too much!

That's the kind of simpleton message that Republicans depend on to maintain their support. Forget the analysis. What for? It's obvious we're spending too much. Just look at that number. 65 Million!

We can all agree it would be better if that number wasn't so high. But there are reasons why the number is what it is. And there are consequences if that number gets brought down through forced spending cuts, versus voluntary reduced usage of assistance.

OK. Let's give Runner Up a chance to prove he's actually given this some thought. Tell us sir, how much money is the goverment spending on those people, where is it going, and how and by how much would you reduce this spending?