Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
For Christ sake Jim.
Seriously, a JFK clip vs an ignorant voter?
what are you bored at the office today? I expect better from you
It has been hashed here many many times. there are ignorant voters on both sides. I bet with a few minutes on youtube I can find a racist or anti-gay or Obama is a muslim clip from a McCain or GWB supporter.
Now if Obama was saying 'I'm going to pay their cas and mortgage" You have a valid comparision.
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
For Christ sake Jim.
Seriously, a JFK clip vs an ignorant voter?
what are you bored at the office today? I expect better from you
It has been hashed here many many times. there are ignorant voters on both sides. I bet with a few minutes on youtube I can find a racist or anti-gay or Obama is a muslim clip from a McCain or GWB supporter.
Now if Obama was saying 'I'm going to pay their cas and mortgage" You have a valid comparision.
we are talking about a change in the country, a movement away from self reliance. Kennedy's speech was a call to action. Americans understood and believed in it. It would fall on deaf ears today.
I think these clips perfectly illustrates the change. This lady would have been deemed a commie in 1961 and marched out of the country if she made those remarks.
I was just going to add him to my ignore list because his comment was so ridiculous, but decided I might miss out on some really crazy, moonbat sh1t that he posts in here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
Even someone as clueless as you could look that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
And there you have it. The childish, uninformed response I was waiting for. :
Might look at your own responses before you throw out the childish charge. There are more people today, so it is irrelevant to the discussion to point out that there are more people on government assistance. Also, ther people did not make your point for you. I asked you directly and you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your point. Here is another inflation adjusted graphic that covers social insurances and public assistance. Do you have anything to back up your statement or are you only going to give circumstantial evidence of what you "see at work"?
The strange thing is that the conservative side usual lambasts liberals about basing their view points on "how they feel". That is much of what I see from the other side in these pages. Lots of perceptions and feelings and little factual basis or based on distortions of the truth. The discussions would have more value if the argument was that taxes shouldn't be raised on the wealthiest to pay for others health care or the amount of government assistance is too high. The argument that people are less self reliant than the 1970's or 80's is nearly impossible to back up with any data and is based on a personal perception rather than reality. Putting JFK up against that woman though is an amusing way to make the argument, though
Might look at your own responses before you throw out the childish charge. There are more people today, so it is irrelevant to the discussion to point out that there are more people on government assistance. Also, ther people did not make your point for you. I asked you directly and you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your point. Here is another inflation adjusted graphic that covers social insurances and public assistance. Do you have anything to back up your statement or are you only going to give circumstantial evidence of what you "see at work"?
I never claimed that I'm not childish. There are a lot of people on this site that would verify that I'm about as childish as it gets.
As for your statistics, you post these graphs that back up your position, which is all well and good. What you don't post is a graph showing a state by state breakdown of state assistance to families. In 1996, Clinton signed a bill taking much of the federal assistance money and allocating it to the states for state run assistance programs. There's a huge amount of state $'s going to families on these programs. Why don't you look it up.
Also, you need to look at the size of families when you compare numbers from the 70's to present. Benefits are paid out based on the number of people in the family receiving them, and the average family size has decreased since the 70's. That would also help to explain the decrease in dollars per family being paid out.
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
blames everyone EXCEPT the individuals that took the loans. No blame whatsoever on the individuals, ie: self reliance
Actually, he doesn't blame everyone except the individuals. He specifically addresses the Wall Street bailout and the responsibility to cover the costs of the bailout by firms that benefited from it. If this were a discussion of the causes of housing collapse, then you would be correct. Since it isn't and unless you are implying that the financial firms should have been left to collapse, then it is almost totally unrelated to self reliance.
Clinton signed a bill taking much of the federal assistance money and allocating it to the states for state run assistance programs. There's a huge amount of state $'s going to families on these programs. Why don't you look it up.
Medicaid costs and CHIP are included in the second graph and they are definitely a concern. I will agree 100% on that. However, the reality is that those costs have grown astronomically with increase in costs for health care, not that people are less self reliant. The problem needs to be approached from the perspective that the rise in costs make the programs unsustainable, which gets lost in the argument when it is approached from the angle that people rely on the government more today than ever. It may cost more today, but a huge number of the people that receive assistance work 40 hours a week in low paying jobs that do not offer health care. The problem starts with the lack of good jobs and the insane rise in costs in medical care. 40 years ago if you were a laborer for Bethlehem Steel or in a textile mill, you had health coverage. Those jobs are gone. I have heard the same argument about lazy no good bums living off the government my entire life and to say it is worse now is factually untrue. Medical assistance and heating assistance cost more, and the economy tanked, so these are major issues that need to be addressed as much now as ever.
Linear Mode
